Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/08/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Clearly not March 2007, and almost certainly not own work. Thus no permission, and possible copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sod it, all his other files look like copyvios, I'll delete this one too. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The author of this article wants it to be removed from this site. --Silikamohapatra (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Seems out of project scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Pieter and per reuqest: Author requested deletion short time after upload. --Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfree Flickr license. User has not enough uploads/edits to proof that user was trustworthy (made no mistakes) at the time of uploading. Only "unfree" image left. MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please, this file is no longer to be used by the author. We'd like it to be deleted. I work for the artist and he doesn't want this pic to be used anymore. Thanks.
Philiphos.
This file is no longer to be used here in wikipedia, please delete it(mandatory) --189.57.226.68 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader removed license tag within a day of upload. --Simonxag (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Author request
Users only upload. Flickr license unfree. MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Wait! It might be own work. (Commonsuser = Flickr user). Mail send to user (see talk page). --MGA73 (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)- Comment: Captain tucker sent a message to flickr owner today. Lets see if he gets a reply on changing the license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Flickr author changed the license on Flickr to CC-BY-SA, closing as keep. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Logo that pass the originality threshold. http://www.pays.asso.fr/ --- Zil (d) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Just about, yes. Certainly not the uploader's own work. --Simonxag (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Korrigan: Copyright violation
calendar cover copyright belong to LesPros entertainment --221.127.140.166 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if the flickr account holder were the actual original photographer there would still be the issue of the other artwork on the cover. --Simonxag (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This image is not "own work", because she is the photographed, not the photographer ferbr1 (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep User page photo, by long tradition these photos are allowed. -Nard the Bard 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)- Keep It's own work, that is her camera, her picture Manuelt15 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This image is not "own work", because she is the photographed, not the photographer ferbr1 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep User page photo, by long tradition these photos are allowed. -Nard the Bard 03:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's own work, that is her camera, her picture Manuelt15 (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above Yann (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Look like a scan of a newspaper to me. --- Zil (d) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could come from here which has been done before the upload on commons. - Zil (d) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
On the website http://www.mairie-carrylerouet.fr/, it is said : « Copyright © 2009. Mairie de Carry-le-Rouet. Tous droits réservés. » which mean all rights reserved. --- Zil (d) 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Flickr license unfree. User has very few uploads. MGA73 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader is the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Aarg. Didn't notice... Added info from Flickr. Hope it's more clear now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Not in use on any Wikipedia, and no immediate educational use comes to mind for the image. Tabercil (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Logo that pass the originality threshold. http://www.apim.com --- Zil (d) 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's unlikely that the author is the topic of the picture. --- Zil (d) 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at user's upload history, I tend to agree. Corpx (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Logo that pass the originality threshold. http://cinevif.free.fr/ffcv.php --- Zil (d) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France --- Zil (d) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it is moderne achitecture Iconoclast (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France. --- Zil (d) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete its moderne architecture
Iconoclast (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece, its a modern statue Iconoclast (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unless any evidence can be found that the copyright of the sculpture has expired. --Simonxag (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The photograph on Flickr violates the copyright of the sculptor. Instaled at 22 April 1974. Iconoclast (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said. This is a ridiculous conclusion. The only object that is subjected to copy Right is the author of the picture.--R ašo
06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC) - I don't know how thing are with the Freedom of panorama in Greek copyright law. If you know it's not allowed - delete it.--Мико (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 6 days
The image is misidentified as being a painting by artist Robert Harris, which would be in the public domain due to its age (1884). However the image is actually that of a 1968 painting by Rex Woods (see info). Due to its age, it would not yet be in the public domain. Note that both paintings are known as "Fathers of Confederation", with Woods' being an homage to Harris' with three additional constitutional delegates added. Jcart1534 (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. The painting was credited to Harris on the original English Wikipedia page from which I uploaded it to Commons, and though I remember making some effort to verify this it appears it wasn't enough. I second the delete request. --Saforrest (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to think the uploader had any connection to the cited source, or that the cited source gave permission to use the photo. Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate with File:Larry Logan playing Yamaha Motif.jpg (upload miss) Shoulder-synth (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this really own work by the uploader? Sure, Second Life screenshots are copyrighted by the creator of the shown contents, but did the uploader create the scene shown, or did he just captured a screenshot of a model by somebody else? --Mormegil (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not shure if I understand what is being questioned. No, I did not build the houses, creat the avatars or their hair or cloths and so on. But yes, I did take this screenshot my self. If screenshots are ok, this file is ok. If not, it would be imposible to get sceenshots, because there are ALWAYS someone else involved, even if you made most things yourself. I think of screenshots from Second Life the same way I think of pictures from real life. There are always someone who made that dress on the women in the background etc. Hildekd (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly what is questioned. If you did not build the houses etc., then this image is a copyright violation and will have to be deleted. It is not impossible to get screenshots from SL, there is nothing which prevents you from taking pictures of only those models you created yourself (e.g. File:Overhead View Campus.jpg, or at least its author claims it is completely his work). And don’t think about SL the way you think about real life (no pun intended): laws have special provisions and exceptions for real life (see e.g. Commons:Freedom of panorama), not for SL screenshots… --Mormegil (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly... It's more like going to a museum and taking a picture of recent art works. I think the ones that design the avatar and the houses kept the copyright of it. What could be done is designing multiple avatar and landscape and taking a screenshot of it. - Zil (d) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work, no FOP in Second Life. –Tryphon☂ 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Photo of copyrighted information board. Not sure if this is permissible under Freedom of Panorama or not. MPF (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:FOP#South Africa is probably not correct; the law says that the copyright of an artistic work is not infringed by its reproduction if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place; this is in a botanical garden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I guess there's also the question whether this particular botanical garden is a "public place" or not - may not be if it is only open on payment of an admission fee or by permission of the owners. - MPF (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- There was some debate as to whether not infringing in copyright by inclusion in a film was free enough, it seems to be more akin to fair use than FoP, ie it is not infringement of copyright to film something in passing. The law does not mention whether photography is allowed, however. -Nard the Bard 03:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I guess there's also the question whether this particular botanical garden is a "public place" or not - may not be if it is only open on payment of an admission fee or by permission of the owners. - MPF (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in South Africa. –Tryphon☂ 09:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This pornographic image is not suitable for WIKI. R. Engelhardt (Diskussion) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) --R. Engelhardt (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As an atheist, I got offended by religious images. May the closing admin please delete everything under Category:Religion as well? (don't forget the sub-cats, of course). --Damiens.rf 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "I don't like it" is not a suitable argument for deletion. Tabercil (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 09:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
There's no educational purpose to this The Cleaner (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with it. –Tryphon☂ 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Invalid reason as Commons is not censored. Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #2
No educational use, simply porn Common-Man (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. See the two DRs above. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #3
porno 92.161.48.254 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Uh. Invalid reason. See 3 DRs above. Trycatch (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #4
I noticed that this file was already nominated for deletion twice and in both was kept, and the problem I felt with this is that both the reasons presented for deletion as well as the reasons for kepting it were bad. My new proposal is made under the following claims:
- The image contains explicit nude body parts of a specific brazillian porn actress in a unofficial (by unofficial I mean it's not an real porn work, such a Playboy magazine photobook or a scene of a professional porn movie) but rather a (probably) intimate, private moment of the actress (as is suggested by the other scene's correlative picture, File:Bruna Ferraz with Photographer.jpg), containing no indication whatsoever that she autorized her nudity (i.e. private image) to be exposed in this context (i.e. Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia).
- The image also doesn't show her nudity in any usefull way for encyclopedia standarts, specially when compared to other images related to what is relevant of the picture (i.e.: her nudity is not shown in a way that would be fine to be shown in an article related to female genital parts, such as the article on vagina, vulva, anus or clitoris, specially given the fact that there are lots of other images already in Wikimedia Commons that show shuch parts in much more details, quality and clear way; it's not needed to show her naked in her article in Wikipedia [1] as, in fact, is what's happening, but quite the contrary is at least respectable, given the fact that Wikipedia is a free website with underage pepople visiting all the time and as such there is no rational justification for allowing such kind of photo to be here or disposed there - what is totally different from an inscructional image about female genital organs such as those displaied in the correspondent articles, but what is cleary not the case of this image).
- It's not being used anyway.
- Taking what was previously sad plus some rationalistics perspectives, we can conclude that there is no rational justification for accepting this image in Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia (its not useful, it's not good for any of the possible utilities this image may have specially when compared to other already avaliable images) and there are good rational reasons for not allowing it at Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia (its almost useless for encyclopedian/instructional purpose, it's not a good image in all the possible useful uses for it, it's not being used, there is apparently no specific authorization for showing here nudity in this context).
So my conclusion is this file must be deleted.
In order for someone to refute my claims above, one would have to demonstrate ether one of the following clames:
- This image is actually being used for a good purpose in which it's one of the best images avaliable to the point it would be bad if deleted and replaced by other correspondent;
What is certanly not the case, btw.
Momergil (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If I follow what you're saying correctly, you argue that the image might be "private" so a violation of personality rights, and that the image is out of project scope. I counter the first point by directing you to the uncropped source image on Flickr, on the stream of a professional photographer, and the image is still there under a free license as it has been since 2008. It is shown to be one of a series of photos taken at the session (another shared under a free license is also on Commons, File:Bruna_Ferraz_with_Photographer.jpg, described as taken "during shooting for a cover". As to project scope, the person shown has articles about them in wikipedias in 2 languages, thus images of the person are inherently withing project scope. Part of the person's notability is apparently posing nude, so an illustration of that seems relevant. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with all that Infrogmation said.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - if she's a pornstar, I would have to say that her genitals are fairly relevant. Also, this was taken at a photoshoot, and is of someone who is accustomed to being seen naked. I really don't see there being any expectation of privacy with these images, and so no real issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Probably speedily. "Private moment" argument has been debunked. The person is notable. "Save the children" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Everything said above. --Leyo 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Argument for deletion has been thoroughly debunked by Infrogmation. Tabercil (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It was proposed for deletion 4 times, but the main argument was that Wikipedia isn't censored. Somebody missed the point, here are the references:
- Commons:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose (last example: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality")
- Commons:PORN ("If the quality is bad, we may keep the file if we have no better file on a subject it can illustrate" - we have better picture)
- Commons:PS#Censorship ("(...) the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above")
We have better images of her (Bruna Ferraz), that one has low quality, it's obvious porn without educational use (well, you could learn how looks vulva of that madame), it's used only in English userpage (looks like a spam) and in pt.wiki in del req of that woman who kindly gave her genitalia pictures for us. So past "keep" arguments are invalid.
Krzysiu (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as per previous 4 DR arguments, that the genitalia of a famous pornstar are clearly within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The quality of the photo is really quite good and the pose, in the context of Category:Naked female buttocks is quite unique. That should make it a very usable image. --Simonxag (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, high quality and unique value. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept, for the reasons stated and also from the previous DR. Denniss (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unlikely that the author is the topic of the picture. --- Zil (d) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: http://www.ghiai.com/images/newsphoto.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 09:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfree Flickr license. User only have few uploads. MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Its hard to say. He has uploaded a few flickr images like this which passed flickrreview. But maybe it should be deleted since its a low resolution photo anyway. More importantly, this is the flickr owner, Katemina's only image here. So, no evidence it was licensed freely. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 09:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
this cat has been replaced by this one Category:Mallorquina (chicken) --Akinom (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like this name. This a mixed catalan-english name. If you want an english name, I would suggest Category:Mallorcan hen or Category:Mallorcan chicken. Paucabot (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty category. You can request the new category to be renamed by using {{Move}}. –Tryphon☂ 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
fichier redondant--Fonquebure (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Duplicate of what? Please use {{Duplicate}}. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
(copyright violation: it is not material provided by Voice of America - see http://vrnnews.ru/world/index.php?id=5287 - 174×210 px) NBS (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader. I can tell you that when I got the image, in June, it was on the Voice of America page, http://www.voanews.com/russian/archive/2008-11/2008-11-20-voa13.cfm . It's not there now, but you can, for example, check this Bing images search, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Старовойтова&go=&form=QB&qs=n and see the image there showing as if on the Voice of America page I got it from. In other words, VoA reorganized sometime after the last time Bing ran its crawler over that site.
- Now Voice of America publishes two kinds of photos - those it takes itself, and those from wire services, usually the Associated Press. You can see some examples here. [2] [3] - they are usually marked as such. This disclaimer, at the bottom, of the page, explains this: Copyright statement. VoA photos are public domain, AP photos are not. Since the photo is unmarked, I believe it to be a VoA photo. If NBS can explain why he thinks it is not a VoA photo, we should remove it. But just the fact that it is also on another website isn't evidence it isn't a VoA photo, that website doesn't make any claim of having taken the picture, and if it is a VoA photo and so public domain, the other website would have a perfect right to use it. --GRuban (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://www1.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/a-33-2008-11-20-voa13.html - 20 November 2008, 190×190 px.
- http://vrnnews.ru/world/index.php?id=5287 (image - http://vrnnews.ru/img/news/5287.jpg) - 20 November 2008, 174×210 px - in the bottom of the photo it has been less cut off, sideways it has been more cut off.
Therefore I think that a source of the photo any the third (the source can be the Voice of America, but proofs of this it is not presented). NBS (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unclear whether VOA is the primary source or just a re-user. Since a wider crop can be found elsewhere, it appears VOA is not the copyright holder of the original image. –Tryphon☂ 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
en:Hu Yaobang sign is copyrighted, not PD. shizhao (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't even know how you can copyright the signature of a man, much less one that was technically "made" more than 50 years ago. GraYoshi2x►talk 21:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- 在中国，书法属于艺术作品，何况，PD是作者死后50年，而不是作品发表后50年--shizhao (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- 那你直接改一个版权声明就好了啊，我本身又看不懂英文，也不知该用什么版权声明，既然管理员大人您老人家认为这是艺术作品那就改就是了，干嘛死叼着那些维基法律动不动就删除，删除操作很好玩吗？--Chintunglee (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it can be kept as {{PD-signature}}, but I've no idea how high the threshold of originality is in China, nor how original this signature actually is. Unless someone can provide reliable information about this, I'm afraid it will have to be deleted according to the precautionary principle. –Tryphon☂ 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Tryphon. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Eduardoromay
edit- File:EduardoRomay5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EduardoRomay4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EduardoRomay3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EduardoRomay2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EduardoRomay1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EduardoRomay.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Antonella3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Antonella2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Antonella1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Antonella.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Personal images, not used anywhere, outside of the project scope. ■ MMXXtalk 04:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Images of Teo90
edit- File:Melinda.clarke.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mischa.barton.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mischa-barton.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kelly-rowan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Rachel-bilson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mckenzie02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Teo90's images are all copyvios because several of them were taken from various websites. User has not learned from previous deletions, maybe a block is justified Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 09:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Images of Votex2009
edit- File:GRAD 18.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Zlaca-igraliste.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Radnicki-dom.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Stecak-bozicko-banovic.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Centar-banovici.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Skola1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Banovici-selo-skola.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Phoca thumb l banovici best photo - 145.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ramicko jezero.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ramicko jezero 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Plamen banovici.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bosna Faces Festival.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ramicko jezero 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hotel Zlaca.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Votex2009's images are all copyvios because several of them contain text inside that indicate they were taken from various websites. Smooth_O (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Bidgee Yann (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Probably Heinrich Faltermeier (1909-1999), so Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Probably Heinrich Faltermeier (1909-1999), so
Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of paranormal in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Statue by Heinrich Faltermeier (1909-1999). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See. Dorieo (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:FOP#Greece. –Tryphon☂ 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 08:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the sculptor and/or when was the statue erected? --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Faltermeier, probably Heinrich, dead 1999, so Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Faltermeier, probably Heinrich, dead 1999, so
- Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Now it is December, time to delete greek bullsit. Iconoclast (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikimedia is not occasional and is not mass media. Iconoclast (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I interpret "occasional reproduction" as de minimis only, and unfortunately the restriction to the undefined "mass media" is too much for us,
- The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. Dorieo (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Until the Greek FOP issue is resolved in Sept. See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Greece --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not only is this user apparently unwilling to wait for the lawyers to complete their research into the topic, but he is again submitting many images in the same day for speedy deletion, in spite of the fact that he has been asked not to while the Freedom of Panorama issue is being settled. See [4] and User_talk:Iconoclast. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not in PD until 2070. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)