Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/30
 |
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}
,_par_Robert_Mallet-Stevens,_avec_une_grille_de_Jean_Prouvé.jpg){kind=link}
Downscaled version of File:Mexico-PuertoEscondido-Airview.jpg,without naming the original author. If it gets deleted pls. "universily replace" it with the original image by User:CommonsDelinker. JuTa 17:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Mexico-PuertoEscondido-Airview.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad nam Patrice78500 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Semnopithecus dussumieri .jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Rationale for ownership of the rights is not provided 86.198.146.86 05:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The whole content of Category:Serge Ivanoff is unacceptable. Artist died in 1983, all works in the category created in France. Delete. NVO (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Je suis Alexandre Barbera-Ivanoff, petit-fils et ayant-droit de Serge Ivanoff. C'est pourquoi je me permets d'enregistrer quelques photos de ses œuvres sur Commons. --Paraselite (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
maybe self-scanned but I don't think the manual is the work of the uploader Avron (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. Gogo Dodo 06:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Found elsewhere as well, for instance here. Lymantria (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Lymantria (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment hm... this leaves me a bit dubious. are elements so original to be eligible for copyright? -- Blackcat 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, but could have been PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete agree. -- Blackcat 15:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned pd company logo. No foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 07:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. -- Blackcat 15:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Armbrust (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
internal school notice, i don't see no educational value. not used Avron 08:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : No educational interest--Civa 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Image made for hoax article on en.wikipedia. Appears to be poor image combination of File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg and other images. If one were to assume that the image is official then the image would not be own work. Gogo Dodo 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As a photo of just the carton, this is a derivative work of the carton itself, and cannot be freely licensed by the photographer alone, as the designs on the carton are complicated enough to be afforded copyright protection. Courcelles 09:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Prince Kassad 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Prince Kassad 09:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site ; Civa 11:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Outside realistic educational scope. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 12:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Unknown people : Commons is not a family web site Civa 12:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Historic image that shows a men in a uniform of the US? navy in 1943, period of war and almost 70 years ago, so clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No description ; unknown place ; orphaned picture Civa 12:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Identified and now in use. Tekstman 16:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron 12:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, low resolution, not used Avron 12:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No description ; No use ; Unknown people ; probably personal picture : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 12:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Unknown people or group ; No notability ; Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 12:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned picture ; Personal image ; No notability : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 13:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Ne description ; No author ; no use ; no notability ; orphaned picture Civa 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
advertisement 78.55.70.2 13:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom.Blatant adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 13:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear description ; No notability ; Unknown place Civa 13:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Unknown people ; Personal image : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 13:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknown people, because no description (even on the source) ; No use Civa 13:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal image ; No notability : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 13:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Logo of sportsclub, very unlike to be without rights. taken from website http://www.phalmelo.nl/home.html Miho 13:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear definition ; No use ; No article "stoner" (except users of cannabis) on en wikipedia Civa 14:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A stoner is a member of a certain youth sub culture with notable dress code. Tekstman 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Tekstman. Tm (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, very small image, not used, no encyclopedic value Civa 16:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not used, The author did not make any other update on Commons Civa 16:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No description, no author, no source, no use, no notability Civa 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron 18:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
low quality, no usefull description, not used, no educational value Avron 18:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron 18:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron 18:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Broken svg? not used Avron (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not broken, but out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
broken svg? not used Avron (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork or broken svg? not used Avron (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
pesonal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
pesonal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No description, no notability, no encyclopedic value, no use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. ←fetchcomms 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, useles Slfi (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope/maybe spam? Slfi (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
No description (nada=nothing in Spanish), no encyclopedic value, no use, not in scope Civa (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope: personal snapshot used for vandalism on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image but unknown name, the only contribution of the author, no notability, no use Civa (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, unless this is somebody notable or another reasonable explanation comes up. Rosenzweig δ 20:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Just a test upload IMO George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't read Russian, but this looks like a copyrighted book cover. Also have a look at [1]. Rosenzweig δ 22:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Book cover uploaded by Author. In scope and no copyvio problem George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphan, superceded by Seal of Puerto Rico Governor.svg Fry1989 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad SVG, superceded by Seal of Puerto Rico Secretary of State.svg Fry1989 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
commemorating drunken frat parties is outside project scope DS (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
tv screenshot Hugo.arg (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work (screenshot), cf. COM:DW Dereckson (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The file as it is now is an advertisement and as such out of Commons scope. Perhaps also a copyright violation, depending on the uploader being authorized to upload it or not. Rosenzweig δ 20:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- same opinion, delete--Motopark (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted Dereckson (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No ticket and copy of http://www.beyondhollywood.com/gallery/celebrity-cleavage-marisol-nichols/ MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pity for the wonderful girl, but the media appears not to be free -- Blackcat 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Many Tineye hits for the blank signs on the pole. Without proof the source image is free this must be deleted. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment dubious. is the image original enough to be considered eligible for copyright? -- Blackcat 14:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
e.g on http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2129170640093259201 http://tc1.search.naver.jp/?/kaze/mission/USER/9/6/9896/1588/7e94dcc1833aeb4b3ce4984d42fa4ae0.jpg/r.300x600
Please upload a higher resolution if you are the photographer as you claim to be. Saibo (Δ) 02:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
because of wrong file name -Katsura Roen 04:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That is not a reason to delete -- use {{Rename}}, please. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clickfarmer/106060621/ and OTRS 2011050210005363 - nominated by User:Edoderoo
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a press photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Gogo Dodo 06:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a press photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Gogo Dodo 06:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a press photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Gogo Dodo 06:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a band. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with you. -- Blackcat 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as literary work. Vantey 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Just pity. But unless there's no suitable licence, this media is to be deleted. -- Blackcat 14:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Professional quality map. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Like those below is artwork of uk:Римар Петро Олексійович (whatever the name is in non-cyrillic). The artist died in 2010, so it definitely is not own work. The uploader would need to proof that he has inherited the copyright. That's why I tagged the images as npd beginning of March. -- Cecil (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is really a pointless deletion request.
- It was tag with missing permission for 7 days. Why don't just delete it? -- Docu at 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader of the file, User:Gekatomba 'released' the file into the public domain, citing themselves as the copyright holder. Strictly speaking, this is not a clear-cut case of no permission. Therefore, I refer the fate of this file to the community. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you should read up on "no permission" or just leave it to more experienced administrators. -- Docu at 08:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, luckily for you, I happen to be an experienced administrator who is referring this file to the community. And yes, that means YOU can be a part of deciding this file's fate! I'm sorry the DR process is so difficult for an extremely incompetent user like you to comprehend, and I can see you're getting frustrated, but that's okay, I'll help you. If you want this file deleted, you simply !vote delete below, using the text {{Vd}} followed by your reason and four tildes. Good luck! Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you could explain why this image wouldn't need a permission, to incompetent user like me and the one who tagged it. -- Docu at 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look up -FASTILY (TALK) 21:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The criteria are at Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary. -- Docu at 21:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats. By citing that page, you refuted yourself and proved my point in all accounts. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- read point 4. Cheers. -- Docu at 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- That would only apply if we knew that the uploader did not create the work. Where does the uploader indicate that they did not make the work? -FASTILY (TALK) 09:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- read point 4. Cheers. -- Docu at 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats. By citing that page, you refuted yourself and proved my point in all accounts. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The criteria are at Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary. -- Docu at 21:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Look up -FASTILY (TALK) 21:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you could explain why this image wouldn't need a permission, to incompetent user like me and the one who tagged it. -- Docu at 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, luckily for you, I happen to be an experienced administrator who is referring this file to the community. And yes, that means YOU can be a part of deciding this file's fate! I'm sorry the DR process is so difficult for an extremely incompetent user like you to comprehend, and I can see you're getting frustrated, but that's okay, I'll help you. If you want this file deleted, you simply !vote delete below, using the text {{Vd}} followed by your reason and four tildes. Good luck! Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you should read up on "no permission" or just leave it to more experienced administrators. -- Docu at 08:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader of the file, User:Gekatomba 'released' the file into the public domain, citing themselves as the copyright holder. Strictly speaking, this is not a clear-cut case of no permission. Therefore, I refer the fate of this file to the community. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, IMO all those deletion requests (why are they not collected in one for all the paintings and one or more for the photos?) are not really necessary (which does not mean that they hurt). The uploader can't be the author so even if he is the copyright owner through inheriting (or whatever else) he has to confirm that. He was informed about that by the npd-taggings but did not react. That means that you could have deleted them since the permission is outstanding. Also even if he somehow obtained copyright of the paintings same cannot be said abou the photos which mainly are passport photos. -- Cecil (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think they do hurt.
- If you look at the talk page of the user who decided to share a few images about their father a few days after his death, it's unlikely that they will get back on that. Somehow their talk page illustrates what goes wrong at Commons: there are too many automatically applied messages from user who either don't think sufficiently about what they are doing or don't really understand our process. In this case, this is even more regrettable, as the uploader could probably have supplied a permission for at least some of the uploads. -- Docu at 21:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, IMO all those deletion requests (why are they not collected in one for all the paintings and one or more for the photos?) are not really necessary (which does not mean that they hurt). The uploader can't be the author so even if he is the copyright owner through inheriting (or whatever else) he has to confirm that. He was informed about that by the npd-taggings but did not react. That means that you could have deleted them since the permission is outstanding. Also even if he somehow obtained copyright of the paintings same cannot be said abou the photos which mainly are passport photos. -- Cecil (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
3D artwork of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No reason to believe it is own work. Tekstman 10:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I can't but agree though i'm sorry for the girl :-) -- Blackcat 15:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This picture is not public domain. It is a press photo.
Not Public Domain, it is a press photo Arneg711 10:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Promotional photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 10:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a notable individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://golf.about.com/library/slideshows/blbigcreek2.htm. "©Big Creek Golf & Country Club, Used with Permission". --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. It applies to the building, the fountains and the sculptures. Civa 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The design of this building is still copyrighted, as its architect Jean Prouvé died less than 70 years ago (in 1984), and there is no FOP in source country (France). Hr. Satz 15:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : The building is the main subject of the image. So, the image violates COM:FOP#France--Civa 16:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The design of this building is still copyrighted, as its architect Jean Prouvé died less than 70 years ago (in 1984), and there is no FOP in source country (France). Hr. Satz 15:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : The building is the main subject of the image. So, the image violates COM:FOP#France--Civa 16:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Porte_d'entrée_de_la_villa_Martel_(rue_Mallet-Stevens,_Paris),_par_Robert_Mallet-Stevens,_avec_une_grille_de_Jean_Prouvé.jpg
[edit],_par_Robert_Mallet-Stevens,_avec_une_grille_de_Jean_Prouv%C3%A9.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_par_Robert_Mallet-Stevens,_avec_une_grille_de_Jean_Prouv%C3%A9.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The design of this building is still copyrighted, as its architect Jean Prouvé died less than 70 years ago (in 1984), and there is no FOP in source country (France). Hr. Satz 15:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : The door is the main subject of the image. So, the image violates COM:FOP#France--Civa 16:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It has been achieved in 1989. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect Civa 15:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct and is an original work. It has been achieved in 1961. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa 15:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct and is an original work. It has been achieved in 1961. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not used, not in scope Civa 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. It is in scope in mixed media painting and Collages categories. Tm (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There are many images in the named cats -- we do not keep out of scope artists' work just because it fits in a category. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork, not used, not in scope Civa 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. It is in scope in childrens in art category. Tm (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 17:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No description, no author, no source, no use, no notability Civa 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
no information, no license Evalowyn 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
the name of the file is totaly wrong. a Rolls Royce COrniche is an Drop Head car and this is an normal Silver Shadow Silver Shadow Ghost (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use {{Rename}}, not {{Delete}} in case like this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No description, no author, no source, no use, very small image, no notability Civa (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This image was not made by the US government employees. We can only assume it was made by someone in Asia, in or before 1998, the US gov license doesn't cover work made by people of other countries. Officer (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This image was not made by the US government employees. We can only assume it was made by someone in Asia, the US government licenses don't cover works made by people of other countries. Officer (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This image was not made by the US government employees. We can only assume it was made by someone in Asia, in or before 1998, the US gov license doesn't cover work made by people of other countries. Officer (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture, the only contribution of the author, no notability, no use Civa (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe this image is "own work", as two of the other three images uploaded by this user were photos by movie still photographer Paul Bathery, and the third was a movie still widely available on the web. Rosenzweig δ 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Illegal transference. It was used on en:Wiki for restrict use only. Yanguas (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually this would be PD due to basic text and shapes. Keep Fry1989 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
self propaganda, not used Avron (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Taken from website which does not release content under a compatible license. OTRS ticket 2011043010500375 Guy 22:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Underlying data used to derive this map may be copyrighted Canley (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Data is never subject to copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
POV, Non-Official data, incorrect map, false data, false nationalities, nationalistic and offensive naming, unsourced data, omission of languages, politically motivated boundary claims and naming choices. Meliniki 01:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg, especially [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Apart from other consideration, is up to Wikipedia projects to check for reliability of data showed in the media uploaded on Commons. The same is valid for the following deletion requests. -- Blackcat 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please, can I politely remind not to use bold letters and to stay on the subject of the deletion instead of the uploader? -- Blackcat (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Same reasons of Blackcat. Data about Vlachs are precise, but about Albanians in central Greece are -IMHO- related mainly to the past. Anyway, for me it is OK the map.--LupusFido (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greece_linguistic_minorities.svg&diff=next&oldid=53747022){kind=link}
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
POV, Non-Official data, incorrect map, false data, false nationalities, nationalistic and offensive naming, unsourced data, omission of languages, politically motivated boundary claims and naming choices. Meliniki 01:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg, especially [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- keep--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
POV, Non-Official data, incorrect map, false data, false nationalities, nationalistic and offensive naming, unsourced data, omission of languages, politically motivated boundary claims and naming choices. Meliniki 01:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg, especially [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- keep--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
POV, Non-Official data, incorrect map, false data, false nationalities, nationalistic and offensive naming, unsourced data, omission of languages, politically motivated boundary claims and naming choices. Meliniki 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad-faith nomination, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greece linguistic minorities.svg, especially [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Page creator has been pushing all sorts of factual inaccuracies through multiple socks across en.wiki and has now started uploading those maps onto Commons. Hosting these maps causes more disruption SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep unless it's a copyrighted media, Commons doesn't actually care for source of data showed in the pictures. In few words, bad or lack of source of data contents it's not per se a sufficient cause for deletion. -- Blackcat 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- delete original research and inaccurate. the area marked to be speaking Kongu Tamil was randomly marked. places like Dindigul is an obvious example. Docku (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment yes but sourcing is not an issue. If the picture is badly sourced is up to Wikipedia chapters to refuse it into their own articles. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- In principle, I do agree with your comment. however, what is the point of having an inaccurate map? the fact that it exists in wikimedia gives it some level of legitimacy in the eye of someone who will want to add this image to relevant articles. how are we going to convey these concerns expressed here to the those future unsuspecting and not-so-informed users? Docku (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Page creator has been pushing all sorts of factual inaccuracies across en.wiki and has now started uploading those maps onto Commons. Hosting these maps causes more disruption SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- delete inaccurate and random description of regions to fit the POV of the uploader. Docku (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- delete false depiction. the uploader is a serial pov pusher and sockmaster indef blocked in en wiki. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Boards by Heartoftheworld
[edit]- File:Saeki castle map.jpg
- File:Hiji Castle ruins noticed board.jpg
- File:Map of Hiji Castletown 20100107.JPG
- File:Information Plate of Oita-Motomachi Stone Buddhas.jpg
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio. --Vantey 07:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of computer software. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I disagree. Scans are not subject to copyright. The icons, etc. are de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of computer software. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I disagree. Scans are not subject to copyright. The icons, etc. are de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of computer software. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep I disagree. Scans are not subject to copyright. The icons, etc. are de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Infoboards of dams of Japan
[edit]
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio. --Vantey 07:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- File:Crystal Clear app blender.png
- File:Noia 64 apps blender.png
- File:Logo di Blender.png
- File:Blenderlogo100X80.jpg
- File:Blender-show-blender.png
- File:Blender File.png
http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/logo/ -Nard the Bard 01:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all per copyvio. IShadowed (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment For future reference, since the deletion request is not exactly clear: the page linked above states the logo is copyrighted and can't be used commercially, which is incompatible with Commons' licensing requirements. --Waldir talk 08:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The Blender icon is non-free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blender.svg and http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/logo/ -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This image is protected by copyright laws (see http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/logo/) and therefore, per Commons:Licensing should not be kept on Wikimedia Commons. It's current license tag says that it is ineligible for copyright protection because it is a very simple geometric shape! I cannot emphasize just how wrong this statement is! Fleet Command (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- speedy keep - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Er... Did I forget to emphasize how wrong this statement is? Anyway, PD-ineligible refers to simple text and simple geometric shapes. This one is no triangle. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You may emphasize what you want, but as long as your statement is not true, emphasizing doesn't have any effect. This is a simple geometric shape (a circle with three lines and a dot), or you can consider it a 'P'. For example see this logo. The company vainly tried several times to get this copyrighted. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your source, please? Fleet Command (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- See here - Jcb (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You have linked to a wrong source. Please try again. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please make sure your browser can view PDF. The link I posted is definitely the right link. Jcb (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to work only sometimes. When I just clicked this link it happened to me, too. Please try again. It is linked here, too: Threshold_of_originality#United_States. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, the subject of this discussion is a logo of NaN Holding B.V licensed to Blender foundation for Blender computer program. Your PDF however, is about another irrelevant company called Best West. Please post the correct source. Fleet Command (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you understood why I posted this link. You have been informed sufficiently about the 'threshold of originality'. If you still don't understand, it's not our fault. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jcb, you explicitly said that "The company vainly tried several times to get this copyrighted". Am I to understand that you have no source to prove that? Fleet Command (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you understood this was about the example case. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the example; I find it unconvincing and out-of-context. I still will be ready to forfeit the position on which I have emphasized twice whenever you proved that the authorities in charge believe that this logo is not eligible for copyright. Fleet Command (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you understood this was about the example case. Jcb (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jcb, you explicitly said that "The company vainly tried several times to get this copyrighted". Am I to understand that you have no source to prove that? Fleet Command (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure you understood why I posted this link. You have been informed sufficiently about the 'threshold of originality'. If you still don't understand, it's not our fault. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to work only sometimes. When I just clicked this link it happened to me, too. Please try again. It is linked here, too: Threshold_of_originality#United_States. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please make sure your browser can view PDF. The link I posted is definitely the right link. Jcb (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You have linked to a wrong source. Please try again. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- See here - Jcb (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your source, please? Fleet Command (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You may emphasize what you want, but as long as your statement is not true, emphasizing doesn't have any effect. This is a simple geometric shape (a circle with three lines and a dot), or you can consider it a 'P'. For example see this logo. The company vainly tried several times to get this copyrighted. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Er... Did I forget to emphasize how wrong this statement is? Anyway, PD-ineligible refers to simple text and simple geometric shapes. This one is no triangle. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Info the decision here should also be applied to
- In case of deletion by making a new mass DR (probably). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- @jcb - of the Best Western case that you cited, just which page and para are you claiming supports your position? The Best Western case is one that describes the Best Western logo as being too simple for copyright. Yet (in the terms for which Best Western was rejected) the Blender logo is more complicated as a shape than that. Accordingly the reference neither supports nor refutes the Blender issue, but is simply inapplicable - the Blender logo is above the threshold described here, thus no inference can be drawn.
- If you're referring to some specific text within the case, please direct us to it more precisely, as I'm too obtuse to find it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The 'W' or 'crown' of the Best Western logo is more creative than the 'P' of 'circle with three lines and dot' the Blender logo consist of. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's pure supposition on your part. The case cited doesn't mention Blender at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The 'W' or 'crown' of the Best Western logo is more creative than the 'P' of 'circle with three lines and dot' the Blender logo consist of. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not freely licensed. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- speedy keep - I agree with Jcb. PD-ineligible. Ultimate Angelus ✉ 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Eh? Can you provide the evidence which JCB failed to provide?
If not, this deletion discussion is neither about voting nor even consensus. It is a copyright issue. The owner claims that it is copyrighted. (See my source.) Unless they are proven wrong, their statement is taken for true. Fleet Command (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- "This is a simple geometric shape (a circle with three lines and a dot), or you can consider it a 'P'!" Ultimate Angelus ✉ 11:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like an intricate Egyptian-esque symbol to me. Fleet Command (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- But however is a simple geometric shape. Ultimate Angelus ✉ 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand what you are saying. :) But you don't understand me. I say it has originality of expression. That is enough for making it copyright-protected. Examples of other copyright-protected logos which are made up of simple shapes: Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office.
And by the way, your description of the shape is wrong because you have dropped two keywords when you were imitating JCB's description, dear uploader. Fleet Command (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- And why do you keep adding a fair-use rationale to the image? If it is free, then it doesn't need fair-use defense. If it is not free and you know it, then why do you pretend that it isn't? If it is not free, then it merits speedy deletion because Wikimedia Commons does not keep non-free contents, with or without a rationale. Fleet Command (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- About the fair-use rationale I fully agree with Fleet Command. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't added the sentence as "fair-use rationale", but only as an explanation of the use of this image, nothing more. P.S. What is wrong in my description of shape? I have copied exactly what Jcb wrote. Try to be a little more accurate. Ultimate Angelus ✉ 01:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I underlined the above sentence of Jcb. Ultimate Angelus ✉ 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you; that clears the secondary issues. Fleet Command (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- About the fair-use rationale I fully agree with Fleet Command. Jcb (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- But however is a simple geometric shape. Ultimate Angelus ✉ 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like an intricate Egyptian-esque symbol to me. Fleet Command (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- "This is a simple geometric shape (a circle with three lines and a dot), or you can consider it a 'P'!" Ultimate Angelus ✉ 11:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation as it meets the threshold of originality. Should not have been reuploaded against the outcome of the January 2010 deletion request without having it restored after discussion at Commons:Undeletion requests. – Adrignola talk 16:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
German movie, still copyright protected (till at least 2043), wrong license tag (uploader is not the creator of the movie). Paulae 12:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Missing essential source information for the original B&W image. –Tryphon☂ 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here are some the source informations for the original B&W images:
- Laraine Day:
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/hginpa/4040038324/in/faves-7591844@N06/
- Laraine Day Colorized Photo deriving from the B&W original:
- http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Day,%20Laraine/Day,%20Laraine%20(My%20Dear%20Secretary)_01.jpg68.70.27.96 16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's certainly not the primary source. Who is the author of those pictures? When and where were they first published? –Tryphon☂ 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
Okay, these were all published sometime in the 1940s but I couldn't find any information on the author. These pictures were mostly used for studio publicity and there could've been a number of publicty people and photographers who could've taken them. I honestly have no idea who took them originally.Captnyo 17:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Captnyo. Indeed, it's very hard to track down to the source a random US studio photo. A 1940s-1950s US photo is very likely free, but it may be not free as well. It's much easier to go in the other direction -- take a source that is (almost) certainly free (e.g. pre-1923 US publications, non-renewed pre-1964 US books and magazines), and extract from it useful content. Trycatch (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first picture was published in Havta, a Turkish magazine, in 1951 -- [10]. If it was the first publication, then this picture simply can't be free. Trycatch (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
![[10]](http://www.resimajpeg.com/303/30345.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct and is an original work. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't look distinct to my nephilim eye ;p -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is disctinct. The name of the building is even the name of the file "Tour Eve". --Civa (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: straight building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France --~ Grcampbell (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : I agree : COM:FOP#France--Tangopaso (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:FOP#France. Building is primary focus of the photo. – Adrignola talk 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. Wknight94 talk 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM, it's mainly just a straight building Jcb (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a creation until 70 years after the death of its architect. This building has been revamped and achieved in 2011. Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here, because the tower is the main subject of the photo (see the name of the file). It should be necessary to upload the image with low definition as fair use onto en wikipedia and fr wikipedia. Civa 15:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tend to agree with Jcb in the previous deletion procedure. Is DM -- Blackcat 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Question Can you explain to me why DM applies here. I dont understand. The building is the only and main subject of the photo. It is even included in the name of the file. Thanks --Civa (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
'Deleted. De minimis doesn't apply, as the building is the main subject of the picture. We now have to see if the building is or not protected by copyright. French droit d'auteur jurisprudence has a very low threshold of originality required for architecture work and just a straight building seems to qualify as a protected architectural work. --Dereckson (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
the name of the file is totaly wrong. a Rolls Royce COrniche is an Drop Head car and this is an normal Silver Shadow Silver Shadow Ghost (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use {{Rename}}, not {{Delete}} in case like this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This photo of an "unknown" subject was not made by the US government and we don't have any idea who the face in the photo belongs to. If it is Mulla Omar as theorized, how and when did US government employees take his photo? As far as I know, the US had no contacts with the Taliban, and this photo appears to be made in the 1970s or 1980s. It's most likely made by a person in a photo shop in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran, which is where Afghans usually taken their passport photos at. Since we know that it is not the work of US government then we must delete it. Officer (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing we have a {{PD-Afghan}} tag then... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: license changed as proposed Jcb (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
There is no such information that this is a work of Afghanistan. I mean we don't have the author information or the location where it was made, we don't even have a clue who the subject in the image is. PD-Afghanistan only covers Afghan created works and they must be published in Afghanistan first. Uploading someone's personal photo who happens to be Afghan is not allowed here unless a permission is obtained. This is a good example of how PD-Afghanistan should be used. BTW, the w:Pakol hats are not only worn by people in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan, Tajikistan and sometimes people who visit this region from western countries also wear these. Also, the link provided as the source doesn't show this image, it shows something very different.[11] Officer (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, file was deleted when I reviewed the discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Self-promotion upload? Missvain (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, ough, it's in use. Trycatch (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
As an image in use in an article about a spanish sicentist and writer, we think that this nomination for deletion is an inacceptable abuse by the editor, and we formally complain about this arbitrariety. We are in danger of being deprived of all information and images of living authors under the excuse of "self-promotion", a much too easy attachment to appeal to by some editors. Astroalicante
Photo has been blacked ; the page on es wikipedia has been deleted, so no use Civa (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Taken from website which does not release content under a compatible license. OTRS ticket 2011043010500375 Guy 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD due to it's age - website owner cannot place it under copyright again Jcb (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad SVG, no future usability, superceded by Seal of Puerto Rico Governor.svg Fry1989 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: mentioned image will miss its source if we delete this Jcb (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Re-opening. The file is absolutely useless in the condition it is in, and we have a good SVG. There are other sources for the Governor's seal, so deleting this does not interfere in the sourcing of the good SVG. Fry1989 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. File is of bad quality and useless. Demmo (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Also agree. --Andrea (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Bad SVG, superceded by Seal of Puerto Rico Secretary of State.svg Fry1989 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: mentioned image will miss its source if we delete this Jcb (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Re-opening. The file is absolutely useless in the condition it is in, and we have a good SVG. There are other sources for the Secretary's seal, so deleting this does not interfere in the sourcing of the good SVG Fry1989 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator. File is of bad quality and useless. Demmo (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept re-affirmed per COM:SUP. JGHowes talk - 04:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative works of Bob the Builder characters
[edit]- Photographs of copyrighted characters
- File:Lofty020.jpg
- File:Muck026.jpg
- File:RoleySkip022.jpg This image appears to be a more serious derivative because it has 2 copyrighted characters featured in it.
- File:Scoop18.jpg
- File:Travis027.jpg
The following photos of this batch are intended to be free (the user who had taken them licensed them under Creative Commons 2.0), but the characters (Muck, Travis, Scoop, etc.) are not free (since HiT Entertainment is the copyright owner of them). Appears to fail both Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders and Commons:Derivative works#If I take a photograph of a kid who is holding a stuffed Winnie the Pooh toy, does Disney own the copyright in the photo since they own the Pooh design?. Additionally, Upload your own file also has "toys" listed as derivative works and not permitted. trainfan01 talk 9:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- This would be quite an extreme view I would say. Pretty soon you will be left with no media because each one would have some copyright being infringed by someone.--PremKudvaTalk 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DW Lymantria (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)