Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
copyvio [1] Kattenkruid (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Falsch importiert, wird nochmal neu gemacht. Der Buckesfelder Talk Evaluation E-Mail 17:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anschließend bitte File:Lüdenscheider_Nachrichten_Logo (1).svg hierher verschieben. --Der Buckesfelder Talk Evaluation E-Mail 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Next Time: {{Duplicate}} or/and {{Rename}} -- RE rillke questions? 11:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand what the problem is. I took the photo myself, and have released it into the 'Public domain' because it is a free image. I also do not understand why there should be a problem with 'freedom of panorama in the United States' - the photo was taken in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, where I live. I am also not impressed by the request to delete my image from Wikimedia Commons. Figaro (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, if this had been taken in the US it would have to be deleted, but in Australia it is ok.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Australian, not US image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Figaro (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
that is not really {{PD-ineligible}}. see COM:TOO Saibo (Δ) 03:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by Rubin16 (talk · contribs). Copyright violation. Francisco (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
nominating own page, a personal page that has been superseded Evan-Amos (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed to {{Speedydelete}} template; user request in own namespace should be straightforward. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
There is an identical SVG version of this file, it's unused on all Wikis -Ricordisamoa (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete File:RandomSS.svg is an identical SVG vector version created by me. File:RandomSS.png isn't used on other wikis Ricordisamoa (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)- Delete per nom and alternate version's uploader. -Pete F (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
No educative value and does not meet the criteria for hosting at Commons — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope, no source, no license Yann (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (no description, unsed, probably unusable; source and license dubious). AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (no description, unsed, probably unusable; source and license dubious). AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope (no description, unsed, probably unusable). AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO not realy within scope. Partial google translation of the decsription: "For personal use". But its unsed (inbetween?). JuTa 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is not used in any Wikimedia projects; educational value is not clear. -Pete F (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO not realy within scope. Partial google translation of the decsription: "For personal use". But its unsed (inbetween?). JuTa 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not used in any Wikimedia projects. Educational value is not clear. No metadata to inform possible educational use. -Pete F (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a spanish text. Either copyvio or if the text is self created out of scope. JuTa 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used and superseded by File:Sanguinarine.svg. Leyo 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All sorts of strange angles, pixelation, and background half-tones. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Low quality/resolution, not used, superseded by File:Bromadialone.svg. Leyo 20:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry and not rescalable without making it even worse. NB, neither original nor proposed replacement are in use anywhere in *.wp (obviously no harm in having high-quality not-presently-used images though!). DMacks (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Result was keep per nominator/uploader. -Pete F (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The author requests deletion as it is a very poor image, it is no longer used, and now there are better images of same mushroom, e.g. File:Strobilomyces strobilaceus 110920wb.JPG Strobilomyces (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Hi Strobilomyces, the image is still being used on the French and Lithuanian Wikipedias. It seems like a reasonably good photo to me! If you really think it should be deleted, could you please replace it on those Wikipedias first, and give it enough time to make sure there are no objections from the local communities? Say, a week? -Pete F (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps it is best to keep it then. I has missed that it was used on those wikis. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
artist robert ingpen is still alive, work is of recent creation, no indication artist has submitted it himself under cca, and i have confirmed the visual style is his, and is not in the style of work from 70+yrs ago Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unsufficient license information Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Bank logo and no own work, if in scope the license has to be changed Funfood ␌ 06:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - simple text logos are ineligible for copyright in Spain. --Xijky (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: textlogo Lymantria (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Bank logo and no own work, if in scope the license has to be changed Funfood ␌ 07:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Local bank logo, out of scope Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
US stamps issued after 1978 are not public domain. See Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#United_States. Razvan Socol (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Razvan. Copyvio. -Pete F (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of User:Alensha. Reason given was "Non-notable person; image was used only in a self-promo article in Hungarian Wikipedia (deleted since then)." FASTILY (TALK) 09:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality (resolution, badJPEG), not used, replaced by File:Polymethine Squaraine.svg. Leyo 20:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Replacement has weird alignment of right-side double bond (at the N) and both bonds at the C of the carbonyl (bottom) are not attached properly--these problems are not present in the .jpg. Both this jpg and the svg replacement have incorrect connectivity at the left-side N (should be R2N[bond] not NR2[bond]). Also still in-use (proposed replacement is higher-resolution but lower quality in several other key aspects). DMacks (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment fixed what you mentioned. please check now. also the replacement is ofcourse higher resolution. its an SVG. Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Problems resolved in svg, so now that is both better in quality per nom and also fixes a bit of chemical weirdness in the jpg. Note that my original comment was making a contrast between agreeing with some parts and not others of it being "an improvement"--I've seen places where the svg quality winds up intronsically lower resolution than a parent png (!). DMacks (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The image does not have a reliable source. Please read the discussion before opposing. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - two deletion requests for one file make no sense, and US NIH is not unencyclopedic. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OpposeKeep - This image appears to reflect the scientific mainstream view of the HIV virion. To what discussion are you referring? -- 69.251.9.26 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that the image doesn't reflect the scientific mainstream view of the HIV virion. I said that it does not have a reliable source. Here is the discussionDavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a review article that lends support for this image: PMID 21762795. -- 69.251.9.26 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this article contains an image of the HIV virion and if that image and it's labels and title express the same information as the current image then perhaps this article is a more appropriate reference for the current image. If this is the case then the citation should be updated accordingly. As it stands the image does not have a reliable source and should be deleted.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Diagram from NIH site appears to have been moved to [3] with some adjustments as mentioned in the en.wiki discussion. Also [4] (see page 8), [5], and I'm guessing the a good chunk of the results from google scholar. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Image does not have a suitable reliable source and until and unless it obtains one it must be deleted. If you are able to update the citation I suggest that you do it.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - DavoDavoDavo does not understand HIV/AIDS, as is clear from his edits to en.wikipedia. --Xijky (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- But the real question is does Xijky understand what constitutes a reliable source? How is my understanding of HIV/AIDS relevant to this deletion request?DavoDavoDavo (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The source is provided. COM:NPOV demands that we do not look for truth. The image is used and useful. The image is in public domai. There is not a single reason for deletion. Beta M (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Ed (Edgar181) 21:52, 28 November 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 uploader for "bessere Dateiversion vorhanden", i.e. File:Christian von Holst 2005-02-22 mit Danneckers Tonmodell der Ariadne, Foto Steffen Jänicke.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy per uploader request, as image unused on-wiki and externally (0 hits on TinEye) and as there is the better version File:Christian von Holst 2005-02-22 mit Danneckers Ariadne, Foto Steffen Jänicke.jpg. Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The claim of ownership is not credible. This is one of the most common images of Mobb Deep one can find on the web and its existence dates back at least to 2008 and therefore prior to Prodigy's jail sentence. Since nobody on the web cares about photo credits, I've been unable to figure out who the author is but there's every reason to believe it's not HaykMinasyan. This is clearly a professional photo shoot and it doesn't make sense for a photographer to upload his most famous photograph on Commons three years after the fact and without a single word of explanation. Pichpich (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 08:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Categories should be named after their most common English name and that is South Tyrol. The main category for this territory is Category:South Tyrol. As a side-note, categories with a slash are discouraged anyway. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, rename to a systematic name. --ŠJů (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, if the whole cat tree is just South Tyrol, without Italian name, - then follow this pattern and rename. NVO (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All categories are named following the South Tyrol scheme, therefore bringing back consistency means deleting this recently created category. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, if the whole cat tree is just South Tyrol, without Italian name, - then follow this pattern and rename. NVO (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
this is a region of Italy and the offical name is Alto Adige/South Tyrol, because you want use only South Tyrol? is legally and officially registered in the records as the Italian Aldo Adige-Südtirol, which corresponds to the autonomous province of Bolzano (and not the province of South Tyrol, which does not exist) --Pava (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC) PS: Also this Category:Province of South Tyrol is incorrect, what is "province of South Tyrol? South Tyrol is a storic land no a provincial government, the province is: utonomous province of Bolzano. we should change all categories renaming it the right way --Pava (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's a matter of consistency. Could be either way. Right now absolutely most of relevant categories are ST - not AA/ST, not Bolzano. A sole category dropping out of this scheme must be brought to standard. A wholesale reversal of existing scheme needs a broader discussion. As you can see from the history of Category:Province of South Tyrol, the problem was raised more than once ... and it's still there. NVO (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know if it was already mentioned, but I figured (obviously), because it seems to me absurd that we still have a similar situation. But if we follow the thought of NVO, right thought, do not say the contrary, the situation will remain that way forever.--Pava (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please have a look at Category:Province of South Tyrol. Every single category uses South Tyrol which is the most common English name for the province. Hence I suggest to rename the category into Villages in South Tyrol. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Based on the actions of User:Pava here [6] and here [7], he obviously doesn't have a clue what he's doing. Gryffindor (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 03:53, 23 November 2011 by Romaine, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Lebanon. Not sure what the copyright status for en:Hezbollah is but en-wiki has it as fair use and I think their logo is protected just like any other logo. MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- This logo is cropped from a photography which the owner has released under a licence which Wikipedia accepts. In this respect, I see no reason to delete a picture that obviously is not copyrighted. Adding: The logo in the file requested deleted is not accurate, and should therefore not be considered subject to copyright violation the same way as this file obviously would have been. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The problem is not the photo, it is that the logo itself has a copyright and the source did not have the right to freely license it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Copvio, several ones of the same person were deleted recently. See CommonsDelinker in History of رضا حافظ on 19 Nov. 62.76.41.63 09:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted poster Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Poster released without copyright protection by Labour Party for campaign. 70.99.49.211 10:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless somebody can point to evidence that the poster was released without copyright. -Pete F (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 2 December 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 copyvio-speed by IP for "Image is a derivative work of a photograph, not an original work itself". --Túrelio (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Presumably a copyvio, unless the original photo was compatibly licensed or public domain. -Pete F (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
picture is all over the www - the uploader has named www google as the source - I get the feeling they might not fully understand copyright legislation - all the uploaders contributions should be assessed Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
picture is all over the www - the uploader has named www google as the source - I get the feeling they might not fully understand copyright legislation - all the uploaders contributions should be assessed Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope... mabdul 12:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the other contributions likely to be copyright violation as well. --Herby talk thyme 14:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is probably in scope, but I agree with Herby, it looks like it was lifted from the hotel website. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope mabdul 12:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the other contributions likely to be copyright violation as well. --Herby talk thyme 14:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
source = google? No evidence of permission - uploader does not seem to understand copyright legislation - all the users uploads should be assessed.[ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mrinal.ekta.roy see here] - Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Author =www.google.com Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Credible authorship info, plus credible case that it was released under appropriate license, needed. -Pete F (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
probably URV Nyan ∗ Dog 12:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- URV means copyvio. XenonX3 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This picture is mine; there's a fatal error in location data: please delete it asap. Thanks philmarin (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - edit the location data then - not a reason for deletion --Herby talk thyme 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand what is a fatal error. Are you a fugitive who is hiding from somebody? If so please edit the data and request the deletion of the previoius version of the page. Beta M (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Low resolution and no metadata. Same image found here. This was the user's only contrib. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Before uploading, I have requested permission from the original photographer from UK, Mr. Pavitrata Taylor, and he agreed to share it on wikimedia. Resolution seems fine for its purpose. Thank you. - user: Israel Cordeiro
- If you're not the original photographer, we need permission from them va email that they agree to licence it freely. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
need description Daniel jorge marques F (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
image incorrectly described as "own work"; cropped out of copyrighted work by Bill Watterson DS (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The pillow shown in this picture certainly is copyrighted in its design: Copy right violation unless the uploader is the designed of the pillow. Miebner (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very old pillow. Pzdr. MOs810 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly old, but somewhat between 1962 and 1985. According to German law copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator of a work. This certainly does not apply in this case. --Miebner (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Individual pictures have no source Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This rifle is german DSR-1 or DSR-50 but no way the russian one. Sealle (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a reason for delation request. Rename it if you think it's a diffrent rifle unfortunatly i can't read the kyrillic letters.--Sanandros (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)re
Deleted: Sanandros is correct about the rename. Unfortunately, though, this is a beautiful professional image of the weapon in a relatively small size. It is the only contribution of this uploader. I cannot believe that it is "own work" as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.arjbuilding.co.uk/ Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.arjbuilding.co.uk/ Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.arjbuilding.co.uk/ Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Artist died in 1995 AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, looks like a clear copyvio. Same would apply to File:Macchinetta trombetta.jpg. Can we just add that to the same nomination? -Pete F (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Unclear what this is supposed to depict, out of scope. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
and File:Quintuplets Sitcom.png. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Cover from a urugayan book from 2004, sure no own work, doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 17:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The author requests deletion as it is a very poor image, it is no longer used, and now there are better images of same mushroom, e.g. File:Strobilomyces strobilaceus 110920wb.JPG Strobilomyces (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request, and since Category:Strobilomyces strobilaceus is well populated. -Pete F (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Surely not own work, http://deveghepatriei.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/elena-zelea-codreanu-sotia-intemeietorului-miscarii-legionare-doamna-codreanu-a-suferit-enorm-in-puscariile-comuniste/ http://www.miscarealegionara.org/nunta-capitanului/. Might possibly be claimed as PD-old, but that needs more data. Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France- FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- where is the original, anyway? FOP might not even be sufficient, even if it did pertain. -Pete F (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in belgium. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see no panorama... somebody is trying to be funny??? The uploader Paul Hermans (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Info cannot be undeleted, as this depicts an artistic work indoors (cannot benefit from {{FoP-Belgium}}). Per upload log, the description was: "Caudipteryx at the Museum voor Natuurwetenschappen in Brussels, Belgium." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that this looks distinctly dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Where else can you find this picture? If you cannot, then why remove it?--Chris Jones EE (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: If we do not know where it came from, we do not know its copyright status, and therefore must delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back.. I will definatly think twice about uploading anymore of my images to commons... --Ltshears (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why would you think twice? There is no freedom of panorama in the US, meaning that you can't release the rights to pictures of artwork made by others, that's not our fault. For Commons to even exist, we'll have to obey copyright laws. FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just Delete Them --Ltshears (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back.. I will definatly think twice about uploading anymore of my images to commons... --Ltshears (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete A good faith contribution, but it does appear there are concerns about the IP rights for these photos. Ltshears, if you have any questions about Commons uploads, feel free to ask me, and I'll try to help. -Pete F (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back..
- Just Delete Them--Ltshears (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltshears (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- And wouldn't this apply to any and all buildings? trains? anything else a photo is taken of in the United States.--Ltshears (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- It could count for buildings if they are the main focus: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- And wouldn't this apply to any and all buildings? trains? anything else a photo is taken of in the United States.--Ltshears (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back . I will definatly think twice about uploading anymore of my images to commons.....
- Just Delete Them--Ltshears (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
unverifiable source, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back.. I will definatly think twice about uploading anymore of my images to commons...--Ltshears (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just Delete Them--Ltshears (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- i did send and email to the company who makes these dinasaurs and i told them that i posted the images i took on commons and they never responded to email of whether they had a problem with me putting them here. i would assume they don't care since they couldn't be bothered to email me back.. I will definatly think twice about uploading anymore of my images to commons...--Ltshears (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't believe this violates FOP. FieldMarine (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is not what it means: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't believe this violates FOP. FieldMarine (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Below COM:TOO. -- RE rillke questions? 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks quite original to me; this is not your ordinary snowman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are right it has something. And even if FoP would be apply to artworks, it is not permanently located on a public place ... really difficult. -- RE rillke questions? 23:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks quite original to me; this is not your ordinary snowman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- we should inform the lawer of the artist ;-) Keep --LutzBruno (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The photographer could be asked if he know who actually build the snow dinosaur, maybe not only the photograph is "own work"... I think that the snow sculpture itself is indeed a copyrightable work. We need more evidence, conditional Delete unless the dinosaur is to be released by the photographer. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- In any case, it could be argued that the image is quite out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I think that's well in scope, look at the Category:Snow sculptures... I would see possible encyclopaedic usages when it comes to illustrate children playing or something alike. Grand-Duc (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No kind of artwork. --Laibwächter (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it is. That a child made it makes no difference. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're kidding, because the definition of artwork stands upon an higher level. --Laibwächter (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- then anything made by human can be artwork.. meant no photos here... --LutzBruno (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, photos count as art as well. What matters for Commons is if the rights to them are free or not. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the child study art in Florence - Mr. Funk Monk - then it will be art :) --Laibwächter (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it is. That a child made it makes no difference. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Simply because an artist is young doesn't mean the law shouldn't apply. And poking fun isn't considered an argument. Beta M (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- But that is a mere assumption, not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Such things as several pounds of butter smeared on a wall (the Fettecke by Joseph Beuys) and an installation of some fouled plumbing (by Martin Kippenberger, German SPIEGEL article) are considered art, and priced between 40.000DM (~20.000€, damages paid by the Land Niedersachsen to the owner, cf. linked DE-WP article) and 800.000€ for the Kippenberger piece. This snow figure is easy over the threshold of originality, as such play behaviour is a quite distinctive human trait. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly it is above the threshold of originality, no argument there. And if the artist were to assert copyright, we would have to take the image down, and we would have done a disservice to our readers; I agree with all that. However, I find the possibility of such an assertion highly implausible in this case. If we did not incorporate our judgment of the plausibility of copyright assertion into such decisions, most contet on Commons would have to be deleted; very few images have no derivative qualities. For instance, should a photo of a person wearing a suit by a famous designer, standing near a blurry poster, and a Pepsi sign, be deleted due to the intellectual property rights of the designer, the poster artist, or the Pepsi"? If so, we have a lot of work to do cleaning up Commons, and we will end up with a pretty boring collection of images. -Pete F (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Very useful link, thank you! I had not seen that. Reading it, and also noticing that the photographer does not even know the girl or her family -- so rethinking my !vote. -Pete F (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm changing my !vote to neutral. But, I do think it's important to keep in mind that individual judgment is essential to this sort of decision. The relevant part of the U.S. version of the "de minimus" argument is: "Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences" Somebody has to judge whether or not something is sufficiently trivial. Since we're not going to litigate every file on Commons, that "someone" has to be us. So I do think that our judgment about whether a person is likely to file a copyright-based claim, which would be necessary in order for a court to even face the question of whether such a claim is valid, is relevant. -Pete F (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Very useful link, thank you! I had not seen that. Reading it, and also noticing that the photographer does not even know the girl or her family -- so rethinking my !vote. -Pete F (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly it is above the threshold of originality, no argument there. And if the artist were to assert copyright, we would have to take the image down, and we would have done a disservice to our readers; I agree with all that. However, I find the possibility of such an assertion highly implausible in this case. If we did not incorporate our judgment of the plausibility of copyright assertion into such decisions, most contet on Commons would have to be deleted; very few images have no derivative qualities. For instance, should a photo of a person wearing a suit by a famous designer, standing near a blurry poster, and a Pepsi sign, be deleted due to the intellectual property rights of the designer, the poster artist, or the Pepsi"? If so, we have a lot of work to do cleaning up Commons, and we will end up with a pretty boring collection of images. -Pete F (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - can a snow figure be regarded as a work that was "fixed"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean "fixed." -Pete F (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is a requirement in US copyright for something to be considered a work; just someone singing something or acting is not a work, until it is fixed in a permanent medium, like a record or a movie. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Interesting question. -Pete F (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- CDs, DVDs, Video tapes... they all have their life span. The fact that snow fixture has less time to exist doesn't change the fact. Or should we only protect those things which are literally carved into some rock... on the Moon. Beta M (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a new concept for me, but I read through this page (searching on the term "fixed"). It seems to me that this photo is the thing that "fixes" the work. I didn't see anything in there that indicated that the creator had to fix the work him or herself. -Pete F (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- CDs, DVDs, Video tapes... they all have their life span. The fact that snow fixture has less time to exist doesn't change the fact. Or should we only protect those things which are literally carved into some rock... on the Moon. Beta M (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Interesting question. -Pete F (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is a requirement in US copyright for something to be considered a work; just someone singing something or acting is not a work, until it is fixed in a permanent medium, like a record or a movie. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean "fixed." -Pete F (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
@Pete: In my opinion, this idea is not supported at all by at least the §102 from your link. I'll quote the part "a" from it, bolding the likely relevant parts:
"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works."
A snow figure is easily perceived as long as the cold persists, being visible to the human eye and to a photographic device and I do not see to deny snow and ice the quality of "tangible medium of expression" - if you go for that, you'll get surely trouble with all those artists decorating ice hotels in Kiruna (Sweden), in Canada or elsewhere... Additionally, I think that we've got a consensus that this snow dinosaur is well above the threshold of originality. I do not see any loophole permitting to keep this picture without a proper release by the builder of the snow dino. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Grand-Duc, I agree with everything you say here -- not sure why you think this is contrary to what I said? I think you misunderstood my comment (unless by "@Pete" you meant "Pieter"). -Pete F (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- In New York City, a snow figure is transient, ephemeral; many snow men do not last a day. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I may have been mislead to think that the photo "fixed" the dino and thus only the photo is to be licensed, sorry for that. @Pieter: even if snow figures do not last a day, they last for their natural lifespan under the given environmental conditions, but why does the question about the "endurance" of the work matter here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because the requirement is that it must "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Typically, a snow figure is melting (easiest to make them at above-freezing temperatures), duration is transitory; one cannot expect to make such a photo the next day. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is transitory by that logic. The paper, the stone, the mountain face, the whole planet... the space and time itself will all disappear eventually. The law clearly simply distinguishing from a speech that a person does improv style and something more 'tangible'. If we are talking about a snow ball during a snowball fight, that's intangible, but a snowball for the art exhibit lasting only 5 minutes is tangible. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because the requirement is that it must "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Typically, a snow figure is melting (easiest to make them at above-freezing temperatures), duration is transitory; one cannot expect to make such a photo the next day. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I may have been mislead to think that the photo "fixed" the dino and thus only the photo is to be licensed, sorry for that. @Pieter: even if snow figures do not last a day, they last for their natural lifespan under the given environmental conditions, but why does the question about the "endurance" of the work matter here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: A long and interesting discussion, a lot of which was off point. We regularly delete sand-castles, ice sculpture, and butter sculpture in non-FOP countries, so I am not sure why this is not just as easy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is in France, not the USA, but the result is the same. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in france FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
cf Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Examples Bloody-libu (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of some portuguese(?) text. IMHO out of scope and/or copyvio. JuTa 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, i uploaded it for the 2nd time! Alfvanbeem (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
(c) van http://www.chrisvankeulen.nl/Groessenantoniusstichting1920.jpg Edoderoo (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - certainly that site cannot claim copyright on this old postcard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neither can the uploader claim it to be own work, when it is an old postcard. The image might be PD by age, but this needs to be proven somehow. Edoderoo (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
PD-art does not apply to 3D objects; see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art. Additionally, we know the NPG is particularly finicky about their copyrights, even on Wikimedia projects: see w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Correct. Even though the underlying piece might be PD-old (not sure about that country's copyright particulars), the photograph of the 3D artwork is 100% copyrightable and belongs to the photographer, who in this case has not released it.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete 3D photo, so an obvious copyright violation. Also a question. The user has uploaded a few 2D pictures from the same source:
- en:File:Mark Cubbon (detail).jpg
- en:File:Mark Cubbon detail.jpg
- en:File:Thomas Fletcher Waghorn ca. 1847 Small.jpg
- en:File:Thomas Fletcher Waghorn ca. 1847.jpg
Are reproductions of 2D public domain images copyrightable in the UK (i.e. the country of origin of the reproduction), and if so, should those images also be deleted? I see that all of them contain copyright statements, but this doesn't have to mean anything. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- In the UK and various other countries, 2D reproductions are in fact copyrightable. However, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't care, and set out a policy for Commons stating that 2D reproductions of art can be housed on Commons. You cam read about the rationale and history at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Source site is ©, and the building is too recent (2000s) - prohibited by FOP-Russia. ~ NVO (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Same for files File:New wing gorky library 1.jpg, File:New wing gorky library 2.jpg , File:New wing gorky library 3.jpg , File:New wing gorky library 4.jpg , File:New wing gorky library 5.jpg , File:New wing gorky library 6.jpg (http://www.ryazanreg.ru/ is also ©). NVO (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dear NVO, that file was made by my friend Ksenia. That girl is the official photographer of the library site and, of course, she agrees to publish her work in the Wiki. If it is neccessary, she can confirm my words, e.g. from the library site. Another files also were sent by our friend and, if required, he also can confirm his acceptance of such publication. --Ceroi (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- См. Commons:OTRS/ru. Но это никак не поможет против "свободы панорамы" - а её нарушает всё, за исключением File:New wing gorky library 6.jpg (и, вероятно, File:New wing gorky library 4.jpg). NVO (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Вы в самом деле думаете, что этим кто-то будет заниматься? неужто вся эта волокита – в порядке вещей? Я озвучил варианты, на которых правообладатели готовы будут подтвердить своё согласие. Отдельно что-то загружать, писать и переписывать никто из них не будет, все люди занятые. Если это не нужно сообществу, что ж, удаляйте. Буду снимать сам. --Ceroi (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Главное, не загружайте самостоятельно снятые фото этой постройки сюда. Грузите локально на условиях ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования панорам и ставьте шаблон {{FoP-Russia}}. Примеры оформления см. в ru:Категория:Файлы:С ограничениями свободы панорамы. Поскольку самостоятельно снятые фото будут всё равно "не совсем свободные", то и в статье их должен быть разумный минимум. NVO (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Прочитал про ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования панорам – в голове каша. Скажите, пож-ста, если фотограф заснял открытие библиотеки – кто является правообладателем снимков: он или библиотека, и кто должен давать разрешение для wikimedia? --Ceroi (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- а) Фотограф обладает авторскими правами на снимок. Но он не вправе публиковать этот снимок на commons без согласия авторов (архитекторов) здания. Потому что такая публикация без согласия авторов возможна только в некоммерческих целях (неприемлемо для commons) и только тогда, когда постройка не является основным предметом фото (что лишает смысла большинство таких фото). б) Из ст. 1276 ГК РФ следует, что разрешение надо брать у "автора или иного правообладателя". То вначале фотограф-публикатор обязан установить круг этих "авторов или иных" ("иные" могут быть работодателями авторов, агентствами по охране АП, наследниками умерших авторов...). Ищи ветра в поле... А потом у всех обнаруженных собрать разрешения. Поэтому мало кто с такими разрешениями связывается. в) Библиотека, или вообще заказчик, владелец, арендатор в процессе как правило не участвуют. Они вправе пускать-непускать фотографа в здание, но не вправе распоряжаться чужим авторским/исключительным правом. NVO (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Извините за настойчивость – просто пытаюсь разобраться. Если владелец нового здания – библиотека, то почему она, как владелец здания, не может дать разрешение на публикацию фото? – т.е. нескольких фото из, предположим, сотни?
- И такой вопрос вдогонку: готовлю статью о ныне живущем художнике (на нескольких языках). Получил от него разрешение (!) на съёмку нескольких его работ – представьте себе, чего ему стоит собрать эти работы в одном месте. Можно ли будет полученные снимки опубликовать на wikimedia? как в этом случае не нарушить авторского права? Спасибо! --Ceroi (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1) Потому что commons соблюдает букву российского законодательства, конкретно статьи 1276 ГК РФ. Там нет ни слова о владельце предмета АП. Только о владельцах (исключительных, авторских) прав. Права эти, как правило, будущему собственнику не передаются. Настойчивость в соблюдении норм российского права проистекает из-за необходимости гарантировать лицензионную чистоту для любых, в том числе коммерческих, пользователей контента. Это последнее не обсуждается. 2) Выше есть ссылка на Commons:OTRS/ru. Только правообладатель - в данном случае художник-автор - вправе от своего имени выдать разрешение (хорошо что хоть в электронном виде, и никто паспорт не проверяет - но могут перезвонить). При этом он должен ясно понимать, что даёт разрешение неограниченному кругу лиц использовать свои работы в коммерческих целях. Не "для википедии разрешение", а всем на свете. NVO (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Кстати, библиотека - в силу своего правового статуса - скорее всего, не является собственником здания. Она получила здание "в ведение", но не в собственность. Но это ничего не меняет. NVO (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- По библиотеке, более-менее, понятно. Спасибо. Если можно – оставьте хотя бы пару-тройку фоток с открытия – те две, что Вы упоминали (панорамные) + 1 с церемонии открытия (там где директор – очень кстати для цитаты; New_wing_gorky_library_2.jpg) – их-то уж никак не переснять.
- По поводу художника – такой вопрос. Если он загружает фото своих картин под свободной лицензией – надо ли ему писать какие-то письма? Ведь это – целиком и полностью его работа. --Ceroi (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- а) Фотограф обладает авторскими правами на снимок. Но он не вправе публиковать этот снимок на commons без согласия авторов (архитекторов) здания. Потому что такая публикация без согласия авторов возможна только в некоммерческих целях (неприемлемо для commons) и только тогда, когда постройка не является основным предметом фото (что лишает смысла большинство таких фото). б) Из ст. 1276 ГК РФ следует, что разрешение надо брать у "автора или иного правообладателя". То вначале фотограф-публикатор обязан установить круг этих "авторов или иных" ("иные" могут быть работодателями авторов, агентствами по охране АП, наследниками умерших авторов...). Ищи ветра в поле... А потом у всех обнаруженных собрать разрешения. Поэтому мало кто с такими разрешениями связывается. в) Библиотека, или вообще заказчик, владелец, арендатор в процессе как правило не участвуют. Они вправе пускать-непускать фотографа в здание, но не вправе распоряжаться чужим авторским/исключительным правом. NVO (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Прочитал про ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования панорам – в голове каша. Скажите, пож-ста, если фотограф заснял открытие библиотеки – кто является правообладателем снимков: он или библиотека, и кто должен давать разрешение для wikimedia? --Ceroi (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Главное, не загружайте самостоятельно снятые фото этой постройки сюда. Грузите локально на условиях ru:Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования панорам и ставьте шаблон {{FoP-Russia}}. Примеры оформления см. в ru:Категория:Файлы:С ограничениями свободы панорамы. Поскольку самостоятельно снятые фото будут всё равно "не совсем свободные", то и в статье их должен быть разумный минимум. NVO (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Вы в самом деле думаете, что этим кто-то будет заниматься? неужто вся эта волокита – в порядке вещей? Я озвучил варианты, на которых правообладатели готовы будут подтвердить своё согласие. Отдельно что-то загружать, писать и переписывать никто из них не будет, все люди занятые. Если это не нужно сообществу, что ж, удаляйте. Буду снимать сам. --Ceroi (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- См. Commons:OTRS/ru. Но это никак не поможет против "свободы панорамы" - а её нарушает всё, за исключением File:New wing gorky library 6.jpg (и, вероятно, File:New wing gorky library 4.jpg). NVO (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dear NVO, that file was made by my friend Ksenia. That girl is the official photographer of the library site and, of course, she agrees to publish her work in the Wiki. If it is neccessary, she can confirm my words, e.g. from the library site. Another files also were sent by our friend and, if required, he also can confirm his acceptance of such publication. --Ceroi (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A straightforward case of infringing on the copyright which belongs to the architect of the building. I have not read the long discussion in Russian, so if I have missed something, please let me know. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
DW of some text. FOP doesn't apply as it seems to be temporary. Maybe it is a "amtliches Werk"? Text is out of scope and this photo seems to have no relation to the file name, description and category.
Abgeleitetes Werk eines Texts. Panoramafreiheit trifft wohl nicht zu, weil das da nur vorübergehend hängen zu scheint. Ist es vielleicht ein "amtliches Werk"? Wie auch immer: Der Text ist eh nicht sinnvoll hier in Commons und das Foto hat weder Bezug zu Dateinamen, Beschreibung oder Kategorie, oder übersehe ich etwas? Ralf, bitte lade doch nicht einfach alles hoch Saibo (Δ) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
File:11-09-04-iaa-by-RalfR-274.jpg
File:11-09-04-iaa-by-RalfR-275.jpg
- Schau doch einfach man auf die beiden nächsten Bilder, das ist der Zusammenhang. Der Text nennt nur Fakten, was soll daran Schöpfung sein? --Ralf Roleček 06:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dass das Bild in Verbindung zu zwei anderen Bildern steht, gibt die Beschreibung leider in keinster Weise her - wirst du zugeben, oder? Der Text ist immerhin ein Text und keine Faktenaufzählung. Hier in Commons ist das zu viel des Guten - da bin ich mir recht sicher. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Der Zusammenhang erschließt sich nur vage: war das jetzt das Unfallauto, war das ein willkürlich gewähltes Beispiel? Der Text an sich wird wohl Schöpfungshöhe haben, Panoramafreiheit ist nicht zutreffend. Out of Scope ist die Datei nicht, wenn man sie in einen Zusammenhang setzt. --Quedel (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dass das Bild in Verbindung zu zwei anderen Bildern steht, gibt die Beschreibung leider in keinster Weise her - wirst du zugeben, oder? Der Text ist immerhin ein Text und keine Faktenaufzählung. Hier in Commons ist das zu viel des Guten - da bin ich mir recht sicher. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
source and author wrong, pic from website (watermark) Funfood ␌ 21:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Very small image, no exif, looks suspiciously like a copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is some exif data, but it's from Photoshop and dated 2011-11-20. --Rosenzweig τ 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Abbots Bromley original hobby horse.jpg (Picture) BJLAW (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Are you asking that this picture be deleted? Because you've managed to request that my user page should be deleted! Can you please offer a reason for either? Thanks. SiGarb (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The file is intended to show a listed building (called monument in the Netherlands). But as it was under reconstruction, nothing of the building can be seen in the picture, just workers' sheds. The picture therefore has no educational or encyclopedic value. Loranchet (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The photographs documents the reconstruction of the document. The banner visible in the picture gives a description of what is goin on. A new version is File:Leidschendam - Sluisplein 1 - Rijksmonument 25722.jpg. Dedalus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The object of this image is a listed building. But it is completely invisible due to renovation screens and sheds. It therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Currently the renovation is finished. Uploader can be requested to submit a new image. Loranchet (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy kept. No new arguments for deletion. The image is in scope. Multichill (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I know that there is a previous DR on this, but that one didn't discuss the derivative work that's an issue I think in this picture Vera (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see your point and I am normally tough on such things, but given the steep angle and the poor reproduction of the sign, I would be inclined to say that the DW issue is de minimis. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Unclear if there is freedom of panorama in Syria, needs to be determined, as it will affect a lot of images. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Superior version at File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg. Nominated for deletion by uploader. GrapedApe (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. I have deleted both as copyvios. Although the ribbon is old, the image (they have the same source) was lifted from eBay without any respect for its copyright. PD_Art does not apply because Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was about old master paintings and said nothing about textiles.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Undeleted. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-12.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
highly inaccurate, see File:Flag of SEATO.svg Antemister (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:NPOV Since the source is given it's not our place to decide the accuracy. Beta M (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK... Compare the proportion of the shield with File:Seatostamp.jpg, those FOTW images often contain such mistakes, as the guy there are rarely good graphists.--Antemister (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Leaving aside the discussion above, this image was lifted from FOTW which has a very clear NC copyright policy as well as other restrictions which prohibit our use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
falsch hoch geladen Tom Strason (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request. Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
doppelt, aktuelle datei =Ruhrtal-bei-nebel-1 Juergen goevert (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
This cannot possibly be "own work" as claimed -- looks like a newspaper scan. Since the subject died in 1966, it is probably still under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It is from book cover but it gave me no such option to insert such specification and I was puzzled how to reflect this fact.--Stephfo (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I took it by my own camera but if you want to know what book it was taken from (although different language variation) please have a look here: [8]. Pls. let me know if it can consist a problem, I can approach the publisher of the book to ask for permission, if they still exist. I thought if the picture is freely used at internet incl. Amazon it is OK. --Stephfo (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please thoroughly read Commons:LIC#Acceptable_licenses where it says,
- "For example, the following are generally not allowed:
- (several omitted)
- Scans or reproductive photographs of copyrighted artwork, especially book covers, album/CD covers, etc." (emphasis added)
- "For example, the following are generally not allowed:
- Most images that you find on the Internet have a copyright. If you want to upload an an image that you did not take yourself:
- If it is in the public domain, it is OK.
- If not public domain, then it must have a free license on the source web site and the source web site must actually have the right to license it -- many sites have CC-BY licenses on images for which they do not own the copyright.
- If you can get the publisher to give permission, that would also be OK, but they rarely do. If the publisher no longer exists, then unless you can track down the present owner of the copyright -- usually impossible under those circumstances-- then the image can not be kept on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 12:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Very out of focus, confusing (partly due to the blurriness and the fact that the picture is very zoomed in and therefore cropped) - nothing against the motif/point of view in general! 81.217.119.238 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I respect the fact that you had respect in your nomination. But my vote is still Keep until Category:Anal sex will be more populated than it is now. Beta M (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is in use. Which by its nature nullifies all the delete comments. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it was added about a week after this DR started, by a single purpose account (only ever edited anal sex on nl.wp) so I'm not sure that really counts. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Neutral - this is, as best I can tell, our only actual photo of penis in anus, but it is so blurry as to really not be very useful to depict that. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)- Neutral as one or the only of actual anal sex, we should properly Keep, but it's really poor quality... -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - so poor quality that it is not a useful depiction of the act. --Xijky (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unusable poor quality, no EV -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Unusable photo --Katarighe (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Still in use (but, yes, doesn't fully count - but ask the project if they want to keep it) and just okay at thumb size - since many "surprising" photos get deleted here on a frequent basis we need to keep this one as we do not have anything better. --Saibo (Δ) 04:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Nice shot from mobile telephone, I think this is very helpful. Unfortnately not with that pityful res. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Low quality and not "officially" in use. Tiptoety talk 07:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplet DR. --JuTa 09:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: 'Encyclopedicaly non important event doesnt needs its category--Juandev (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: There are enough images within this category. The event itself isnt "world moving" but IMHO within scope for its own cat. --JuTa 09:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Encyclopedic importance is not the crucial criterion whether 20 photos of certain event should be grouped together or should be mixed directly in the general topic and local parent categories. I'm sure, grouping of images by their content is the basic principle of modular categorization. Categories are not key words, categories are not encyclopedic articles. --ŠJů (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: General topic category is not appropriate for 20 photos. --Midi7 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Please delete this too i will upload right files Woler (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can upload a new version easily, you can then use {{Rename}} if you think that the filename needs changing. Beta M (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Beta M. Rosenzweig τ 10:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
some kind of private blog conversation. IMHO not realy within scope. JuTa 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is used to show the permission to use the screenshots from a well known website. Beta M (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's cited for licensing of File:Last.fm-software.png. This is an interesting case though. Nowadays, this function is generally handled by OTRS. It's considered important for a comment like that to be vetted/endorsed by an experienced and trusted member of the community. However, having it visible for all to see seems worthwhile. It could be transferred to an OTRS ticket, but we would lose a little bit of transparency in doing so. I think we should simply "keep" unless somebody has a better idea and can take care of all the details. -Pete F (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per the argumentation of Peteforsyth. Trijnstel (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
There is already a duplicate high resolution image here of this same photograph: File:Jaguar cuauhxicalli.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's already a high resolution photo of this artifact on Commons, which I didn't realize. Please delete! OttawaAC (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ошибочно загружен Aleks G (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ошибочно загружен Aleks G (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would love to keep this, but if the release under a free licence was accidental, i think we can delete. Beta M (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nice photo and license is non-revocable. -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader's note translates to "mistakenly loaded." While it is true that a legitimately granted license is irrevocable, two points pertain:
- The law is not the only factor to consider. If a good faith contributor acted in error, we can mitigate the damage by ceasing to distribute the file. I believe that is the best course of action here, especially considering that no Wikimedia project has (yet) chosen to include the file.
- Even if you don't agree with the first reason, it's possible that the law is not on our side. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that an erroneous sequence of clicks constitutes a legally enforceable contract. If the user (a) lacked the ownership needed to dictate licensing terms, or (b) did not understand the consequences of his choice, I'm not sure whether there's anything legally enforceable here.
- Regardless, yes, it is a nice photo, and I think reason #1 is sufficient to delete it. -Pete F (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We need a better reason than this to delete this nice image. To Pete F's second point -- if you sign a contract by mistake, it is still binding on you. To the first point, for me it would depend on the nature of the mistake. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There is already a duplicate high resolution image here of this same photograph: File:Jaguar cuauhxicalli.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's already a high resolution photo of this artifact on Commons, which I didn't realize. Please delete! OttawaAC (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
doesn't look like own work, rather like a poor quality scan. Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- doesn't look like own work, rather like a poor quality scan. Marc Fatou (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Two photos of objects which contain photos themselves
[edit]DW. OTRS 2009092410047846 seems to be a general permission for many (nice) product photos. However, those two files contain photographs of vegetables/sunflowers on the photographed objects which are not DM. It is not clear that the permission also covers these photos. So this applies roughly to those two photos {{Dw no source since}}.
- File:Deep freeze packaging made of PLA-Blend Bio-Flex.jpg
- File:Shopping Bag made of PLA-Blend Bio-Flex.JPG
Saibo (Δ) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Contributions of User:SEBaylor
[edit]- Files:
- User (sub) pages:
The files are all screenshots of an unknown application running under unknown license. Probably self developted. The User pages just trying to document this unknown application. All pages IMHO out of scope. PS: User is inactive for about 4 years now. --JuTa 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. -Pete F (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Baseball cards uploaded by Andreacello
[edit]Copyright violation since those are likely not own work. Uploader probably correctly names "twincards" as author (with a wrong link on his user page). As asked by High Contrast in a DR for a single card (file included here): "Does any curious US based PD-regulation apply?"
- File:Jack-hobbs-twins-1981-pitcher.jpg
- File:Jack-hobbs-1981-twins.jpg
- File:John hobbs-1981.jpg
- File:Jack-hobbs-pitcher.jpg
- File:Jack-hobbs-baseball.jpg
Saibo (Δ) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: in 1981 there were no curious US regs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fernanda.D (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-notable person.
Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
A collection of images uploaded as "own work" but really taken from the Internet or a collection. For the images to stay precise dates, authors and reason why they are in the public domain or under a free license need to be specified.
- File:Croiseur "Jeanne d'Arc" 1930.jpg
- File:Commandants Ecole d'application de la Jeanne.jpg
- File:Robert Fatou sur La Confiance côtre de Carentec.jpg
- File:Robert Fatou commandant la Jeanne d'Arc en 1946.jpg
- File:Portrait de Louis Fatou peint par Bertrand Fatou.jpg
- File:Vice-Amiral Louis Fatou peint par Charles FOUQUERAY.jpg
- File:Vice-Amiral Louis Fatou.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eli_mendoza_gil (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-notable persons. Most likely copyvios as well, probably from Facebook.
- File:MODELO.jpg
- File:259079 118145121606665 100002335333940 164033 2645358 o - copia.jpg
- File:256835 119597314794779 100002335333940 171782 947544 o.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Images uploaded for use in nl:Gert Dekeyzer, which was promptly deleted. Not notable.
Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Needs permission, see watermark. Yann (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no copyright violation- this is my own work. I use the watermark on all of my photos. What would you need as proof?
- How come nobody said anything before? You will need to follow COM:OTRS. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Photo was taken 1908, uploader can not be the photographer. Knergy (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Behalten. Es ist mit sehr hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit anzunehmen, dass der Fotograf mehr als 70 Jahre tot ist. Liesel (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter and Liesel. -Pete F (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Copied from http://www.goldonian.org/photos/photo_archive_homes/pages/craigerne.htm Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As discussed on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt#Gymnasium_Filder_Benden: no encyclopaedical benefit Hic et nunc (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Luckily this is not an encyclopaedia. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As discussed on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt#Gymnasium_Filder_Benden: no encyclopaedical benefit Hic et nunc (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Luckily this is not an encyclopaedia. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
File:'Chakla'_(square_of_beadwork),_Gujarat_(western_India),_early_20th_century,_Honolulu_Academy_of_Arts.jpg
[edit]This image is the same as http://rukodelie4.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/chakla___square_of_beadwork___gujarat__western_india__early_20th_century__honolulu_academy_of_arts.jpg. Own work, therefore, is dubious, and CC 1.0 in which uploader says "I the copyrightgholder... " unjust. Please provide the real source, the real author and the real license. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a re-upload from the previously deleted file Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Chakla' (square of beadwork), Gujarat (western India) early 20th century, Honolulu Academy of Arts.jpg
Deleted: out of process reupload. Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2012 (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 User:Dbachmann for "Modern (?) redrawing of the historical (12th century) "two knights on a horse" design of the seal of the kinghts Templar. Author unknown, found on the internet." --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Dbachmanns nomination. Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2012 (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 copyvio-speedy by User:Dbachmann for "unattributed (modern) redrawing of the historical seal of the Knights Templar. The design of two knights on a horse with the circular inscription +SIGILLVM: mILITVM: XRISTI is attested in 1191.[9]. This coloured artists' impression may be modern, and hence copyrighted." --Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Dbachmanns nomination. Martin H. (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Needs permission, see watermark. Yann (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my own picture- there is no copyright violation. This was taken some years ago while I lived in the area. What would you like as proof?
- If that is true, you will need to follow COM:OTRS. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission required. Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No indication of the source of the background image. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is outdoors? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it is clearly a photomanipulation of two images, with no indication of where each is from. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Background photo has google similarity search hits without the dino face. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
better quality here File:Bandera_de_Villanua.png Funfood ␌ 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Nominated pic doesn't appear to display properly; replacement exists. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This image is unused on other wikis; File:PoissonSS.svg is an identical SVG vector version. Ricordisamoa (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Superseded images policy, although it's a week keep. Commons won't be hurt by deleting this image, but it won't help anything either. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: COM:SUP Captain-tucker (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Tabet and software is also under a free license? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please elaborate and be more specific about your claim, this is a screenshot, not a picture of a running software. I own the rights on the background. Mro (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sory, my english is poor. Are you sure that the screenshot you can give a free license? Commons:Screenshots
" If a screenshot contains icons or content of non-free sites, it is not free screenshot is too, because there is no creative work in creating a screenshot. If a screenshot contains icons or content of non-free sites, it is not free" Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- The issue here is the image of the crocodile/alligator. Does "I own the rights on the background." mean that Mro was the photographer of the croc? If so, then this is OK, if not, then it is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm adding this file to the DR File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (2).jpg --PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The photo has a date of December 1944, but there is no evidence of it being published in Ukraine prior to 1 January 1951. Additionally the photographer's name is given as "A. Shaikhet" - evidence also needs to be provided that he died prior to this date for PD-Ukraine to be valid licencing. russavia (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not enough evidence of copyright status. A.J. (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
This photo was taken in Belarus sometime in 1944 according to the description page, and apparently comes from the Belarus State Archive. There is however no evidence that this photo was ever published in Ukraine prior to 1951, therefore PD-Ukraine is suspect. russavia (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think this meets {{PD-Belarus}}. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- PD-Belarus requires knowledge of (a) the time and place of the first publication (b) the name of the author, or, alternatively, some firm evidence of anonymous publication. An "archive photo" could have been published in 1944, or was it 1994? Who knows? NVO (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone with some good skills of Russian language willing to contact the Belorussian State Archive? They do have an e-mail address, you know. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- PD-Belarus requires knowledge of (a) the time and place of the first publication (b) the name of the author, or, alternatively, some firm evidence of anonymous publication. An "archive photo" could have been published in 1944, or was it 1994? Who knows? NVO (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this file was published in Ukraine before 1 January 1951, therefore, PD-Ukraine is suspect. russavia (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmkay, do "we" count papers like Pravda, compiled in Moscow, but printed all over the Union, including present-day Ukraine, as "published in Ukraine"? Or is "published in Ukraine" strictly for local publications? (this will hardly change the outcome of this DR) NVO (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
one of those very common highly inaccurate maps about the civil war in afghanistan: The border between the taliban's and the northern alliance's territory is wrong (see File:Afghanistan politisch 2000.png, which is correct) Let's stop that spread of wrong information Antemister (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody can provide any source which states that the boarder is in fact the way it's drawn on this map, then we should keep. We should not try to make a decision which map is correct per COM:NPOV. Beta M (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, someone might find a source for this map, but that will be found in some daily newspaper and not in scientific book... The border shown here was never correct, and keeping the file means that the WP help to spread this common misinformation and more of those inaccurate maps appear all over the internet... See [10] for details.--Antemister (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- 1) This is Commons, not Wikipedia. 2) There is COM:NPOV that deals with this, please read. 3) Please do not turn the deletion requests into your battlaground. Beta M (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, someone might find a source for this map, but that will be found in some daily newspaper and not in scientific book... The border shown here was never correct, and keeping the file means that the WP help to spread this common misinformation and more of those inaccurate maps appear all over the internet... See [10] for details.--Antemister (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not a "battleground" here and not question of NPOV. The image is highly inaccurate and we have better version - why should we keep it? The fact the taliban never controlled the panjir valley is not disputed. Commons should not have files with such mistakes.--Antemister (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- So we should wait and see if somebody can produce a source for these borders. Beta M (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- The proplem with this map is, that Kunduz was ruled by the Taliban. en:Kunduz#History "Kunduz was the last major city held by the Taliban before its fall to US-backed Afghan Northern Alliance forces on November 26, 2001" and of cource: en:Siege of Kunduz The question is, when did the Taliban capture the city. Because the map shows the situation in 2001. This source says Kunduz was captured 1996: "Kunduz had been under the Taliban for five long years" --Goldzahn (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the label "Northern Afghanistan" is wrong, too. "Northern Alliance" would be correct en:Northern Alliance. Since no one wants to delete this file. Maybe there is a template which says, that this file is wrong? --Goldzahn (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info The template to add is {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep, link to this discussion from talk page. A.J. (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Germany (mass deletion request, over 3000 files)
[edit]All images in the category unless the images author died more than 70 years ago. Too much images to make a mass deletion request according to the rules. Reasons for deletion request: According to this we have to delete them all... unless the images and stamps authors died more than 70 years ago. --Müdigkeit (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. We don't have to delete anything. This interlocutory injunction (it's not even a judgment) is contradictory to an older court decision of the LG München and only draws upon copyright commentaries. We should simply ignore it (at least until we have a decision of a higher level of jurisdiction). Chaddy (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not nonsense, the juristic literature speaks in favor of the court decision. It doesn´t look in our favor, and if that is the case, we have to do it as secure as possible(delete). And if I look at the licensing policy they are not free in the US.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain, what you mean with "authors" in this respect. The creator of the central image or the arrangement of the stamp. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Deutsche Post used to be a federal agency, IFF there are new rules it might only affect recent stamps. As per Chaddy an injunction by a lower court for the Loriot stamps is no base for mass deletions. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The category Category:Deutsche Post stamps contains all stamps made after the Deutsche Post went private. They have to be removed even if the others are being kept.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep The restraining order to delete the Loriot stamps has nothing to do with the fact, that the Deutsche Post is private. Like before, when the Deutsche Post was a federal agency, stamps were and are still published by the ministry of finance. Juristic literature, as Müdigkeit claims, always was the opinion, that stamps are not pd. The LG München did not agree to juristic literature, another court did now. Anyway: the last decision is not precedent, it is not even a verdict, it is an individual case assessment. --Ian DuryHit me 11:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete these images. One heir has complained about 4 specific images and the court has decided without a trial just hearing the arguments of one side de:Einstweilige Verfügung on these images only. We are still waiting for a real court ruling in a de:Hauptsacheverfahren. I am sure that will happen, as the same images are available on the websites of several German newspapers, magazines and tv-stations.
Many of the stamps, respectively the central image contained in them, are already PD because of the age of the subject. (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Let´s end this discussion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep The Loriot affair has nothing to do with German stamps, especially before privatization of Deutsche Bundespost (1994). There is no need for such a blind tabula rasa action. --Atomiccocktail (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep A strange idea to delete all these images. 15 edits here on Commons. No upload, but speedydelete and delete edits. --Hic et nunc (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Der Antragsteller selbst wünscht ein Ende. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Bitte kein "vorauseilender Gehorsam" und jetzt alles hier zerstören. Die EV eines LG reicht weitestgehend nur die Sichtweise der "Abmahnanwälte" BHM weiter. Ohne Revisionsverhandlung wird es keine grundlegende Entscheidung eines OLG geben.
Auch wenn die Deutsche Post "privatisiert" wurde, werden Fälschungen von Briefmarken von Staats wegen als "Straftat" (Weihnachtspost 2011 mit gefälschter Frankierung) verfolgt. Es ist nicht so, daß sich das "Privatunternehmen Post" mit dem Absender zivilrechtlich auseinandersetzen muß. --Drdoht 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep siehe Vorredner. --Nicor (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep though (or better: because) I am aware of authors' rights --O DM (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept as we won't purge all these stamps just on base of an injunction that happened to cover very few stamps only. The opinion that German stamps are official works in Germany according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG has not yet been seriously challenged. Please be refered to this section. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Fichiers de l'utilisateur:Aminier
[edit]- File:Maisons à pan de bois, 7 rue des trente Josselin.jpg
- File:Deux maisons en pan de bois, 5-7 rue des Trente Josselin.jpg
- File:Le Chateau de Josselin.jpg
Completing an incomplete DR. Given reason by Aminier (talk · contribs): collection privée publiée sans autorisation de l'auteur. Compare with Commons:Bistro#supression_compte. Looks like he/she is the author of the 3 images and uploaded them using CC-Licenses. After a month or so he/she realised the "meaning" of CC-Licenses and changed his/her mind. --JuTa 11:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
some private images from Forest & Kim Starr
[edit]- File:Starr 000129-1218 Osteomeles anthyllidifolia.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0103 Coprosma montana.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0104 Pinus radiata.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0105 Coprosma montana.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0106 Sophora chrysophylla.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0087 Tribulus cistoides.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0096 Cynodon dactylon.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0097 Verbesina encelioides.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0098 Lobularia maritima.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0100 Lobularia maritima.jpg
- File:Starr 010926-0045 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0070 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0151 Leptecophylla tameiameiae.jpg
- File:Starr 011205-0137 Clusia rosea.jpg
- File:Starr 011205-0138 Terminalia catappa.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0017 Pluchea indica.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0022 Pluchea indica.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0023 Pluchea carolinensis.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0024 Pluchea x fosbergii.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0025 Prosopis pallida.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0026 Pluchea indica.jpg
- File:Starr 020103-0027 Pluchea carolinensis.jpg
- File:Starr 020225-0007 Chamaesyce celastroides var. stokesii.jpg
- File:Starr 020225-0017 Colocasia esculenta.jpg
- File:Starr 020226-0063 Vitex rotundifolia.jpg
- File:Starr 020323-0070 Erythrina sandwicensis.jpg
- File:Starr 020323-0071 Erythrina sandwicensis.jpg
- File:Starr 020617-0014 Alpinia zerumbet.jpg
- File:Starr 020617-0023 Sesbania tomentosa.jpg
- File:Starr 020617-0024 Sesbania tomentosa.jpg
- File:Starr 020620-0042 Coccinia grandis.jpg
- File:Starr 020925-0068 Scaevola chamissoniana.jpg
- File:Starr 020925-0101 Cibotium sp..jpg
- File:Starr 020925-0124 Scaevola chamissoniana.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0007 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0015 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0016 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0047 Artemisia mauiensis.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0048 Leptecophylla tameiameiae.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0049 Vaccinium reticulatum.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0050 Deschampsia nubigena.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0051 Leptecophylla tameiameiae.jpg
- File:Starr 021003-0052 Leptecophylla tameiameiae.jpg
- File:Starr 030409-0011 Cordyline fruticosa.jpg
These are "catches" out of Category:Possibly out of scope. They are bot-uploads from the Forest Starr & Kim Starr which is a very valuable source of images of specimen of plants or animals (thanks for that). But the subject of these images are not the named plants or animals but are private shnapshots of people "during the tour". On the most images the named speciman is not even on, which makes these IMHO out of scope. --JuTa 20:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yes please. I was the one who marked most of them as "out of scope" and they really are. --Nowic (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Some more very similar catches:
- File:Starr 010516-0023 Erythrina sandwicensis.jpg
- File:Starr 010516-0024 Erythrina sandwicensis.jpg
- File:Starr 010516-0026 Erythrina sandwicensis.jpg
- File:Starr 010914-0047 Parkinsonia aculeata.jpg
- File:Starr 010926-0052 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0069 Bromus tectorum.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0110 Sophora chrysophylla.jpg
- File:Starr 020116-0066 Sesuvium portulacastrum.jpg
- File:Starr 000212-1236 Tournefortia argentea.jpg
- File:Starr 000501-1261 Deschampsia nubigena.jpg
- File:Starr 000617-1276 Dodonaea viscosa.jpg
- File:Starr 000621-1279 Prosopis pallida.jpg
- File:Starr 000623-1284 Asclepias physocarpa.jpg
- File:Starr 001117-0059 Rubus niveus f. a.jpg
- File:Starr 001215-0062 Oryza sp..jpg
- File:Starr 001215-0068 Salsola tragus.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0113 Cotoneaster pannosus.jpg
- File:Starr 001221-0116 Cotoneaster pannosus.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0101 Scaevola taccada.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-0102 Scaevola taccada.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-1327 Eragrostis variabilis.jpg
- File:Starr 010520-5001 Tournefortia argentea.jpg
- File:Starr 010523-1338 Tournefortia argentea.jpg
- File:Starr 010715-0026 Spathodea campanulata.jpg
- File:Starr 010715-0027 Ficus cf. platypoda.jpg
- File:Starr 010715-0028 Spathodea campanulata.jpg
- File:Starr 010721-0076 Pleomele auwahiensis.jpg
- File:Starr 010807-0023 Deschampsia nubigena.jpg
- File:Starr 010808-0032 Vaccinium reticulatum.jpg
- File:Starr 010924-0020 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 010924-0021 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0059 Deschampsia nubigena.jpg
- File:Starr 011003-0129 Argyroxiphium sandwicense subsp. macrocephalum.jpg
--JuTa 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I strongly oppose this explanation of Commons:Project scope. Some images might not be that useful on it's own, but these images are part of larger collection and are all in scope. You're not saving any disk space. You're not making Commons a better place. You're just pissing me off. Stop wasting my, your and other peoples time. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Free licensed, potentially informative, part of set of acknowledge usefulness. From checking on a few examples, it looks to me that the people shown are those who were actually doing the flora survey. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Multichill -- forgive me for the pun, but please chill out. I don't understand your reasoning or your vehemence. I've looked at about half of these:
- They all appear to be images of unidentified individuals or groups.
- There is no evidence that the people are notable in the sense that we require.
- Some have no categories.
- In other cases, the categories are not correct.
- The file names are misleading.
- So, I don't understand why you so vehemently think we should keep them -- they look to me like a perfect set to go on Flickr as personal images of a trip.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment are Kim & Forest Starr notable botanists? Many of the photos with people are images of the people the category is named after. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. As per Jim. Many of the images don't include the species listed in the file name. In my opinion, this seems like a private image collection and probably has little educational value. --AlphaEta (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - ditto to Nowic, Jim and AlphaEta. These are insignificant holiday snaps that happen to have got included in the Starrs' photo database without good reason (most don't include the plant they are indexed under). To the comment "are Kim & Forest Starr notable botanists?", the answer is no; they don't have any published plant names (IPNI author index), just a large collection of photos that happen (unlike most plant photo collections) to be CC-licensed so appear here. Contributing to Commons doesn't make people notable. - MPF (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, well said. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)