Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_NIDA_Kensington.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
33063102 89.211.167.0 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. Martin H. (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
nemo 94.166.9.213 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as inappropriate use of talk page. Rosenzweig δ 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a flickrwashed screenshot from some video. Rosenzweig δ 08:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a real point with this nonsense ? And even if youre right a illegal terrorist organisation cannot legitimatly own anything including copyrights Lightpositive (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe not an organisation, but an individual. Declaring somebody a terrorist or else does not make him ineligible to hold copyrights. As long as it is not clear at all who made this video it must be deleted per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig δ 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you honestly belive that active thieves/terrorists have any rights whatsoever because they steal, cheat and lie and please avoid using precautionary principle as a reasonable argument due to the fact the principle does not mention thives/terrorists anywhere and please read it before making any claims Lightpositive (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- They do have rights, yes. Obviously, you don't understand much about either copyright or the principles of Wikimedia Commons. The central statement in the precautionary principle is “where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted.” That's the case here, there is very reasonable doubt if the Flickr uploader actually is the rights owner to that video screenshot (that's what it seems to be). More likely some TV station owns the rights. Perhaps even some Al Qaida people, whoever, but not the uploader. --Rosenzweig δ 09:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree picture, pushed to Commons under abuse of flickr.com for license laundering. Martin H. (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
33063102 89.211.167.0 09:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. Martin H. (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-res promotional photo. Looks like copyvio. Blacklake (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is, copied from example from http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Asparez/3540285535. Not own work by Locsh Martin H. (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
is a copy right pic Realrick7 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: good that you nominate it yourself for deletion, I was about to tag it as {{Copyvio}}. Martin H. (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know why newspaper articles written by Francis Matthys and Luc Norin about Anne Richter can released under Free Art License by uploader Arichter (Anne Richter??) Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also
- File:La poésie est indispensable.png
- File:Histoires de doubles.png
- File:Anne Richter, avocate du fantastique féminin.png
- File:Anne Richter piste Simenon malgré lui.png
Some quirk in Belgian copyricht laws, maybe? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Treat as copyvios unless proof of license is provided. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as copyvios. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
after upload of a new image the old image is displayed, replaced by File:Villa Berg, Südterrasse, zwei Blumenschalen, 2.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate, uploader requested deletion mickit 07:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a USAF image - Exif-data shows it's made by Lockheed Denniss (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'ts in the Edwards AFB Media Gallery, on the official USAF Website. http://www.edwards.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=2551&?id=-1&page=1&count=48 No indication that it's not a USAF image. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not properly tagged at the USAF website, it should have been marked as courtesy image. Exif data is more than enough to identify a non-government source. The other prototype images with the strange text comment may be from Lockheed as well. --Denniss (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Description translates to "The construction of telephone penis trick." Non-educational unused diagram. ~ Missvain (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, commons is not a personal photo album. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete privacy issue. No model release. Teofilo (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This image has an absolutely wrong source information. Because there is no valid source for this image, we must delete this photo 91.57.90.5 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Image is ok. I have restored all relevant source and author information. User:Mickddt removed the source information on July 14th, 2011. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep +1 @ High Contrast. --Martin1978 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep We must nothing at all 91.57.90.5 as the image is more than ok. Agree with High Contrast & Martin1978. Reptil (♣) 20 July 2011, 17:55 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And
- File:Chm croix Etais 05.JPG
- File:Chm croix Etais 09.JPG
- File:Chm croix Etais 15.JPG
- File:Chm croix Etais 17.JPG
- File:Chm croix Etais 18.JPG
The article mentiones "Le chemin de Croix qui orne les murs est l'œuvre d'Edgar Delvaux réalisée en 1956", not old enough, no FOP in France Havang(nl) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the author. Posted here the same day and see EXIF. Martin H. (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Link outdated, new links: EXIF/EXIF. --Martin H. (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Sorry about that, I didn't realize. Handcuffed (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope. No educational use for the file--Hold and wave (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please read COM:PS. --Saibo (Δ) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A wallpaper may fall out of Project scope. Mys 721tx (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
On the source site this game is "free" as in "no payment" but there is no indication wahtever that it is free of copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: On the game's website under license it says it is in the public domain. Please also see the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Passage 3 by Jason Rohrer screenshot.png. CyberSkull (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Free software as mentioned in the website. Yann (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
On the source site this game is "free" as in "no payment" but there is no indication whatever that it is free of copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- "I release all of the source code that I write as free software (free as in "freedom") into the public domain so that others can learn from my work and make use of my source code in their own projects. I also release all of my software in compiled binary form (in other words, "ready-to-run") as free web downloads (free as in "without cost"). I am strongly committed to giving my software away for free to everyone. You can read more of my thoughts on free distribution."
- -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Also, at the source site there is “License: Placed in the public domain” AVRS (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Reopened -- Deletion Requests stay open for seven days, please. I was aware that the software was PD when I nominated this for deletion -- the fact that the software underlying the game is PD does not make the images used in the game free -- that includes icons, backgrounds, characters, etc. I see nothing above that contradicts that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you explain the problem more precisely please? When the author states "License: Placed in the public domain", it seems unambiguous. It doesn't sound like he's excluding any element of the game from the public domain. Also his statement "All code, music, graphics, fonts, and animation by me." means that it does not infringe someone else's copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The screenshot is of a copy installed from Debian repositories (like this: http://packages.debian.org/lenny/passage). Among the removed files, the only non-free thing (“a fortified memory allocation shell for C and C++”, apparently for Windows) is unused by Debian. --AVRS (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Author says it is public domain. Please also see the related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Passage.png. CyberSkull (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Free software as mentioned in the website. Yann (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. 84.61.162.29 11:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I know that there is no FOP in Belgium and France, so I think it should be deleted! 12:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M 93 (talk • contribs)
Keep The architecture of the hotel seems to be old enough to be PD, the lighting is trivial (not a work of art as the complicated Eiffel Tower lighting). --FA2010 (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep The hotel was built in 1855 (source) I have removed the deletion request of the filesite. alofok* 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please do no remove the information until the discussion is finished. It is important that users can know that a discussion is taking place and that they can participate if they want. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing wrong with this photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. 84.61.162.29 11:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing wrong with this photo. Deletion request is not explicit. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
_NIDA_Kensington.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
this is a poor quality image that has now been superceded by better quality images Sardaka (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Superseded by what? Wknight94 talk 02:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No superior alterative provided. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
_NIDA_Kensington.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This is a poor quality pic that has been superceded by better quality pix Sardaka (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept Do not nominate this again without a better reason or citing a better file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
_NIDA_Kensington.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Poor quality pic that shouldn't be here (all my own work, too). 110.33.198.48 11:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Do not nominate this image again. If you do, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
_NIDA_Kensington.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-4){kind=link}
Poor quality shot now superceded by better shots, (1)_NIDA_Kensington1-5 220.237.50.220 10:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept per discussion above and another instance like this, I have blocked this user for a week. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Commons is no private photo album, this file doesn't have any educational use. Bill william comptonTalk 13:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Commons is no private photo album, this file doesn't have any educational use. Bill william comptonTalk 13:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The picture is not free. It is anime poster. Zimi.ily (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Tabercil. Yann (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Own screenshot of a commercial product: http://www.flyelite.ch/en/products/fnpt2.php Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Small, but we still need some proof that uploader is able to put this image in the public domain. So please provide a link to the image where it says it is public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Darwinius. Yann (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, was used on a deleted self promo site on en.wikipedia.org Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope - unused personal picture Lymantria (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
the license is obviosly wrong - permission would be needed from the designer. However, that may be {{PD-ineligible}} but I am not fully sure - so: DR. Saibo (Δ) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as PD-ineligible - the symbol is PD, I believe, and the background pattern of lozangues is too simple and too common to cause an issue, IMO.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could someone from the Netherlands please check if maybe even {{PD-NL-Gov}} applies? Thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, indeed {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-NL-Gov}}. Obelix (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- found another one: {{PD-NL-verkeersbord}} and {{PD-NL-water transport sign}} - probably the last one is the correct one. --Saibo (Δ) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, water transport. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
wrong license / no permission. This may be okay with {{PD-textlogo}}. Not sure if this ship symbol in the middle is too much. Saibo (Δ) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A silly photoshop prank on en:Jed Buchwald. And who took the original photo? ~ NVO (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used ina now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - not really good enough to be used otherwise - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused chart, poor sourcing, rather out of scope. ~ Missvain (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused since 2007, seemingly uneducational due to lack of description. ~ Missvain (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused diagram since 2007. Missvain (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And yet another poorly drawn and poorly defined unused diagram. Missvain (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
An unused diagram since 2007, too small to be of any proper use, anyhoo. Missvain (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
States that the image is for non-commercial use only. Acather96 (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non commercial Mbdortmund (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. It is not clear what is this, and it seems like a child's drawing. Dmitry89 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yet another one. What value does this one add over the others? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
i don't speak english sory.
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep @"yet another one": COM:NOTCENSORED. What does it add? Please show me a selection of same photos and we can discussion this deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete e. g. here are some more dics. And stop this stupid "commons in not censored", this is a single picture and not all of this cat. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I stop if you guys stop those censor attempts. IF you think it is bad and we can safely delete it without editorializing other projects then show me a picture which replaces it. --Saibo (Δ) 19:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use on two wikis Mbdortmund (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
J’aimerais supprimer la photo que j’ai faites, c’est la mienne... supprimer la svp Shadows light 22 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
probably copyvio, not notable band Honza chodec (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: private foto Mbdortmund (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
private photo Honza chodec (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: private foto Mbdortmund (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
From a movie and PD-AR-Movie is not fulfille, director died 1997. Martin H. (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be some kind of academic paper in Spanish. As such out of project scope. Rosenzweig δ 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this photo was taken by the uploader. The subject has been dead since 1986, and the photo looks suspiciously like a promotional photo. —Angr 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can be found here on a forum page from 2008. --Rosenzweig δ 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is free to use, there are no rights on this picture. Everyone may use it. Polozooza (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see Polozooza making the same moves as he did in the Karremans question: Uploading a picture which he says was taken by him, trying to wipe out a deletion request, saying that there are no rights on the picture (as to explain why the pic can be found on different places), and preferrably commenting on the issue on pages that are not his talk page. Eventually the Karremans pics were deleted; the real photographer was found and contacted.
- So yes, there are very strong reasons to suspect this new upload. Don't be silly and tell us very clearly why we should trust you this time, Polozooza. Apdency (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- With the Karremans picture(s) the issue was already settled, but the admins forgot to strike out the request, so it was deleted still. Immediately afterwards, the commons-delinker tool removed it from all wikipedia-entries and the case was closed. That's what happened there. A case of miscommunication. Polozooza (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are incredible. Do you really want to ignore the things I said about Sake Elzinga on your talk page? Apdency (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Before that, the images have already been deleted. :)
- As for this image: it is free to use, no copyrights attached. Polozooza (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are incredible. Do you really want to ignore the things I said about Sake Elzinga on your talk page? Apdency (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- With the Karremans picture(s) the issue was already settled, but the admins forgot to strike out the request, so it was deleted still. Immediately afterwards, the commons-delinker tool removed it from all wikipedia-entries and the case was closed. That's what happened there. A case of miscommunication. Polozooza (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is free to use, there are no rights on this picture. Everyone may use it. Polozooza (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You have no reason to put smiles about what happened there. You knowingly violated someone's copyright, you gave false information about the pictures' maker and date, consistently eluded questions and remarks about it, and in your fantasy made up a 'settlement'. And now again, I see you avoiding the core of the issue. Apdency (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- “Free to use”? “No copyrights attached”? Why? If that really is so, there must be a reason for it. Either the author is already dead for at least 70 years, which is not possible for a picture apparently taken in 1985. Or the author (who has yet to be named) released the image under a free license, which has to be proved. If there is no proof, the image is deleted. --Rosenzweig δ 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The image has been released under a free license. And yes, I am perfectly capable of finding proof for that. I'll look into it. Polozooza (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- “Free to use”? “No copyrights attached”? Why? If that really is so, there must be a reason for it. Either the author is already dead for at least 70 years, which is not possible for a picture apparently taken in 1985. Or the author (who has yet to be named) released the image under a free license, which has to be proved. If there is no proof, the image is deleted. --Rosenzweig δ 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
self-promotional content with little or no educational value Aisano (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
added by User:Mjvs87 for unclear reasons Rosenzweig δ 11:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Image with low resolution and low quality without exif. Looks like as video frame from video with unknown status. Art-top (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Very low quality image - unused, without description, without exif. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Is not public domain, or license is not appropiate (added by User:OboeCrack) Rosenzweig δ 13:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On her 'Classic Film Scans' blog (given as source link for the Flickr upload this was taken from), the Flickr uploader says: "I've scanned each of these myself, from books, original photos and magazines. ... No rights are given or implied." High on a tree (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The original upload was taken from http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_En/03/hm3_5_7a.html, there is nothing on that site that suggest free licensing or cc-by-sa-2.5. The image use policy says the opposite. Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Has been flagged for incorrect license for three months, and I agree with the given reason: "César Blanco's flickr page contains many images with invalid license, it's obvious that he's not the author". High on a tree (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment - It is irrelevant whether or not somebody is an author, the relevance is whether or not somebody is a copyright holder in accordance to the current laws. So, while it is "obvious that he's not the author", it has no relevance to the discussion what-so-ever. In fact an author releasing one's work under the free licence may at times be an issue of a copyright violation (the author was doing the work for hire, the author has previously agreed to transfer all the copyright to another person, etc.) Beta M (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On her 'Classic Film Scans' blog (given as source link for this image), the Flickr uploader says: "I've scanned each of these myself, from books, original photos and magazines. ... No rights are given or implied." High on a tree (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
On her 'Classic Film Scans' blog (given as source link for this image), the Flickr uploader says: "I've scanned each of these myself, from books, original photos and magazines. ... No rights are given or implied." High on a tree (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be NOT shot by User:Judyta.papp, I was told (OTRS-ticket 2011071610007564). Waiting for confirmation by uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright holder only provides consent for use by Wikipedia in ticket 2011071610007564. This cannot be permitted at Commons. – Adrignola talk 16:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I was told only today by email, the main problem seems to be the missing permission (personality rights) of the depicted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work, probably someone take a picture of a screen or electronic panel (take a look at the border of the pic...). The original photographer seems to be Layla Palis Pinheiro (see the photo info at http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/South_America/Brazil/Southeast/Minas_Gerais/Uberaba/photo563339.htm) Giro720 (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Newly uploaded GIF-Version of a state CoA widely used as an SVG. Seems doubtful if this version may be useful Antemister (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
higher res version here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ansel_Adams_-_National_Archives_79-AA-H23.jpg File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-H23.jpg] CutOffTies (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 18:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In use here --Mbdortmund (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
not within scope, unused personal photo Rosario Berganza 05:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Deleted out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
File:State President Slovakia 1939.svg is pre-existing SVG, no future use Fry1989 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- my Version is more similar to the original version that was used. See:
- Ivan Kamenec: Slovenský štát v obrazoch, Ottovo nakladateľstvo, ISBN: 80-7360-700
- or http://www.martinus.sk/?uItem=43397
- Greetings --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- They're the exact same thing, except for the difference in the shade of the gold/yellow borderings, which can be changed. I still say delete. Fry1989 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it was deleted, why does it still exist? Fry1989 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Uploader is not the creator of this logo. Onderwijsgek (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious claim of authorship. How old is photobucket? 91.65.181.80 19:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
no permission from Prateek Apparels to see. May be {{PD-textlogo}} but there are doubts... Saibo (Δ) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of the britney photo/advert on the wall. Saibo (Δ) 03:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This image has insufficient source and author information. We only know that a person called "Sgt. Bond" was the original uploader. This is not enough. We must have clearance about the authorship sso that we can trace if this file really was published under a free licence. Because there is now EXIF information and the image resolution is quite low (typical internet resolution). Besides, User:Sgt. Bond had problems with image copyrigh on en:wiki. 91.57.90.5 08:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete looks rather suspect due to the fact that the source on Wikipedia was a forum, however it was removed by the Commons uploader. I can't find the image on the forum but doesn't mean it was never there since it has been about four years since it was uploaded on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No use this image because using only speedy deleted page on jawiki. Deletion reason is AD use only. --S-PAI (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
bad image Kerivo1 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. What's bad about it? Just needs to be renamed. --P199 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request shortly after upload Jcb (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
this might be {{PD-textlogo}} if there is no permission from the company - currently there is no permission. Saibo (Δ) 22:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this qulifies as textlogo, yes.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Seems simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. Jujutacular talk 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also including: File:Crime scene 1.jpg, File:Crime scene 2.jpg, and File:Crime scene 3.jpg
Works of the Los Angeles Police Department are not works of the US federal governemnt, so these images are copyrighted. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Re-tag as {{PD-CAGov}}?—LX (talk, contribs) 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- California copyright is a bit confusing, but from what the police website says, it appears their material is copyrighted. See [1] Mikemoral♪♫ 03:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Los Angeles is not the same as California - just like California is not the same as the United States. I'd like someone to show that LAPD is really California employee before agreeing with {{PD-CAGov}}. Wknight94 talk 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that LAPD officers are employees of the city, not the state specifically, so I'm unsure as to whether their material is copyrighted or not. Mikemoral♪♫ 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, good call. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The LAPD website states only that «all materials published on the Site are protected by copyright […]». So the point is: are the four files on the LAPD website? --Lineadombra (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think that's "the point." Not appearing on the site would not in itself mean that they are in the public domain. Conversely, if they are in the public domain by law, then a copyright statement doesn't change that. If it can be shown that they were initially published in the U.S. without a copyright notice before 1978 (which doesn't seem too unlikely), then {{PD-US-no notice}} should apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The LAPD website states only that «all materials published on the Site are protected by copyright […]». So the point is: are the four files on the LAPD website? --Lineadombra (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD. – Adrignola talk 00:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims to be author and subject. That seems unlikely. We will need permission from the actual photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, we need clarification on this to be considered a valid release of license. Jujutacular talk 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission received. – Adrignola talk 23:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Copied from here http://www.mfa.aero/html/menu/charter/DGMFA.htm probably. Website does not specify the given license as far as I can see. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
the pic was made by myself and was given to MFA to ust the pic for the web www.mfa.aero
Deleted: Evidence shows this site hosting the images back in 2007, long before uploading here. The operator must email OTRS to provide evidence that site operator is not author of images. – Adrignola talk 03:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Copied from here http://www.mfa.aero/html/menu/kontakte/buero_edma.htm probably. Website does not specify the given license as far as I can see. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
the pic was made by myself, in doubt you can ask to info@mfa.aero
Deleted: Evidence shows the image was on the site in 2007. Site operator must email OTRS if operator is not actually the author. Otherwise we will assume that they are. – Adrignola talk 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see the website does not state a license. A link to CC Attribution Share Alike 3.0 would be appreciated. Logo is not simple enough I think because of font choice to be in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There is permission to use, but nothing in the terms of modification or commercial use. This is also under Crown Copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the protocol for responding, nor the formatting I should be using, so I apologize. Regarding the RCAF badge, the site I took it from (in early 2007) gave permission to use it. There have been no challenges to its use, until now. How far back does one have to go to ensure permission was properly obtained? Should I have assumed "RCAF.com" used the badge without permission? Regarding Crown Copyright, Government of Canada Publications (part of PWGSC) notes: "Permission to reproduce Government of Canada works, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, or for cost-recovery purposes, is not required, unless otherwise specified in the material you wish to reproduce." Further detail is provided: A reproduction means making a copy of information in the manner that it is originally published – the reproduction must remain as is, and must not contain any alterations whatsoever. The terms personal and public non-commercial purposes mean a distribution of the reproduced information either for your own purposes only, or for a distribution at large whereby no fees whatsoever will be charged. I believe this adequately describes the badge's use on wikipedia. Further, section 12 of the Copyright Act notes: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year. The badge was first used during the second world war (it's on my uncle's log book). The badge in its current form (the so-called "Queen's badge") was first used 58 years ago (1953). I therefore believe the badge should not be deleted.--Snd3054 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that for the Wikimedia Commons, images that are only for "personal and public non-commercial purposes mean a distribution" are not acceptable to host here. With the Commons, images must be able to be modified, used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial. Now, this image can be put on the English Wikipedia and claimed under fair use without any problems. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- If the concept of the design was publicly in use by the government in 1953, then the concept may be in the public domain. But that is not necessarily the case of the specific renderings found on the private site rcaf.com. On that site there are at least four different renderings of the general badge with the queen's crown [2]. The copyright notice now visible on that site is "Copyright © AEROWAREdesigns 2010", further detailed in this page. There was a different notice when you uploaded the file in 2007 (see [3]), but apparently it was removed and it did not specify if use included commercial use and modification. That being said, one of the renderings of the badge on that site, but not the one discussed in this deletion request, is apparently a copy of the rendering available in a much better resolution on the official website of the Air Force (see [4]). So, if it were in the public domain, it would be better to take it directly from that source. But there doesn't seem to be a mention of when this rendering was created and first published. Without information showing that it is a copy of a rendering published before 1961, we would have to assume that it is under the copyright terms of [5], which do not allow unauthorized commercial use or modification. It might be interesting if you could get a copy of the badge from before 1961 from your uncle's documents. Could that be a possibility? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- From doing a quick look, there badge was used even before 1953 (but the crown was changed that year). If we knew when http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=2257&site=casimages&catalog=casimages was created, that could tell us it would be public domain or not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I now understand why the badge doesn’t belong in Wikimedia commons – when I uploaded it 4 years ago, I didn’t understand the purpose of the commons (actually, I still don’t…). As suggested, I’ll try to put the "official" version found on DND's site on English Wikipedia, under the “fair use” rationale (the terms of use seem to suggest that it would be acceptable, as long as the use is not for profit). The important thing is that the badge doesn’t get lost in history. Unfortunately the badge used on my uncle’s log book is a black outline image (same with the letterhead on his official correspondence – there are no full-colour representations).--Snd3054 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- move to en:wikipedia "non free logo" 198.24.31.118 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshot includes non-free Firefox logo, non-free Yahoo toolbar, non-free ImageShack toolbar, and non-free Google toolbar. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted non-free logos. I think it can use now. －Shack... (Talk) 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept, problematic elements removed. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot (still) contains the non-free Yahoo toolbar, the non-free ImageShack toolbar, the non-free Google toolbar (visuals and elements of all of which have still survived). Mardus (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, a small Firefox logo has also survived at the bottom right of the image. -Mardus (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I modified the nomination request to (just in case) remove a reference to the theme for the following reasons:
- Turned out that the source code license of AquaTint Slate 3.6.9 is MPL 1.1, but there is still no information on whether versions of that theme for Firefox 2.0 held the same license, or if MPL 1.1 applies only to the theme's source code and whether the artwork also stays under it or not. Nevertheless, the author of the theme does not indicate in any way if Aquatint Slate is MPL or under any other free license. -Mardus (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept - all possible issues are DM - Jcb (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No author given. Therefore uncertain if (s)he died 70+ years ago. Leyo 06:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep {{Anonymous-EU}} at a minimum. 109 years old is almost certainly PD due to age. Wknight94 talk 12:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The author might in fact be known, even though it is not given here. --Leyo 12:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe not. Wknight94 talk 15:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The author might in fact be known, even though it is not given here. --Leyo 12:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of user Tommy Boy
editHighly suspicious of own work claims by Tommy Boy (talk · contribs). Mix of blurry and poorly-exposed photos with professional - yet low-resolution - concert and studio photographs of popular bands and musicians in Chile. Very few with EXIF and mostly - but not all - low-resolution, as from a web site. Several earlier photos already deleted as copyvio.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hermeto Pascoal 1966.jpg.
- Studio photographs (some are similar to ones appearing on official band sites).
- File:Christian gonzalez.jpg
- File:Cesar Jara.jpg
- File:Efren Viera.jpg
- File:Manuel Meriño.jpg
- File:Daniel Cantillana.jpg
- File:Marcelo Coulon.jpg
- File:Jorge coulon.jpg
- Posed photos of notable musicians
- File:Horacio Duran.jpg
- File:Roberto Lecaros.jpg (extremely low resolution)
- File:Jaime Vivanco.jpg (the only black & white)
- File:Jorge campos.jpg
- File:TiloGonzalez.jpg
- File:RaulAliaga.jpg
- Candid photos of notable musicians
- File:Horacio Salinas 2.jpg
- File:Joe Vasconcellos.jpg (extremely low resolution)
- Close-up concert photos - all different resolutions and sizes
- File:Arlet.jpg (the only one with a time stamp)
- File:Los Hermanos Lecaros.jpg
- File:Roberto lecaros 2.jpg
- File:Pablo Lecaros.jpg
- File:Pianocongreso.jpg
- File:Hugo Pirovich.jpg
- File:Cristián Crisosto.jpg
- File:Gatoalquinta.jpg
- File:Jaime Atenas.jpg
- File:Raul3.jpg
- File:JorgeCampos.jpg
- File:Arlette Jequier.jpg
- File:Chino vasquez.jpg
- File:Tilogonzalez2.jpg
- File:Pancho sazo.jpg
- Blurry distant concert and group photos - low resolution
- High-resolution concert photos
Wknight94 talk 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Author Pyb apparently made his last contribution 17 february 2011 while this image was supposed to be uploaded by Pyb on 22 february 2011. Source is supposed to be Wikimedia Commons, but I can not find it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like this apparently copyrighted photo, though it is cropped in the version at that source.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It's his account ~Pyb, not his account Pyb. It's still strange though. ~Pyb did upload two photos of this grave on 22 February 2011 (see log), but this is not one of them. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that as well, that's why I rolled back my closure of this DR and restored the file (I forgot to mention it here, unfortunately). But apparently this is the file on my link above, dating from 2009 and authored by one Anne. Maybe a mistake from the uploader?-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
bad quality image, there's a lot of similar images Broc (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on w:Pubic hair. If you're going to go on deletion sprees through our naked works, at least stop nominating those in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Currently in use, hence in COM:SCOPE 99of9 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Very poor image quality (unsharp/low resolution); pubic hair is trimmed; image used on English Wikipedia inaccurately; several better images on Wikipedia; no loss if deleted 188.107.6.72 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use on w:Pubic hair. Period. End stop. We don't delete photos in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment If you think it is not the best image to use on en-wiki, you should go there and seek consensus to replace it with a better one. Once it is replaced, we can have another discussion here about whether this image is redundant. At this point, our rules say it is not. --99of9 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Policy says we don't make that decision for Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image was kepted a month ago. Also if this image is in use how come is this image of "No educational need"??? 06:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) addundum: Image was in use until a single purpose account on english wikipedia removed it, but still this image is clearly in scope per keep arguments here and in the june deletion request. Tm (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - has been replaced in the article by a better image - Jcb (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Requested undeletion: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-09#File:Torso_with_pubic_hair.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 01:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC) lf --Saibo (Δ) 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Which was closed without undeletion, especially because it came to light that the file was probably copyvio. Jcb (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)