Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/04/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
derived from File:Parroquias_Urbanas_de_Quito.jpg 78.55.165.182 08:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missed this. Martin H. (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
misnamed duplicate of File:Jeanie Deans cottage.jpg Finavon (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused exact duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Seems to be a test. The file is not in use and I see no future use. Taketa (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope. --Javier ME (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Just a test upload. Unusable in project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
yttrreeer 94.78.182.172 15:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Unmotivated. --Javier ME (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)- Keep Unmotivated, used. -Aleator (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Incorrect DR George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Small size, professional looking photo. Uploader has poor record of copyvios. SV1XV (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 07:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Here you can find the same photograph on the internet http://www.noticias.com.ve/346/francisco-arias-cardenas-llama-asesino-a-hugo-chavez/ . Is this possible to launch it here as well with this license? A.Ceta (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 07:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- August von Werder.jpg.png Recently created redirects, unlikely to be used; Innotata has also indicated in pagehistory that someone looking for Bernhard franz wilhelm von werder would instead get August von Werder, so the redirects would be misleading. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright: If subject is the copyright holder, then there's no evidence of permission that he allowed to license under the currently stated license. --ZooFari 04:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder information has already been emailed --User talk:Canbrit01 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete Note also that the description claims that Steve Kent is the copyright holder. That is very unlikely, as he is the subject. As far as we know, the uploader is neither one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder is the person who owns the rights to the image, Steve Kent, who has sent in GNU Free Documentation License permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Feb 28, 2011. I suggest this is checked before deletion. User talk:Canbrit01
Deleted: Speedy closed -- this image was deleted as File:Steve kent MHA.jpg.. Uploader must use Commons:Undeletion requests, not simply upload again Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Constant removal of the no permission template by the uploader and an IP. Uploader claims to have permission but fails to send it to OTRS. Denniss (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Small size, no exif, professional look. Uploader has a bad record of copyvios. SV1XV (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope, personality right violation Banfield - Amenazas aquí 03:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Global usage is nil, encyclopedic value is nil, commons is not a photo hosting site. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed with Sven, but it would have gone away anyway for not having copyright status. Courcelles (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Schwankopf.jpg F. F. Fjodor (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to change the name .. I re-upload under a different name so please erase this one. Thank you Clapsus (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Common Good. --ZooFari 01:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Seems to be a test. The file is not in use and I see no future use. Taketa (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This is more than a text logo. it's not just simple geometric shapes and text. Therefor not in PD. Ronn (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Websense logo.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:Websense logo.png. --ZooFari 01:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
really likely a copyvio, but I'm not sure enough for a speedy request. Grand-Duc (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No license for more than seven days. --ZooFari 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Really lilely a copyvio or an unlegititame derivative work, but I'm not sure enough for a speedy request. Grand-Duc (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No license for more than seven days. --ZooFari 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Too smal for use, out of project scope and high-probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Too smal for use, out of project scope and high-probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Adwertisement, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Adwertisement, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Far out of project scope animated avatar. Without any EV, unusable George Chernilevsky talk 17:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Potentially unfree. --ZooFari 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal logo. Without any EV, unusable George Chernilevsky talk 17:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal logo or avatar. Without any EV, unusable George Chernilevsky talk 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Potentially unfree. --ZooFari 00:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo. Self-promotional adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo. Self-promotional adwertisement George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
non free image, exact copy of File:JanKazimierzII.jpg BurgererSF (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate and correct information at File:JanKazimierzII.jpg. --ZooFari 00:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope private drawing George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope drawing without EV George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope and useless drawing George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Presumably copyrighted poster, apparently photogrphed by a passerby. Need evidence that the uploader has the right to license this as {{Cc-by-3.0}} Dbratland (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator. --ZooFari 00:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No or wrong CC license..commercial use prohibited D.W. (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same problem:
- File:Nature05357-f5.2.jpg
- File:Nature05357-f4.2.jpg
- File:The surviving fragments of the Antikythera Mechanism.jpg
- File:Inscriptions from the Metonic and Olympiad Dial .jpg
- File:Antikythera Mechanism - remnants of an instruction manual.jpg
--D.W. (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all. License given in the text is clearly CC-BY-NC, which isn't acceptable here. Courcelles (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Why? First you must differentiate between the two license givers, one from "Nature" and one from "The Antikythera Research Projekt".
You can read the "Nature License Policy" under: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html
There you can read under the section "Creative Commons licence":
In December 2007, NPG introduced the Creative Commons attribution-non commercial-share alike unported licence for those articles in Nature journals that are publishing the primary sequence of an organism's genome for the first time. In summary, under this type of licence, readers are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit) and remix (adapt) the contribution under these conditions: attribution in the manner specified by the author or licenser; non-commercial —readers and users cannot re-use the material for commercial purposes; and share alike — if readers or other users alter, transform or build upon the work, they may distribute this work only under the same or similar licence to this one. Further details of the licence and of the legal code are available.
A Nature Editorial introducing this service can be read here: comments are welcome at Nautilus, our author blog.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
This affects:
- File:Nature05357-f5.2.jpg
- File:Nature05357-f4.2.jpg
- File:The surviving fragments of the Antikythera Mechanism.jpg
- File:Inscriptions from the Metonic and Olympiad Dial .jpg
- File:Antikythera Mechanism - remnants of an instruction manual.jpg
--MBelzer (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The second license giver is the the "Antikythera Research Projekt".
You can read the "Antikythera Research Projekt License Policy" under: http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/terms-of-use
There you can read under the section "3. Permitted Uses":
The Antikythera Mechanism Research Project is committed to placing the information on this website in the public domain so as to support the international scientific community in furthering knowledge about the Antikythera Mechanism. Therefore, you are encouraged to access, read, use and download the Content placed on the Website for personal, educational, research, public non-commercial use and for not-for-profit use only. Use of the password-protected areas of the Website and authorized users are subject to additional terms and conditions. Users must recognize the intellectual property rights related to any of the documents, images or other content on the website by i) acknowledging the authors or copyright holders and second ii) by referencing the AMRP.
This affects: File:Radiograph_of_Fragment_A_of_the_Antikythera_Mechanism.jpg --MBelzer (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please read and try to understand Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses...commercial use must be allowed!--D.W. (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- What is the commercial use of Wikipedia? Print?--MBelzer (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, you did´nt read it..or still don´t understand it..hilft dir es in deutsch? Commons:Lizenzen!--D.W. (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- What is the commercial use of Wikipedia? Print?--MBelzer (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please read and try to understand Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses...commercial use must be allowed!--D.W. (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Creative Commons NonCommercial is a real license, but it is not allowed on the Wikimedia Commons project. Commons:Licensing. --ZooFari 01:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Too smal for use and out of project scope portrait George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Far out of project scope unused animated logo / avatar George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Adwertisement, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Potentially unfree. --ZooFari 01:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope a gamers clan logo George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Possibly unfree. --ZooFari 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope (text only) George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope (text only) George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope (text only) George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope and probably copyvio screenshot George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Foot009.jpg Bruno228 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Bad out-of-scope picture. --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Foot008.jpg Bruno228 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Bad out-of-scope picture. --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. 84.62.193.214 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep incidental inclusion. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not the main subject of the picture, case of COM:DM— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeriby (talk • contribs)
Kept: Per Commons:De minimis. --ZooFari 01:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
taken from the internet - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No google results; non-notable. --ZooFari 01:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused advertisement for a band ((??!!)) - not sure where the value for the commons should be Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I would crop it to the donkey, but TinEye logs the image in several websites. --ZooFari 01:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation - taken from a (recent) book cover Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. --ZooFari 01:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of this image and feel that it should be deleted. I do not like the map because it presents too small of a group. Other maps of ethnic groups in Kosovo at least show a group of a significant size that is distrubted throughout Kosovo. This map however only shows a tiny minority, with only several poligons colored. Lilic (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Túrelio --ZooFari 01:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a logo which can't be a free image to upload here on Commons, please use "non-free use rationale" of Wikipedia. Bill william comptonTalk 22:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Se trata de un logotipo que no puede ser un medio libre de subir aquí en Commons, gracias Bill william comptonTalk 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Logos are usually unfree. --ZooFari 01:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this is out of scope, with no educational value —innotata 22:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, as caption below image on Flickr source clearly states "Photo by Getty Images for adidas". CC-BY-licensing on Flickr is highly dubious. --Túrelio (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission from claimed author Getty Images. --ZooFari 01:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, as caption below image on Flickr source clearly states "Photo by Getty Images for adidas". CC-BY-SA-licensing on Flickr is highly dubious. --Túrelio (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission from claimed author Getty Images. --ZooFari 01:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No license Bill william comptonTalk 22:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The uploader states he does not know the date, source, or author of the image. How, then, does he know it's under a Creative Commons license? The image is located at http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Carmine_Appice.html, although there is no explicit copyright notice at that page. C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that this has been released under a CC license. Jujutacular talk 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, a bizarre claim that nothing is known about the image other than it's copyright status, which requires attribution, but doesn't know who to give attribution to! -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
not a work of the United States Federal Government 78.50.128.244 05:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No evidence that this is a US govt work. Jujutacular talk 08:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's commercial promo photo. ShinePhantom (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- speedy delete, quite clear copyvio. For the record, although the file comes from blogspot, it's a real trademark from Ukraine [1]. NVO (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Lymantria (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
created in 1999 by an artist dead in 2004, so not free Asavaa (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyrighted character. Javier ME (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, per nom. Jujutacular talk 07:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, work and distorted depiction of non-notable artist, used in articles nominated for speedy deletion on EN-WP due to notability issues. Grand-Duc (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused and undefined personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope unused personal photo George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Too smal for use, out of project scope and high-probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I cannot believe that these photographs were taken by the uploader. Maybe he made the collage. Why are the images so small? Why the small resolution? Maybe taken from the internet I think A.Ceta (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source information about individual images. --ZooFari 03:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
derivative image - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
unused advertisement of an unknown band - out of scope, advertisement Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 03:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Name wrong erfgoedfotografie 06:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- {{Speedy}} because Duplicate|File:Zorgvlied-Obadjakapeln.jpg--Havang(nl) (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded it under the wrong name. Huaiwei (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Informed user on their talkpage about renaming procedures. Taketa (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rename done, I suggest closing this request. Taketa (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Seems to be a test (essai is french for test). The file is not in use and I see no future use. Taketa (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
image was deleted from .en as copy of (per uploader Source tag) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kLvzpyZm7zM/TGeylnC37vI/AAAAAAAAU_Y/5odA6pzcu6E/s1600/actor_vijay_jos_alukkas_ad_wallpapers_posters.jpg which did not have valid license. Same uploader now claiming it's his own work and releasing under open license is not credible on its face and uploader also has history of copyvio uploads. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Further investigation, it's not the same image as uploaded to this name (from the above Source) to .en. I stand by the serial-license-abuser/non-credible source tagging of this current image at this name. en:User:SQGibbon has asserted in edit-summaries at en:Vijay (actor) that "image is likely a copy-vio" (before I nom'ed it here). DMacks (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I asserted that it's likely a copy-vio because it looks too much like a promotional image and without confirming that the person who claims it as their own work did actually produce it, I think we should be skeptical. I found the same image here but there was no copyright information for it. That site looks a little sketchy anyway but it looks like it had the image before Wikipedia did. None of this is compelling but I think there's enough here (with the points from DMacks above) to not extend any kind of a benefit of doubt. SQGibbon (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyright violation. See [2]. Standard theft from a web site claim as your own stuff. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --ZooFari 03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy to DR. The argument added by User:Tammygeo: The provided link does not verify the claimed license or date.
- Keep. The info about this art work can be verified by File:Queen Tamara the Great (Dowling, 1912).JPG, same art work from different source. {{PD-old}} by unknown/anonymous author counted from the date of publication. More then 70 years pased from the end of the 19 century or from 1912. Geagea (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That it is original research means that it's potential use anywhere is limited. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not original research (which is actually allowed here on Commons), appears to be a part of en:Joseph Renzulli's research on giftedness. Check out http://www.gigers.com/matthias/gifted/three_rings.html, although a simple chart would be much more useful than this strange depiction. Jujutacular talk 08:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: although it's strange to place something completely unrelated like E=MC2 in the image Jcb (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
the cosplayer (Kazumi) asked me for deleting this picture KazumiVIP (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use. --ZooFari 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree or out of scope. --ZooFari 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The Place has been shut down Wajihaq (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a valid deletion rationale. Someone could argue that the quality is not sufficient for educational purposes, it's hard to distinguish anything on this image, but I do not know if it's sufficient for a deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Possibly not free according to COM:FOP#France and Commons:Image_casebook#Vehicles, as the coloured design may be protected. Grand-Duc (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the design may be protected under French law, it consists only of color strips, so it does not meet the threshold of originality. --Rudloff (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Rudloff Jcb (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, version of File:Cecilia Renata by Danckers de Rij.jpg BurgererSF (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Higher resolution and used. Also, don't blank the description page when nominating for deletion. --ZooFari 00:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Not enough evidence for claiming this image (and many others from the same uploader under the same rationale) is in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and not criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the website of Magnum, the picture was taken in 1948 by Philippe Halsman, a Magnum photographer, for LIFE. So it is quite clearly not free and should be deleted. I didn't search the other pics uploaded by that person, but it is probably the same. Asavaa (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly not PD-US Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the license is {{PD-Australia}} and the pictures meets the conditions. MKFI (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair use image - title card or promo image of a TV show ~ NVO (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Not enough evidence for claiming this image (and many others from the same uploader under the same rationale) is in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and not criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untrustfull) rationale. Damiens.rf 06:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb 10:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Not enough evidence for believing the claim that these images (like many others from the same uploader, under the same rationale) are in the public domain. There's an original research rationale about how Publicity Images from this era are always PD, and no criteria is used to determine which images are really publicity images as described in the (untruthful) rationale. Damiens.rf 07:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with that rational is 1) that it is not specific for the file but for publicity shots in general - thats not enough evidence for the individual file and not enough for Commons 2) the inflationary use of this rational by this uploader also on files that have nothing to do with "publicity shots" but that are scans from magazines etc. --Martin H. (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by IP 83.78.180.229 for "this derivation is complitely unauthorized and a political motivated manipulation of the orginal photo. Please delete immediately! Dieter Schuh". --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Additional statement from the nominating IP, taken from File talk:Dieter Schuh Tibet.jpg:
- "This so called derivative of File:5462064 Dieter Schuh und tibetischer Frabrikant.jpg is not acceptable and constructed to change the meaning of the orginal in a political way. The original shows Dieter Schuh with a Tibetan businessmen, who can work only under the framework of chinese opressors, shown on the photo. To publish part of this photo without the political context ist a political motivated distruction of the original. I request to extinguish this unauthorized and misleading photo immediately. Dieter Schuh"
Comment Though there may be an editorial conflict at :de-Wikipedia behind this request, due to the strict personality rights laws in Germany IMHO we should yield to this request, if we are sufficiently sure that it was indeed filed by the depicted Dieter Schuh. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Please contact me under Profschuh@Tibetinstut.de. I am of course the person who submitted this request. Dieter Schuh
- Hallo Herr Schuh, es wäre zielführender, wenn Sie das Löschverlangen (formlos) per Email an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org schicken. Dann ist es quasi offiziell. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep Herr Schuh cannot have it both ways. If the original image is properly licensed on Commons, then all derivatives, including this one, are also OK by our rules. Since there appears to be no dispute about the larger image and the license is irrevocable, I am afraid there is no legal or moral reason why we should delete this.
Perhaps Herr Schuh should have considered the possibility that the original would be cropped before he gave it to Commons. Since he is a notable person, the cropping would be a logical thing for any of the WPs to do -- there is nothing political about it, just the natural desire to have an image of a notable person to illustrate the article about him.
Since this image was apparently taken in Tibet, although Herr Schuh may be a German national, the German personality rules do not apply -- only Tibet and USA laws apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- German personality laws, not "rules", do apply when this image is used on :de wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- DE.wiki is for German language, not for Germany. Also it's the responsability of DE.wiki people to decide if the find the image appropriate or not. Jcb 10:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded as CC-0, but immediately afterwards the uploader added "Non-commercial use only" [3]. You decide. ~ NVO (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Tagged CC-0 and "Non-commercial use only" (in Russian in permission field). You decide. ~ NVO (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same with File:Pl lenina rubtsovsk.jpg (+"no fop in Russia duralex"). NVO (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
uploader claims to be related to the actor or even the movie producer (see my talk page) but is using a Flickrwashing account to get the files uploaded here instead of sending permission to OTRS. Denniss (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) <<<<OTRS request sent>>>
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shiva_Thejus_Portfolio_shoot.jpg ].
I agree to publish that work under the free license [
Creative Commons Attribution v1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Attribution
].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [ 17thApril2011, Vishnu Tanay ]
- Now that a valid permission was sent to OTRS and accepted this DR could be closed. --Denniss (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:OTRS. Wknight94 talk 14:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This file was not uploaded by the author (see source) and therefore the license given at the file's page is invalid. Author (identity not verified) requested deletion at Commons:Help_desk#Verwendung_eines_urheberrechtlich_gesch.C3.BCtzten_bildes. Saibo (Δ) 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright: If subject is the copyright holder, then there's no evidence of permission that he allowed to license under the currently stated license. --ZooFari 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder information has already been emailed --User talk:Canbrit01 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Did Kent set up a tripod and take this picture himself? Because otherwise the copyright holder is whoever was holding the camera. Jujutacular talk 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder is the person who owns the rights to the image, Steve Kent, who has sent in GNU Free Documentation License permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Feb 28, 2011. I suggest this is checked before deletion. User talk:Canbrit01
- Ticket has been received 20 April and has not yet been completed. Let's give it some time. Jcb (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Stated to be a work for hire in ticket 2011042010010673. – Adrignola talk 13:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: permission had been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer Jcb (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright: If subject is the copyright holder, then there's no evidence of permission that he allowed to license under the currently stated license. OTRS pending is old. --ZooFari 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder information has already been emailed --User talk:Canbrit01 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder is the person who owns the rights to the image, Steve Kent, who has sent in GNU Free Documentation License permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Feb 28, 2011. I suggest this is checked before deletion. User talk:Canbrit01
- Ticket has been received 20 April and has not yet been completed. Let's give it some time. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Stated to be a work for hire in ticket 2011042010010673. – Adrignola talk 13:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: permission had been confirmed by an OTRS volunteer Jcb (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The photo is copyrighted by Scouts Canada and not by Mr. Kent therefore it is a violation. Aaaccc (talk), 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright: If subject is the copyright holder, then there's no evidence of permission that he allowed to license under the currently stated license. --ZooFari 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder information has already been emailed --User talk:Canbrit01 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Closed early as delete. This image was previously deleted as shown above and did not go through an undeletion request. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
They appear to be professionally created (particularly the first and third ones) rather than having been taken by the uploader; the third one claims a source of "club 25.25", but also claims the uploader is the copyright holder; the uploader made no other edits except to upload these three images, either before or since. All of this makes me suspect that they therefore have no valid license. JesseW (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
According to de:Datei:Orgel stludwig.jpg its not clearly own work but copied from http://www.sankt-ludwig.de/orgel. The so called Dateiprüfung is in progress on de: Mabe we'll get an OTRS-Permission JuTa (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
no authorization for derivative works, only "professional" uses allowed (would this authorization allow commercial use? who knows) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Publication information is not certain, so it may not be PD-Aus or PD-US Sarastro1 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Publication information is not certain, so it may not be PD-Aus or PD-US Sarastro1 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Cover of a novel, can't be uploaded here on Commons. Please use "non-free use rationale" of Wikipedia, Thanks Bill william comptonTalk 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- We have received an OTRS ticket for this image but it doesn't give a specific free license, we wait for it a few days more. Ezarateesteban 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: for now, we didn't receive further response Jcb (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)