Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/25
 |
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}
Trachemys typed in the flickr pass for this photo himself...but he not an Admin or a trusted user here. An uploader should never mark his own images. For all we know, it was licensed as 'All Rights Reserved' on flickr. Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I have a copy downloaded from Flickr on or before 2009-01-11 (the date on the file with a smaller version I’ve made, most likelythe day I’ve downloaded it and the day I’ve uploaded the original large version to Commons), with this license link attached: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en. --AVRS (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. AVRS (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Evidence is missing for this image being created by the "United Kingdom Government" prior to 1 June 1957. The stated source "British Government, published 1942, expired Crown copyright" is not enough. High Contrast (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate of File:Grumman Goose.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact duplicate of File:Grumman Goose.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
wrong name --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
wrong name --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. New name File:USCGAUX Dinner Dress Blue.jpg. MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Private image collections, this file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose --Duch.seb (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
I believe the person who uploaded this here is also the person who uploaded it to Flickr. I believe they are a sockpuppet of User:Nimbley6 on Wikipedia. On Flickr they also uploaded an album cover with a CC licence so probably did the same with this one in they hope they could get away with uploading a copyrighted photo to Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Metadata on flickr includes "© Alun J Williamson & © Parkware Limited". No sign that the flickr user (with only two uploads) is either of these. --dave pape (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: Flickr washing: Copyright notice of the original file says "© Alun J Williamson & © Parkware Limited". There is no indication that the uploader on flickr or on Commons is one of them
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. There are also better photographs on Commons to illustrate the topics "learning", "reading" or "using computers" Martin H. (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Personal photograph, not used anywhere and therefore out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Out of scope / probably uploaded for publicity reasons Tekstman (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Personal photo, not in use -> out of scope. Tekstman (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Private image collections, this file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose --Duch.seb (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Logo, out of Commons' scope, potential copyright violation… Nihiltres(t.c) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also included in this nomination is File:Pbs-martini-logo-100px-tall.jpg, and commenters might want to consider whether the only other image uploaded by this author, File:Robert gold bartender.jpg, should be treated similiarly. Nihiltres(t.c) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope. Source seems to be wikipedia:File:Kardaritsi Village4.jpg.--KH 17:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP#Greece anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted Multichill (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The right portion of the image is subject to copyright by Sony Computer Entertainment, indicated in the original source image. Although I would prefer that a replacement image be uploaded using all free imagery, all versions uploaded before this post should be deleted, regardless. --Dancter (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I have managed to take a picture of a real PS3 slim and put it in. I will upload it shortly. No need to delete it now. Ffgamera (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The picture is suspiciously similar to these pictures, down to the shot angle and lighting. Dancter (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
After re-examining the image, I now believe that the center portion was taken from this image, also copyrighted by Sony Computer Entertainment. Dancter (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for that, the images were mixed up and have now been changed to File:Sixaxis ps3 controller.jpg, File:Playstation3vector.svg, and File:Chrisp PS3 Slim on White towel.jpg. Ffgamera (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't quite believe your excuse, but I think it's beside the point. You remedied the issue, which is what matters. As far as I can tell, current version as of this post is now fully free. The previous versions can now be safely deleted. Dancter (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- And it seems you've also shifted away from the over-reliance on the smudge tool, which I also appreciate. Dancter (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Believe what you want, but I didnt purposefully do that. I apologise for the official images popping up. I actually had made a proper image at first, but the copyrighted one was sitting with the same/ similar name, and I couldnt tell from the thumbnails. It seems extremely stupid and non-viable, but it's true. Ffgamera (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, it's beside the point. As much as I'm tempted to, there no need to debate something that's no longer relevant to the project. Dancter (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible to remove the tag now? I wont do it myself unless I have permission of course. Ffgamera (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted older versions. Obvious copyvios, current version seems fine. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a "document of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins" Martin H. (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Needs a permission from the Korean Central News Agency. --Eusebius (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this "current news"? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 06:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, current news are mere facts. Imagine an event and one reporter attending the event. The reporter can claim copyright on the news report text he produces but he can not put the facts from this event under copyright to restrict others in writing their own reports. --Martin H. (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that it's not a document of state management ? Was it not produced by the Korean news agency ? If it was, we should them for permission instead of starting a deletion process right away. JJ Georges (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- In the context of (the English translation of) Government exemptions to copyright, "document" is usually understood in a textual (or almost exclusively textual) meaning, encompassing official declarations, laws, decrees, justice decisions and so on. It usually does not cover any material produced under the indirect supervision of the government. The examples given in the licence template doesn't seem to allow an interpretation including photographs made by public news agencies. --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to simply ask them ? They might answer us, even though we're disgusting capitalists. IMHO, "current news" includes pictures, so i'll vote Keep until we get a clear answer from the interested party. JJ Georges (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the fact that a photograph isn't a news and does not correspond to the copyright exception list provided in the art. 12 of the English translation of the North Korean copyright law. But please ask "them" (whoever it is) if you want to. --Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to simply ask them ? They might answer us, even though we're disgusting capitalists. IMHO, "current news" includes pictures, so i'll vote
Deleted. Per nom. –Tryphon☂ 08:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, "them" is simply the the regime's official agency, which has an official website. I figured it would have been interesting to have their advice, since they provide the documents. I don't see why a photograph wouldn't be included in the "news" category. JJ Georges (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion is closed. Next step is: request for undeletion at COM:UDEL once you have obtained a valid permission from the official agency. --Eusebius (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, "them" is simply the the regime's official agency, which has an official website. I figured it would have been interesting to have their advice, since they provide the documents. I don't see why a photograph wouldn't be included in the "news" category. JJ Georges (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope, plain text only without historic or educational importance. Merge it to es.wikis if useful and delete. Martin H. (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1 - delete Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo, not in use anywhere, so out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no source on here and on en.wikipedia, the license is now depreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 08:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the only flickr image from Keith Marshalll's account here and we do Not know if it was uploaded on a free license. The uploader typed in the flickr pass himself...which is wrong since 1. he is not a trusted user or an Admin here and 2. the uploader should not mark his own images if he is not an Admin/trusted user. This may be a copy vio and it is safer for Commons to delete it. Leoboudv (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete It does look like this is so and the image is on Flickr now with a non-commercial license. --Simonxag (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No source --Nikmat (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Own work by uploader. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Anybody could create some chart using a spreadsheet program and upload it to Wikicommons. Should we just believe the numbers? Everything written in Wikipedia must be verifiable, so charts like this also have to be verifiable. --Wahwahpedal (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Used on the English Wikipedia. It's not the Commons' job to check facts and references. --Simonxag (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No copyright issue; it seems the nominator meant no source as in non verifiable information, but that's not our concern. –Tryphon☂ 08:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Autopromotion --Tamorlan (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Is it really a problem ? Slycooper (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep user page image. -Nard the Bard 13:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment well this image is in use and is thereby in scope by COM:PS, but if you have a look at the page where the image is used you may think different: es:Usuario:Ignis. This user pretty maxes the "small number[...] of images" out- --D-Kuru (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept and tagged with {{Userpageimage}}. –Tryphon☂ 08:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
new version png : 
--Slycooper (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in use in dozens of wikipedia's, will break attribution path. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Multichill. –Tryphon☂ 08:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The mermaid is no longer "de minimis" in this crop as was claimed in the original photo. Freedom of panorama not valid for statues in Denmark, Artist not dead for 70 years. Nillerdk (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please leave the photo it's History— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.145.201 (talk • contribs)
- (nomination was never listed) -Nard the Bard 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is still a wide enough panorama scene to be considered de minimis. -Nard the Bard 13:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Thanks for completing my entry - I think my popup-blocker prevented the gadget to complete it in July). No, to be considered de minimis, the Mermaid should happen to be there accidentally. This is clearly not the case - even the filename tells us what this is (i.e., not a panorama). One could easily have made a panorama scene while avoiding her. Notice that the heirs of the sculptor are known to sue copyright violators and win the cases. The Danish Act on Copyright is clear: Only noncommercial use of photographs of statues is allowed without permission from the owner of the rights. Nillerdk (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete The statue is the subject of the picture. De minimis isn't about size, it's about what the picture is actually of. I'd also delete the original picture as I don't believe the tourists are the real subject. --Simonxag (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Also on the last part. Do you nominate it? Nillerdk (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The main subject of the picture is the statue, and its inclusion is not incidental; hence de minimis doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Small resolution still does not mean this image is a violation of sculptor Edvard Eriksen's copyright (held by his grandchildren). There is no commercial FOP for non-architecture in Denmark. I would also suggest the admin to lock this file name as it is reused another time. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Picture of a copyrighted poster? MGA73 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There's also an uncropped version: File:Dreamgirls on Hollywood.jpg. Delete as derivative works. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete both pictures - copyvios --Simonxag (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
image so small, no used and useless. Moreover there is no description to know what is represented. --Duch.seb (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. as stated on NIH wabpage - therefore we cannot tell whether it is really PD. Masur (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The same situation regards files:
- File:Vincent du Vigneaud 1955.jpg
- File:Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins.jpg
- File:Frederick Gowland Hopkins.jpg
- File:John L. Shapiro.jpg
- File:Robert B. Merrifield.jpg
- File:George W. Beadle.jpg
- File:Rita Levi-Montalcini working with slides 1964.jpg
- File:Barbara McClintock at C.S.H. 1947.jpg
- File:Stanley N. Cohen in 1980.jpg
- File:Rita Levi-Montalcini in 1965.jpg
- File:Matthew S. Meselson in 1964.jpg
- File:Phoebus A. Levene.jpg
- File:Howard M. Temin 1974.jpg
- File:Maclyn McCarty.jpg
- File:Erwin Chargaff.jpg
all uploaded by the same user. Masur (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that some of these can be kept by permission from the copyright owner, or because of USGov, no-notice, or no-renewal. I propose to Keep the Barbara McClintock photo. But the Fleming image is from the UK, and for that one I would say Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment the only problem is, that even NIH doesnt know who is the original copyright owner. So if you have any clue... Masur (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- So the McClintock photo is a certified orphan image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. So, does it have a proper license template? Or should it be different? Masur (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Government work is unlikely, as this came from the private en:Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Commons would need a tag for this kind of stuff. There are also uploads from the Bundesarchiv that are orphan images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. So, does it have a proper license template? Or should it be different? Masur (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- So the McClintock photo is a certified orphan image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly copyrighted and watermarked. -Nard the Bard 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. One file kept as an "orphan image". Masur (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Most likely not within the Commons scope. The image is unused and on their homepage (http://www.roofgarden.de/) the band describes themselves as a "Partyband". 132.199.211.56 14:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blooming - http://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Kurs:Urheberrecht_im_Internet/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild#Bildbeispiele --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not a valid reason, Keep. Btw: The band describes themselve as die coolste Partyband Deutschlands 78.55.100.137 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For me it's in the project scope. --Kolossos (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I can't think of a single reason why this image should not be within Commons project scope. Wutsje (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This "unused" image is used. I can't see it on the band homepage. The deletion request is a joke. --Simonxag (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use and in scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Copy of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/17332058 (early upload there, copyright tag) Albinfo (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom & some of user's other uploads look a bit too professional --Simonxag (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
used for advertising a band on en.wp Evil saltine (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete And also File:Fiends.jpg (which is the front cover) unless we get OTRS permission from the copyright holder of the CD. Maybe the uploader is a band member, but they haven't actually even said this. --Simonxag (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
incomplete picture of a notice, so useless --Duch.seb (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- As the original uploader, I've no problem with deletion. This image was used to verify the spelling of Markievicz on wikipedia, and as such, the image is no longer required. --The.Q | Talk 13:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per uploader's agreement --Simonxag (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
this image is an advertising an d probably under copyright --Duch.seb (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not NASA; belongs on en.wiki as Fair Use Kheider (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Permission says "Contact Marc W. Buie for any commercial use." The author is not NASA. --Simonxag (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
evident copyright violation Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of license at source page. --Simonxag (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
evident copyright violation Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete No license on source page --Simonxag (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly poor color quality, and the content has been replaced with a new photo of better quality (File:Ride On 5317 at Glenmont.jpg). SchuminWeb (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, in use only at a photo lab page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The original photograph is of a different photographer: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-29715727/stock-photo-eiffel-tower-paris.html . As such it is a copyright violation. -Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that the photo on Shutterstock is actually a copy from the one in Commons, and is not the original. According to the information in the photograph, this is original one (here). Elviper (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The quality of the picture on here is too bad to be accepted by Shutterstock. I know this because I also sell my photographs there and the demands are very high. Also, the picture on Shutterstock is of a much greater resolution. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- "The quality of the picture on here is too bad to be accepted by Shutterstock". What? Is exactly the same picture that is in commons. And, how much resolution does the picture in Shutterstock has?--Elviper (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- The picture is the same but the quality isn't. I've no idea what happened to the image but the quality is much worse than the version Shutterstock is selling. The image at Shutterstock has a resolution of ±32 megapixels. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Shutterstock claim to have a high res version over 8 mb. If that is true their picture cannot be a copy of this. --Simonxag (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that Shutterstock has over-sampled my picture to make it look like it's 32Mpix, but it's not. The camera I used at the time is a Canon EOS 20D, which is 8Mpix (3504x2336 pixels). It was a really good camera at the time, and I seriously doubt that 32Mpix cameras (like the one which Shutterstock pretends was used) were available then. Nitot (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- User:Nitot claims several times on his blog that he took the picture, eg on http://standblog.org/blog/post/2005/11/28/93114521-de-l-utilisation-de-la-bonne-licence-pour-publier-une-oeuvre , http://standblog.org/blog/post/2006/12/01/93114970-en-vrac-de-retour-des-pays-bas and several more recent posts. --Crox (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- And it certainly seems in keeping with User:Nitot's other uploads. There is no reason he could not have released a version to us and a hihger-res version to Shutterstock. I lean toward keep, but I'd like to hear from User:Nitot and it might be good for him to file an OTRS explaining the situation. - Jmabel ! talk Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am appalled by the fact that paternity of my work is disputed. I am the author of this picture. To prove this, I have uploaded another one, framed horizontally http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eiffel_tower_at_dawn_horizontal.jpg , taken less than one minute than the disputed one which is taken vertically. Please remove this deletion request. It's an insult to my work. By the way, I have demanded to Shutterstock to ban the person who stole my work, namely Mr Sebastian Schulze. Nitot (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Tristan Nitot is the author of this photo. ~Pyb (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. - as stated on NIH webpage. Therefore, we cannot assume that it's a work of US governmental agency and PD by definition. Masur (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. - as stated on NIH webpage. Therefore, we cannot assume that it's a work of US governmental agency and PD by definition. Author is given: Da Silva, but we dont know anything about its legal status. Masur (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: Copyright status must be investigated before publishing or commercial use. - as stated on NIH webpage. We have no clue about its real legal status. Masur (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. - therefore we cannot assume that it's in the PD Masur (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 13:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: Copyright status must be investigated before publishing or commercial use. - therefore we dont have any information about it being in PD Masur (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. - therefore we dont have clue about its real legal status Masur (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per http://ihm.nlm.nih.gov/images/B09640. –Tryphon☂ 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
suspected copyright violation Kenmayer (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder where this photo was taken. -Nard the Bard 22:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- It says Cherbourg, but text is in Danish; no FOP in any of those places -
This photo was actually taken in Cherbourg, on the door of a café.
Palamède (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- However, this suggests it is from 1930. I cannot read if the poster is signed - maybe {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the poster is signed, so the original is probably out of copyright. But the photo is modern, so the physical poster is modern. So we have to be sure that the poster is a facsimile of the original, not at all modified, otherwise a modern copyright would apply to the new derivative work. --Simonxag (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like a poster to me. It looks like one of those metal signs. It very well could be original if it was well-preserved. -Nard the Bard 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- 70 years on a door? It's done well! I bet the door needed painting a few times. --Simonxag (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like a poster to me. It looks like one of those metal signs. It very well could be original if it was well-preserved. -Nard the Bard 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the poster is signed, so the original is probably out of copyright. But the photo is modern, so the physical poster is modern. So we have to be sure that the poster is a facsimile of the original, not at all modified, otherwise a modern copyright would apply to the new derivative work. --Simonxag (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The link Pieter provides is evidence enough for me: The work is from 1930. It does not matter how old the sign is because it can't be regarded as a new work (any minor changes would not meet the threshold of originality). The small text reads "Leverandør til det Kgl. Danske Hof" (By Appointment to The Royal Danish Court). Change to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} like Pieter suggests. Nillerdk (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept - photo of a sign that is old enough (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Contribution of Yudanja
[edit]Private image collections, these files are not realistically useful for an educational purpose --Duch.seb (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- File:Bakstad1.jpg
- File:Mariekjeks3.jpg
- File:Mariekjeks2.jpg
- File:Mariekjeks1.jpg
- File:MagnusVølloMichaelLundin.jpg
Delete unused personal images --Simonxag (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
test of a new user. Part of image probably under copyright (seems to be an extract of advertissing) --Duch.seb (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Because of the newer version this file is not needed anymore. Incorrect is it not, because the stripes are just the same as they were in the original picture. But the newer file is better for discerning from other ranks. So I agree. --Gloecknerd (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Modern reproduction but incorrect (the yellow box did not exist on the original note). Replaced by a correct and higher-res image: File:Biafran one pound note front side.jpg --80.167.179.233 12:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, the box dont exist because is publicity. This is a propaganda reproduction because when I tried to post a image similar to the the now labelled "correct and higher-res image: File:Biafran one pound note front side.jpg" I was blocked because was copyrighted (obligatory to have "specimen" or similar" according letter received). I assume that the then editor/s are wrong or were acting (as I say then) by political motivations, or that the old prohibitions don't exist more, or don't exist for some people or editors, but remain for comoon people.--jolle (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming there are no legal problems with the accurate reproduction, delete this and keep that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
screenshot of a text about an unknow person. Probably an advertise --Duch.seb (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete scope --Simonxag (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete: mini-CV about non-notable person. Out of scope. I think this should just be speedy-deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Duplikat of File:Ditzingen Feuerwehrhaus.jpg. --16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Harke (Diskussion) --Harke (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Statement: This item may be under copyright protection. Please ask copyright owner for permission before publishing. - therefore we cannot assume that it's in the PD Masur (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is from "Les Prix Nobel", {{PD-Sweden-photo}}; I will upload the version from the Nobel site that does not have the NIH watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I dont know how does it go in Sweden, however The Nobel Prize www is clearly described with this disclaimer. It makes all graphic conetent from it obviously unfree. Masur (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Read more carefully. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright has expired. -Nard the Bard 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy "probably copyright violation" changed to ordenary DR. Uploader said he took the picture in his own home. MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Cropped from http://www.themoneycoach.net/downloads/Lynnette Khalfani-Cox low.jpg /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this image is available on the subject's own website and other places that I have personally given permission to use. This is not, to my knowledge, a violation of wiki policy. Does a photo have to be for exclusive use on wikipedia?
- You may not copy images from the Internet and post them here, where the images are freely licensed for re-use for any purpose at all, including commercial use. If the owner of the copyright will permit the use, they must provide it to the Wikipedia Foundation either by explicitly releasing it under a compatible copyright on the website, or by emailing permission from their domain. Your assertion that you have permission is not sufficient, and in any case, one would expect that such a contributed image would involve the use of the original, not a cropped version of the web image. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Modern reproduction but incorrect (the yellow box did not exist on the original note). Replaced by a correct and higher-res image: File:Biafran one pound note back side.jpg --80.167.179.233 12:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming there are no legal problems with the accurate reproduction, delete this and keep that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted and redirected to better image. Note that I don't know what the copyright status of File:Biafran one pound note back side.jpg is. Pruneautalk 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"Diese Datei ist möglicherweise nicht mit den Richtlinien von Wikimedia Commons kompatibel." heißt es auf de:wiki, und weiter "Es sollte individuell geprüft werden, ob sie nach Wikimedia Commons verschoben werden darf." This media file was not checked if the source "indymedia" gave the permission for a free image release High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I have now made a comment about the missing permission (de:Datei Diskussion:Reinders.png). Lets see if there is a respons. Second problem is the logo in the background - is that to big? --MGA73 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. Just noticed that User_talk:Erik_Warmelink#File:Reinders.png links to http://de.indymedia.org/2007/04/173963.shtml that has the license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/de/. --MGA73 (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, logo is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Not corrected version of the QI File:Schöckingen Altes Rathaus (2).jpg. Uploaded only for use in Fotowerkstatt. Harke (Diskussion) 16:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC) --Harke (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep used --Simonxag (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete not used; superseeded as stated by author. -Elekhh (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, superseded & uploader request. Kameraad Pjotr 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Was replaced by the QI File:Schöckingen Altes Rathaus (2).jpg which has a better perspective correction. Based on identical original RAW file. --Harke (Diskussion) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC) --Harke (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is a valid modification according to the given license. Why should it be deleted? --AM (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete superseeded as stated by author. --Elekhh (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- These pics are not identical. It's a different edit! --AM (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. (Uploader request) Kameraad Pjotr 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No proof that this image is in the public domain, or that it was first published in Saudi Arabia, since there is no source. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This portrait can be found on several websites in arabic; {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- That does not prove anything. FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. You need to give a source so it can be verified when and where this was published. --NE2 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Image released by the Saudi Government, not owned by anyone, no copyright was issued...no copyright was breached. --Salalah4life (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no evidence for publication in S-A. Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No proof that this image is in the public domain, or that it was first published in Saudi Arabia, since there is no source. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This photo can be found on several web sites in arabic; {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is there actually a source saying this is a Saudi image? --Simonxag (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. You need to give a source so it can be verified when and where this was published. --NE2 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no evidence for first publication in S-A. Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Flags of Tohoku
[edit]Original source of following files has copyright (detail is User:Knua/Japanese municipal flags#青森県, Aomori). Some file License is {{PD-Japan-exempt}}. But according to ja:Wikipedia:井戸端/subj/都道府県旗のアップロード and Commons:井戸端/過去ログ3#都道府県旗及び都道府県章のアップロードは問題ないか, "Article 13" applies only texts of government law, and doesn't apply contents (emblem, flag, song, etc). Community of Japanese Wikipedia warns about the danger of applying "PD-Japan-exempt" and deleted files in jawp. Please judge the deletion and copyrightable.
- File:Aomori-shiki (Alex K).svg
- File:Flag of Aomori, Aomori.png
- File:Flag of Mutsu, Aomori.png
- File:Flag of Hanamaki, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Hanamaki, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Ichinoseki, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Ichinoseki, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Kitakami, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Kitakami, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Kuji, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Kuji, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Miyako, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Miyako, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Ninohe, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Ninohe, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Oshu, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Oshu, Iwate.svg
- File:Flag of Tono, Iwate.png
- File:Flag of Tono, Iwate.svg
- File:Symbol_of_Kesennuma,_Miyagi.svg
- File:Flag of Kesennuma, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Iwanuma, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Matsushima, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Natori, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Tagajo, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Zao, Miyagi.svg
- File:Symbol of Daisen, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Daisen, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Noshiro, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Noshiro, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Ogata, Akita.png
- File:Flag of Ogata, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Yokote, Akita.png
- File:Flag of Yokote, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Yurihonjo, Akita.png
- File:Flag of Yurihonjo, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Fujisato, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Happo, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Higashinaruse, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Ikawa, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Kamikoani, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Katagami, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Kazuno, Akita.svg
- File:Symbol of Kitaakita, Akita.svg
- File:Flag of Yamagata Prefecture.svg
- File:Flag of Iwaki, Fukushima.png
- File:Flag of Iwaki, Fukushima.svg
- File:Flag of Kitakata, Fukushima.png
- File:Flag of Kitakata, Fukushima.svg
- File:Flag of Koriyama, Fukushima.png
- File:Flag of Koriyama, Fukushima.svg
.svg){kind=link}
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-07 and Commons:Deletion requests/Flags of Hokkaido (2-7/47).--Knua (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The major concern that I have is this; a lot of the documentation for drawing these flags are set in prefecture ordinances and laws. And, according to Article 13, laws are public domain. I am not sure what you want to do, but other Japanese flags that have been sent to this venue were kept or restored, even while be younger than 50 years old. I point to the first discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-07. It is a tough one, I admit, so I won't say keep or delete (even though some of the images affected are from my hands). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept those that are {{PD-geometry}}, deleted all other images, as {{PD-Japan-exempt}} does not apply. Threshold for PD-geometry based on File:Flag_of_Okinawa,_Japan.svg. Kameraad Pjotr 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
