Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Possible copyright infringement and continuation of the problems mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaby Espino.jpg Martin H. (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: known sockpuppeteer Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not free licence. I tried to convert the file from English Wikipedia Simca 15:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 12:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
wrong comment Renano (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: sorry, can you explain what you mean? The image looks properly licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I guess he means that in his original upload, he used a wrong upload summary, mis-identifying the subject as "U** K***". However, that's no reason to delete anything here.
Keep Lupo 09:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I guess he means that in his original upload, he used a wrong upload summary, mis-identifying the subject as "U** K***". However, that's no reason to delete anything here.
- Comment: You are right, no license problems. I inserted the name in the comment field and tried to delete it deleting the image. Could you please delete the name in the description field — Thank you and cheers, renano 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: One comment has been deleted. There is still a name in the other comment field. Could you please delete the name in the description field — Thank you and cheers, renano 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Version as of 11:41, 30 January 2011 has been deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be some sort of promotional picture, unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe it is true that it seems. But it is not. It is my job, I know it's a bit 'enriched, but it is my work. If you have any doubt I can upload a less decorated.
Deleted by User:Túrelio as copyright violation. Jujutacular talk 02:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Blatant copyright violation of the text, this is a scan of an entire newspaper article Holyoke, mass (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 02:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Low quality map; removed from intended article because it doesn't meet WP:USRD standards. Bitmapped (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)]
Delete-User:Route11
Deleted: user agreed abf «Cabale!» 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, useless map Bitmapped (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 11:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused, low quality hacked up map Bitmapped (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Delete-User:Route11
Deleted: fails COM:SCOPE abf «Cabale!» 11:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No apparent purpose; questionable sourcing and permissions for image Bitmapped (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, spam for a blog based on at least questionable, most likely unfree, imagery. --Martin H. (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
personal attack image? "sexiest boy" blablabla Saibo (Δ) 03:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
also for: *File:San botta.jpg
Well, you put the face in. And who photographed / painted both pictures? Saibo (Δ) 03:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, out of scope vanity photo. Used in a now delete out of scope page. No foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 06:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
source is not consistent with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: doubtfull information abf «Cabale!» 11:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used; replaced by File:N-Acetylglutamic acid.png. --Leyo 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for lots of incorrect chemistry (carboxylic hydrogens missing). But replacement does not have stereochemistry. DMacks (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I created images for the two enantiomers, too. File:(R)-N-Acetylglutamic acid.svg and File:(S)-N-Acetylglutamic acid.svg. Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Asio 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not such low quality. Is there a replacement? Wknight94 talk 12:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to Keep this unless a better replacement is found. Jujutacular talk 02:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused file, likely fails COM:PS, various other issues abf «Cabale!» 11:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright 2010 | | Show Vip Ltda. Non-authorized capture. 200.171.249.39 19:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted abf «Cabale!» 11:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Blatant copyright violation - this is not a public domain logo. Malpass93 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree logo abf «Cabale!» 11:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope and copyvio (drawings at minima) Oxam Hartog 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted abf «Cabale!» 11:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Unable to discern any educational value of this. Jujutacular talk 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Oxam Hartog 21:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Oxam Hartog 21:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a football club, taken from http://www.svdeheracliden.nl/. Bottom of that page shows that this site is copyright protected Miho (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree logo abf «Cabale!» 11:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Company logo of some sort. likely copyrighted. no reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. It was just used for a now-deleted advertisement page. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant adwertisement only, far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Unfortunately "permission to use this on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons" is not enough, copyright-wise here. Please have the sculptor email
permissions-commons, saying something to the effect of this example release of rights. (Please also have the sculptor mention in the email the names of the images on Wikimedia Commons that this permission concerns). Note that, by doing this, he/she is allowing commercial usage and for others to make derivatives of his work. ←fetchcomms 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org- Thanks very much for your answer. I have informed the author. He should send the requested authorization to the email account you indicated quite shortly.--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Unfortunately "permission to use this on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons" is not enough, copyright-wise here. Please have the sculptor email
Keep - OTRS received --Sreejith K (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept OTRS ticket closed succesfully Ezarateesteban 12:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
suspicion of copyvio. Description probably refers to the Trust Fate group. If that's exact also this pic is derivate from the main page of the musical group (overlay image on the page http://www.trustfate.de/) Oxam Hartog 20:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Amada44 talk to me 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Poor description. Not enougth interesting to join Category:Circus tents. Not other uploads by this user. Oxam Hartog 21:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not a great picture. somehow I think that license is okay, so let's keep it. Amada44 talk to me 11:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept The OTRS ticket is ok Ezarateesteban 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Antenna5Rating.jpg :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not redundant: check the numbers, title, and usage on enwiki. Jujutacular talk 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Jujutacular russavia (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
poor pic Adleer (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Unless there is a better one, there's no reason to delete. (Except this photo would be out of scope.)--RE RILLKE Questions? 11:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per rillke russavia (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
not PD-art: 3D object, we have many other better photos for it anyway (see Category:Old Babylonian period Queen of Night relief) Zolo (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kurwenal1978, Wikimedia Commons has an OTRS ticket system that is used to confirm the copyright permissions. MKFI (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of a recently created 3D work of art. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This photo (and all other photos of this sculptor's work uploaded by me) has been provided to me directly by the sculptor upon my request. I clearly explained to the author that the intended use was publishing them on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. Do you need any further information regarding rights?--Kurwenal1978 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw Request. OTRS permission recieved. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
source not compatible with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
source not compatible with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
source not compatible with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
source not compatible with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
source not compatible with licence, possibly copyvio Havang(nl) (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a non-free image. See the stock photo used as a base at http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2358525-three-bottles-of-wine.php – Adrignola talk 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
a satirical photo montage with not given sources. I really doubt the correct license (see the faked camera names the flickr user provides in the meta data top right corner, profile and other pics). → Commons:Flickr_washing by a flickr fun user. Saibo (Δ) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 21:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Trycatch (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replaced with newer File:Fulda_MN_Water_Tower.jpg 134.84.146.34 03:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We generally don't delete older images, particularly as this one appears to be an different color. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination by uploader. Image source is gone. No authur, date source. Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The image has OTRS permission, but the image has a poster inside it and thus might make it a derivative work. However, it can also be considered as de minimis also since there is a certain amount of creativity involved. Opening a DR to reach consensus on this. Sreejith K (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm not familiar with the fundamental rules regarding this, although a look at the definition of de minimis gives me some idea. As such all I can do is apply general principles and join the discussion once the issues have been fleshed out by mods. As the painting was taken and modified as part of a protest against increased student fees under the leadership of the VC whose image was part of the picture I would argue that it is a fundamental part of the picture (notwithstanding my comprehension of de minimis), however I'd also argue that as such it represents the coverage of the issue in a fundamental and intractable way - the issue was a protest against student fees, the capping stunt was from my understanding orchestrated as part of this, and thus this appears to be consistent with both the meaning of the page, and with my understanding of the free license. I wouldn't quite like to equate a small capping stunt with the 2003 Iraq War, but as a basic principle would permission from Saddam Hussein be required to use a public domain photograph of his statue being felled - the principal seems the same, albeit in a much, much reduced form? Philo-sofa (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted You've made a good argument for fair use of the image on WP:EN, but we do not accept fair use arguments here on Commons. The image infringes the copyright of the artist who made the painting. Without his or her permission, we cannot keep it here.
Your Saddam Hussein example does not have it quite right -- it is not Saddam's permission that might be required, but that of the sculptor. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a pic from Iran, it is taken somewhere in Germany (1947) 92.230.86.83 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
even though it's published on a NIH website, the image seems to be taken from a scientific paper which got it from "Ross et al. 1995.".. Eug (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention that it has mistakes - e.g. the bile canaliculus is labelled as a sinusoid and the colours aren't good. Eug (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Family photo from Germany, still copyrighted there 92.230.86.83 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
http://gov.gov.md/ is onder copyright, (2008© Cancelaria de Stat a Republicii Moldova) Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be the work of a state Departement of Education, not federal, and so is not PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. The monument built not so long ago. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an official logo of the institute thus can't be release as free media. Bill william compton (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Files coming from the same source added later by Nakor as they have the same potential issue
- File:Marine Le Pen - Woods.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Walking 1.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Walking 2.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Doorway.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Doorway Close-up.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Sky Background.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen Palais des Sports 2007.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - White Background.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Close-up 1.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Close-up 2.jpg
non-obvious copyvio issues Touriste (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This file was a few minutes ago proposed for "speedy deletion". I fear it might be a bit too tricky for such a speedy decision (though I am not completely sure, indeed).
The original uploader filled the "permission" field of the file page with an OTRS-pending template. As I visit the webpage whence the picture comes, that is [1], I read on this page "Vous pouvez télécharger ci-dessous des photos haute résolution libres de droits de la nouvelle Présidente du FN", (You can download from this page high resolution free pictures of the new president of FN). Since this is the official site of an important political party, this information seems secure enough to me to guarantee this picture has been released into public domain. This deletion request, following a speedy deletion request, will allow to get sure (and to modify the page as necessary if we keep the picture). Touriste (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete, no clear mention of the license under which the photo is released. We cannot assume that "libre de droits" means PD or any other thing. Moreover, the owner of the website was contacted and apparently never responded back. See fr:Discussion:Marine_Le_Pen/archive1#Images_de_la_page (in French) for more details. Nakor (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader wrote that a license was coming through OTRS but it has not come after almost 2 months. Commons cannot indefinitely keep unauthorized images. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, File:Marine Le Pen Palais des Sports 2007.jpg has been uploaded by Assalit and the remainings have been uploaded by myself. I sent an OTRS to marine.lepen at frontnational.com on 17 January, tried again on 31 January and on 10 March, still no response as of today. I suppose their email box is overflooded. Maybe someone (French speaker of course) should try to directly call them? Regards, Od1n (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I sent an email today in French to the party and received this answer: "qui vous a fait cette demande de retrait ? cette photo est libre de droit.(voir site fn)" which means "who asked to remove the picture? this picture is "free of rights" (libre de droits)". Thus the party gave the authorization to use this picture in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.225.184.196 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep : I see no need to remove these pictures since the publisher clearly states that they are free of rights, with no exceptions listed anywhere, which means, of course, that they are also freely redistributable. And yes, "libre de droits" has a very clear legal meaning in France, at least as clear as a licence notice would be : it means that the copyright owner keeps his copyrights intact (because, under the French law, he cannot give up on them completely) but allows anyone to use his work for free and for any kind of use. This kind of notice is commonly used in France, for both pictures and texts, and never was considered as "not clear" or "insufficient" by a tribunal, at least to this day. As a conclusion, I see no need for clarification where the legal status of a picture is made perfectly clear by its publisher. Alchemica (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I tend towards to agree with this statement, however, under which license should we publish the pictures then? Od1n (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, as a native french speaker I would say that we can assume safely that "li bres de droits" is a very clear statement that this picture can be used legally provided the usual legal restrictions (droit à l'image etc.). This would be a kind of WTF public license isn't it ?--Sylvain2803 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I suggest we do something similar to the licensing of File:Hedgehog-en.jpg, like {{PD-because|the author provided the image "for free use" on the source site.}}. Please note in France it is not feasible for one to release its work in the public domain so the applied statement is "The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law", which is really clear enough. Od1n (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
- File:Marine Le Pen - Chess.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Woods.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Walking 1.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Walking 2.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Doorway.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Doorway Close-up.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Sky Background.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen Palais des Sports 2007.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - White Background.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Close-up 1.jpg
- File:Marine Le Pen - Close-up 2.jpg
Renominating because there has been a misinterpretation/mistranslation of the term libre de droits; it doesn't mean public domain of free of copyright, but rather royalty free (see fr:libre de droits). So these images are only free in the sense that you don't have to pay to use them, but that's pretty much it; you can't modify them, sell them, etc. Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If these files are deleted, this derivative work should be deleted too: File:Marine Le Pen - cropped.jpg. Prof. Professorson (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. As far as I can tell, Commons never received the requested OTRS clarification about the status of those photos. If anything, there was a de facto clarification in the fact that they removed those photos from their website (where the source pages mentioned on the Commons description pages are not available anymore) and transferred some of them to their Flickr account, where they are now under a notice "all rights reserved". Some other photos were simply removed and didn't even make it to their Flickr account. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep(changed my vote, see below). See Alchemica's message above for more explanations, which I fully agree with. About the flickr account, I think that's nothing more than laziness of the publisher. Od1n (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete. I couldn't find back the original publishing article on frontnational.com, even using archive.org. So we just can't keep the pictures as we really need a proof of the rights release. Od1n (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Kyro (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No Permission MB-one (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: ©2011 Capitol Records on source page Mbdortmund (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
same File:Chromium Logo.svg shizhao (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep First, we don't know how old are the buildings, but anyway it's a case of de minimis for me... it's a seascape (or a beachscape if you prefer?). A lot of sea, a lot of sky, a beach... and far away, some buildings ^^ is this mister "dura lex"?
Jeriby (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T12:54:00.000Z-File:Pont-st-esprit-citadelle-2.jpg){kind=link}
-N-Acetylglutamic_acid.svg){kind=link}
-N-Acetylglutamic_acid.svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T12:57:00.000Z-File:Pont-st-esprit-pan-maldito.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T12:58:00.000Z-File:Pont-st-esprit-citadelle.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T12:59:00.000Z-File:Gargantua.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T13:00:00.000Z-File:Tricastin.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-03-10T13:00:00.000Z-File:Pierrelatte-escudo.JPG){kind=link}
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
suspicion of copyvio http://ceemup.blogspot.com/ nothing on this blog about free contents Oxam Hartog 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of this image no longer wish to have it appear online. 24.141.13.222 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep XV HTV 1352 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sam Gamdschie (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is a nice image and in use in several places. The license is irrevocable, therefore, kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be copyvio. A similar version of this image can be found on: http://sport.be.msn.com/runningtour/brusselsmarathon/2010/nl/parcours/ ErikvanB (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep For me a case of de minimis. It's a cityscape, the tower is not the main subject (even not depicted at the center of the pic). Jeriby (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It can't be de minimis if we name it in the title and use it to illustrate that building on Wikipedia articles (w:fr:Europacentrum and w:nl:Europacentrum).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just like File:Tour_montparnasse_view_arc.jpg is named Tour Montparnasse and illustrates w:fr:Tour Montparnasse, then what can we do? Renaming this Oostende file, or starting a deletion request for the Tour Montparnasse file also? Jeriby (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Renaming won't do any good; if we're using it to display the building, it's clearly not de minimis. I don't care about other examples. It's w:WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just like File:Tour_montparnasse_view_arc.jpg is named Tour Montparnasse and illustrates w:fr:Tour Montparnasse, then what can we do? Renaming this Oostende file, or starting a deletion request for the Tour Montparnasse file also? Jeriby (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just another straight building, all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis. The tower is depicted in the background, and not entirely. Jeriby (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
doesn't work properly 129.31.18.83 10:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see problems Jcb (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Suspect not own work -- border, no exif, other actions of uploader. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Suspect not own work -- border, no EXIF, other uploader work Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Armstrong Savannah
[edit]- File:Alum wiki.jpg
- File:Campus life 2 wiki.jpg
- File:Campus life wiki.jpg
- File:BEACH wiki.jpg
- File:Location wiki.jpg
- File:Robot wiki.jpg
- File:Art wiki.jpg
- File:Micro wiki.jpg
- File:Edu coe wiki.jpg
The list of images fail a number of Commons:Project scope. They were uploaded by a user with a very strong connection to the Armstrong Atlantic State University article on Wikipedia. They are part of a private university connection advertising and promotional in nature and removed at the start of an extensive POV and neutrality rewrite of the article. --Bhockey10 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an Armenian map showing the Empite of Tigranes the Greate. However it is a very unscientific/nationalistic motivated map with no historical value. Therefore please delete it. It is by the way not used in any wikipedia-article.--Vacio (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep We generally do not take sides in this sort of discussion. The nom is free to hang a {{Fact}} tag on it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
An apparently professionally produced map with no copyright information Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It used to be tagged with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. That being said, no source is given for the map data, so delete. –Tryphon☂ 10:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikely the map is the uploaders creation - e.g. the sign top-left indicates and the overall quality of the uploads by this user suggest this. Also other uploads are questionable, e.g. photographs of coins grabbed from the internet. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, I say we delete this map, besides it doesn't show the source, the map's quality isn't so good, the Armenian description can't be seen, I have a better version of a similar map, which I would upload I think in a week or two.--Aram-van (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking proper source and copyright information. File:Armenian Empire2.png and File:Armenian Empire3.png, which are both unused and based on this map, also should be deleted (again, no source is offered for the map data). Black Falcon (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Pictures of that Christina B.
[edit]- File:Christina B public nudity.jpg
- File:Christina B public nudity2.jpg
- File:Christina B public nudity3.jpg
- File:Christina B public nudity4.jpg
- File:Christina B sitting nude on bed.jpg
- File:Christina B fingering.jpg
- File:Christina B finger masturbation2.jpg
- File:Christina B nude on public road.jpg
- File:Christina B topless in Downtown Hayward.jpg
- File:Christina flashing boobs.jpg
All those Christina B. pictures have in common three problems, that qualifies them for deletion:
- The FlickR uploader has vanished, so the license question is on debate (with more and more FlickR-washing is evident, FlickR is NOT automatically thrustworthy)
- We donna know anything about personal rights, does that person know or want to be shown (COM:PEOPLE)?
- Out of scope: In my opinion, all those "Christina B"-pictures are useless for an encyclopedia. What is the educational purpose? Why does commons need those pictures at all costs? What exactly can we learn about those "Look, I am nude in the public" (?) pictures? (Exception: File:Christina_B_fingering.jpg) --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
On hold ... useless to discuss the same thing twice. → Discuss at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Christina_B_finger_masturbation.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 19:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the uploader at flickr is not listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users as one could think based on Yikrazuul's comment ... --Saibo (Δ) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Flickr license is not in question. The fact they are vanished has no bearing whatsoever on the license -- it is just as easy to prove a flickrwash as it was before. When claiming that on a mass deletion, you should at least find *some* of them elsewhere. In this case, they are similarish amateur pictures taken with the same camera -- very likely Flickr was the original source.
- Personality rights are not a reason for deletion; they are only relevant in an advertising context, really. Most of these seem to have been taken in public, so privacy rights are a little dubious too (though a couple are indoors). If there was a request from the person themselves though I'd say differently.
- I can agree here. This is just a series of personal photos of someone random; the only thing out of the ordinary is the lack of clothes. I'm not sure that makes them educational in and of themselves for the most part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say Keep for several reasons. For points 1 and 2, I agree with Carl Lindberg (see above) and for point 2 I'd add that the (former) Flickr user claimed to be the model herself so if we have no reason not to trust her (is there any valid argument ?) then that means that she agreed to show and release her pictures. As for the usefulness, I'm sick of repeating that nudity, eroticism and sexuality are encyclopedical subjects of knowledge or sociology or anything. And unused doesn't mean useless (for any subject on Commons, we have a variety of choice because it would be a nonsense to add the information "you can find more on Commons" on Wikipedia articles if the reader would find only the pictures used in the article he read !!!). But I can change my mind if anyone brings a clever and objective argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would say: Again, you just have your assumptions for points 1 2, so no proof as for the license and COM:PEOPLE. For point 3 you haven't given any arguments, too, but just claiming something like "sexuality are encyclopedical subjects of knowledge or sociology" which is your personal POV and does not relate to any of my concerns.
- Taken together: Commons is not a database for pictures of questionable licence and more than questionable scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- On Commons there's also a "assume good faith" rule so it applies if we don't have clear reasons to question points 1 and 2 (wihich is the case here). As for point 3, I'm just always surprised to see how people lose their objectivity in terms of usefulness and/or quality when it concerns nudity or sexuality. Strangely, there's never (or almost never) such a debat on other types of pictures. Be objective ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Klick. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, do you think you respect what a debate should be by saying your opponents have no arguments while you have none yourself ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, have you i.e. given hard facts about point 1 or 2? Or have you given any plausible reasons why those pictures are educational? Instead, I read all the time something about "censorship", assumptions or accusations etc.pp. "Want to because I like it" is not an argument. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think I did, yes, and I would be happy to develop. BUT from the beginning of this DR, I must say I have the feeling you don't try hard to read/understand other people's arguments AND you kind of annihilate any debate (behaviour which led me to my previous censored comment) by 1) claiming people have no argument, 2) not bringing any developped argument yourself ("it's not educational"... well, it's a little short, isn't it ?). So, as I said, I'd be happy to (re-)develop my POV but I want to be sure I don't lose my time for nothing ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- From longer time ago I have the impression that you are uploading pictures from FlickR without any educcational purpose. Noone it this or other related discussions have ever tried to demonstrate the putative scope.
- I strongly think that commons should not be abused as free web space, don't you agreee? Hence, if I have concerns about the scope and the license, you have to adress those issues, which would be no problem if e.g. there would be a clear scope. And exactly what arguments, facts and whatsoever have been presented ((former) Flickr user claimed is nowawsys NOTHING WORTH) for keeping it? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, take all the files I uploaded (that that) and I dare you tell me the proportion of files you consider useless (I won't ask you to be objective because I'm not sure you're able to when I read all what you dare writing).
- But you know what ? I'm giving up ! After years on Commons, I'm sick to see people like you who try to bring censorship without admitting it. Because (let's keep COM:PEOPLE and licences apart because it's another matter) I've never never never read any objective argument explaining why nudity and sexuality were not deserving encylopedical and/or encyclopedic treatments (apart from being stuck to a "traditional/religious" POV that has nothing to do on a neutral project such as Commons), nor why those subjects were not deserving a variety of choice in terms of illustrations on Commons while "normal" subjects had that opportunity. So I'm sick of repeating things for nothing and having deaf opponents. I'm sick of wasting my time. Ciao. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think I did, yes, and I would be happy to develop. BUT from the beginning of this DR, I must say I have the feeling you don't try hard to read/understand other people's arguments AND you kind of annihilate any debate (behaviour which led me to my previous censored comment) by 1) claiming people have no argument, 2) not bringing any developped argument yourself ("it's not educational"... well, it's a little short, isn't it ?). So, as I said, I'd be happy to (re-)develop my POV but I want to be sure I don't lose my time for nothing ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, have you i.e. given hard facts about point 1 or 2? Or have you given any plausible reasons why those pictures are educational? Instead, I read all the time something about "censorship", assumptions or accusations etc.pp. "Want to because I like it" is not an argument. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, do you think you respect what a debate should be by saying your opponents have no arguments while you have none yourself ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Klick. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- On Commons there's also a "assume good faith" rule so it applies if we don't have clear reasons to question points 1 and 2 (wihich is the case here). As for point 3, I'm just always surprised to see how people lose their objectivity in terms of usefulness and/or quality when it concerns nudity or sexuality. Strangely, there's never (or almost never) such a debat on other types of pictures. Be objective ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Christina_B_finger_masturbation.jpg. Yikrazuul is trying everything to censor Commons. --Saibo (Δ) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your wrong personal opinion does not reflect others' opionions about questionable pictures. Again, you are not argumenting, but insulting people that think critical. So you are censoring. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no educational use, out of scope. Personal photos of oneself and of friends taken from someones personal photo album, nothing that worth inclusion in our project. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Question someone else want to fork Commons to a uncensored version? Unbelievable what's going on here ... --Saibo (Δ) 13:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I do have to question what educational value these images have. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- What ed. value does e.g. File:FriedhofSeckbach1.jpg have? ... --Saibo (Δ) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- No thematic response to the question, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for these files' existence. Please explain why THESE files are educational. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please have a look to the bottom of the files' pages? Right - categories. Do you really want me to nominate the picture I meantioned for deletion and quote you? I would like to not do it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- What ed. value does e.g. File:FriedhofSeckbach1.jpg have? ... --Saibo (Δ) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't see any educational value - Jcb (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, planes in the dark are much more educational than humans ... ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No thematic response to the question, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No thematic response to the question, as usual. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, planes in the dark are much more educational than humans ... ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep nah, let the censor guys fork off their own project. It's in scope. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh - sure - that is the better way round! --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not useful, out of scope --Tia solzago (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any of these that require consent documentation according to US pornography law should certainly be deleted because the deleted Flickr-account means that we no longer have a chain-of-connection to the "publisher", so we have inadvertently become a "secondary publisher". I suspect this particular concern only applies to File:Christina_B_fingering.jpg. --99of9 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this should be valid then we need to forbid flickr uploads to Commons of such pictures which US americans call porn and apply their crazy 2217 law (aka against humans law). It is not Commons aim to only keep pictures as long as they are on flickr. --Saibo (Δ) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not Commons aim to only keep pictures with a questionalbe scope and a questionalbe license regardless there are from flickr or not. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes Saibo, I think that would be a good step to ensure we don't get images that we won't be able to keep. Obviously Commons must obey US law, no matter what you think of that law. --99of9 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- (disclaimer: there may be irony in my previous cmt) We currently do not obey US law in thousands of cases. If required to obey WMF should set up new servers in a country which is less censored and has more compatible copyright laws with European works. --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever! But wait a minute: you refer to FlickR? --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "if". Commons is required to follow US law. If you want to lobby the Foundation to move, go ahead, but until then, we are required to follow the law. Please nominate the "thousands of cases" for deletion. Personally I have not come across them or I already would have nominated them. --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, all copyvios (many e.g. in the "files needing categorizations") do not obey US law, all in Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S., and many PD-old-70 pictures which are not tagged as not complying URAA ... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- (disclaimer: there may be irony in my previous cmt) We currently do not obey US law in thousands of cases. If required to obey WMF should set up new servers in a country which is less censored and has more compatible copyright laws with European works. --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If this should be valid then we need to forbid flickr uploads to Commons of such pictures which US americans call porn and apply their crazy 2217 law (aka against humans law). It is not Commons aim to only keep pictures as long as they are on flickr. --Saibo (Δ) 21:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, I have no problems with pictures of nudity on the commons, but these look like low quality private shots, I can't see a possible use for an article of one of our Wikis and I have doubts concerning personality rights here. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not only the repo for WM wikis, is it? And even if it would be: they could illustrate exhibitionism. "COM:People? Sorry - someone who is dancing naked on the street and apparently has published the pictures in flickr? What use they have? The most obvious use is simply to illustrate "exhibitionism"." I at undel req. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where do you know that the Flickr uploader is the person on those pictures? --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't - but one could think: my comment at the undel req.: "The flickr account was named "Christina Madsen" so it could even be her real name." Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where do you know that the Flickr uploader is the person on those pictures? --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not only the repo for WM wikis, is it? And even if it would be: they could illustrate exhibitionism. "COM:People? Sorry - someone who is dancing naked on the street and apparently has published the pictures in flickr? What use they have? The most obvious use is simply to illustrate "exhibitionism"." I at undel req. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Martin H.:s explanation plus SPAM, poss personal PROMO (or otherwise malicious defamation, no valid ownership provided, COM:PRP extra important on such images), not usable for educational purposes. By the way not valid porn. Rursus (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Nudity doesn't mean porn. Learn differences. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above: Low quality images with a doubtful license. --32X (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Thetamilmms
[edit]Special:Contributions/Thetamilmms
- File:Actor kadhal sugumar in uzhaikum paathai.jpg
- File:Actor Mano & Actor Sugumar in MM4.JPG
- File:Actor Mano & Rajinikanth.JPG
- File:Actor Mano ( Deepavali Round ).JPG
- File:Actor Mano ( tamil ) and Rajini.jpg
- File:Actor Mano 1.JPG
- File:Actor Mano 3.JPG
- File:Actor mano 5.jpg
- File:Actor Mano and actress aswetha in Puzhal.jpg
- File:Actor Mano still.JPG
- File:Actor Mano with Rajinikanth.JPG
- File:Actor Mano.jpg
- File:Actor mano.jpg
- File:Actor Mano.JPG
- File:Actor sugumar .jpg
- File:Actor Sugumar Actor Mano & Actress Kushboo .JPG
- File:Actor Sugumar in Uzhaikum paathai.jpg
- File:Actor sugumar.jpg
- File:Actor Sugumar's Wallpaper.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar 2.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar 5.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar in uzhaikum paathai.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar in Veeran Maaran.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar photos.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar still.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sugumar.jpg
- File:Kaadhal Sukumar.jpg
- File:Kadhal Sugumar in UK.jpg
- File:Kadhal Sugumar in Uzhaikum paathai.jpg
- File:Kadhal Sugumar in Veeran Maaran .jpg
- File:Kadhal Sugumar in Veeran Maaran.jpg
- File:Kadhal sugumar's wallpaper.jpg
- File:Kadhal sukumar.jpg
- File:London mappilai with Kaadhal sugumar.jpg
- File:Mano ( Actor ).jpg
- File:Mano (Actor).JPG
- File:Mano and Neepa .JPG
- File:Mano and Neepa in MM4.jpg
- File:Mano, Namitha & Sugumar.JPG
- File:Mano's Dance.JPG
- File:Naanum en Kaadhalum.jpg
- File:Naanum en kadhalum fight.jpg
- File:Sandy & Mano in MM4.jpg
- File:Soundarya and Mano in MM4.JPG
- File:Sugkumar.jpg
- File:Sugumar & Mano in MM4.JPG
- File:Sugumar & Namitha.jpg
- File:Sugumar in Ramanathapuram audio lunch.jpg
- File:Sugumar in Uzhaikum paathai.jpg
- File:Sukumar in Naanum en Kaadhalum.jpg
- File:Tamil actor Mano 2.jpg
- File:Tamil actor Mano 3.JPG
- File:Tamil Actor Mano 4.JPG
- File:Tamil actor Mano in MM4.JPG
- File:Tamil Actor Mano.JPG
- File:Tamil actor Mano.jpg
- File:Tamil Actor mano.jpg
- File:Tamil actor Sugumar.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Rajini.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Per copyright concerns on the administrators noticeboard(User_problems#User:Thetamilmms). --MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete all as likely copyvios, failing some convincing reaction and explanation by the uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all as per fut.perf. Jujutacular talk 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader's only response to this discussion is to continue uploading new photos from a range of different cameras. (Consequently, all uploads by the user should be deleted – not just the ones listed above, but also subsequent uploads.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Even as I was nuking all of his uploads, he uploaded another copyvio. All gone, warned. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
no author given - so template:pd-old-70 is not possible for this date. Saibo (Δ) 03:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops. I couldn't find any alternate versions of the same picture with clear author information. I replaced the image on the one Wikipedia page that was using it, so it can be deleted. --Gribeco (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted MBisanz talk 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
DW of billboard. Czech rule requires a permanent installation and "should be interpreted rather restrictively". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted MBisanz talk 02:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"Libre de droit" is not free content but similar but something like royalty-free. No permission. Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Source unclear and no evidence that the image was ever free or that the WP user could offer it under that license. Many other uploads by the user on WP seem poorly sourced and strangely licensed. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted MBisanz talk 02:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
