Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/07/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
I do not see any evidence that the video or/and the screeshot were released under CC-BY-NC licence. Possibly need an OTRS permission. Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you visit the source site for this file. — George Serdechny 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- So do it again, until you find "Creative Commons – Attribution" note at the description of this file. — George Serdechny 14:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I nearly couldn't find it either: you need to click on "show more" (which isn't even obviously a button), just above "uploader comments". That links to this which points at CC by 3.0. So it seems the license for this is fine. Rd232 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Great, found it. Withdraw the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment You need to click on "show more" reviewing any YT-file. It's quite strange for me, that experienced reviewers like you are, don't know such a simple things. — George Serdechny 15:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded wrong version. The Club was founded at 1994 NOT 1934. Johndark93 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - you could have just uploaded the correct file over the wrong one. That would have been the easier fix. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo without permission - doubtful authorship, probably promo. Art-top (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Question – Uploader claims that this is their organisation's logo, so why doubt about the authorship? How and why promotional?—Bill william comptonTalk 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader can confirm their rights to a previously published work only through the OTRS. There is no confirmation that the user has to do with the organization of the same name. --Art-top (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it already published? and how you come to this conclusion? I know when the OTRS is needed.—Bill william comptonTalk 18:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the logo has not been published, it is not a symbol of the organization and has no value for the project. Sorry for bad english. --Art-top (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it already published? and how you come to this conclusion? I know when the OTRS is needed.—Bill william comptonTalk 18:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission for use. Tomer T (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope or uploaded without permission. Rillke(q?) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Per Geni, this is a derivative work of the text, of which there is enough to attract copyright. (Unless someone can show the text is PD?) 99of9 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- We can ask the British Library if they care or want to assert copyright. If anyone thinks this image is useful, I can raise it as the GLAM partner point of contact in the UK. Photographs were allowed in the room where this was taken. As a precaution I have blanked the text body. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per 99of9, this is a derivative work of copyrighted text. We either need the underlying text released in PD, or made available under a free licence, by the museum before being able to host such things. russavia (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Flag invented obtained from a blog. MauriManya (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Irrelevant to the project.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
For me this image is out of the project scope. ALE! ¿…? 06:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree with the nominator, image of unremarkable person.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal photo. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Out of project scope, unless user use it—Bill william comptonTalk 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree with the nominator.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Agree with the nominator.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Out of scope. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out ofscope Wvk (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe no own work, picture bigger here http://duma.bg/duma/node/25053 and found on several websites. Funfood ␌ 10:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong picture TAFISA2012 (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Wvk (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Probaby not own work. Other uploads by this user are also questionable. Yann (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing EXIF, questionable copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Probaby not own work. Other uploads by this user are also questionable. Yann (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing EXIF, questionable copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work from the poster. Trycatch (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivatives of apparent non-free materials are not permissible on Commons. FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Painting is still copyrighted in the US, and probably still in the country of origin as well. The painting is clearly credited to Albert Sebille; I have not yet been able to track down a date of his death, but he was creating images at least as late as the 1930s (see here for instance), which means this painting was still copyrighted in the US in 1996. The copyright was thus extended by the URAA in the US. At best, this image can be locally uploaded to the fr.wiki, if someone can track down a pre-1942 date of death for the author. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- delete he has a category, Category:Albert Sébille, which says he died in 1953, so yeah. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Gestumblindi (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
unused personal facebook image Chesdovi (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Chesdovi (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Low resolution, no original exif - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, see http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/index.cfm Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question en:University of California suggests that the university which published the document might be part of the Californian government. Does this make the image {{PD-CAGov}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think so, as the website carries a copyright notice (c Regents of the University of California). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
commons is not a social network Ignacio 
(discusión) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned image of a non-notable band (see AFD). Outside of project scope. — ξxplicit 23:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope FASTILY (TALK) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of Giant Clam (Tridacna Squamosa?) 3 Ahalin (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship - low resolution professional photo without exif. Other similar photos uploaded by user, nominated for deletion as copivio. Art-top (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The author Antal Schmidt died 1966, see [1], so license PD-old is incorrect. Lymantria (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 5 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 6 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
from newspaper Polarlys (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to be a screenshot or a scanned poster of a film, thus copyright violation. PD-India also doesn't apply as film was released in 1970. —Bill william comptonTalk 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete agree Boseritwik (talk) July 10, 2012 11:19 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 7 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 8 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 15:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 9 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 15:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The monument was opened in 1952 [2]. Unfortunately has to be deleted as there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A better copy uploaded: File:Geografija p10.jpg. Wizardist (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused, not significant logo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A clear derivative from File:Vacuum fryer part.jpg Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 2 R number.svg. 84.61.164.191 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 4 R number.svg. 84.61.164.191 18:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesstraße 6n number.svg. 84.61.164.191 18:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, single upload from user, bad quality Funfood ␌ 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesautobahn 995 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Bundesautobahn 26 number.svg. 84.61.164.191 20:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no metadata, and uploader history of copyvios make this image suspect. See, for example, File:Vila Nova Anços Pelourinho.jpg, for a similar circumstance. Эlcobbola talk 20:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely COM:SCOPE issue; non-notable individual used only in a vanity sandbox (user:Ebofimedia seems to relate to www.ebofi.blogspot.com mentioned in image description). Эlcobbola talk 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
All other images uploaded by this user (16/17 total) have been deleted as copyvios, which more than strains trust that this is "own work" as indicated. Эlcobbola talk 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.6.94 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.6.94 21:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec's artworks are not in public domain. Copyright violation. 86.217.6.94 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No date or source of any publication prior to 20 year old indicated. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No date or source of any publication prior to 20 year old indicated. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the issue is either the uploader or insufficient evidence that it was previously published before internet. It could be a photo from Life, Look, or Time magazine. Even if there wasn't a copyright notice in the past, this does not eliminate the "unpublished photo" possiblity. The acts of an uploader Wikiwatcher1 has been discussed everywhere, including in Commons and English Wikipedia, and discussions about them cannot go away. One copy of a photo may or may not suffice determination of copyright protection or ineligiblity. At this time, we are discussing a very old photo of the past celebrity that has been modified for digitalisation. It could or could not have been registered for copyright renewals in 1974, but, as Wikiwatcher said, there is no author. Why would omission of a proprietor imply a defective notice immediate ineligibility for copyrights? George Ho (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm the owner and who appear on this image, and it doesn't contribute nothing. That's why I want to delete it Charabutillo (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG at File:Flag of Kingdom of Syria (1920-03-08 to 1920-07-24).svg Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of SVG at File:Flag of the French Mandate of Syria (1920).svg Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dupe of SVG at File:Syria-flag 1932-58 1961-63.svg Fry1989 eh? 22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As the Syrian Regime is still in power and the flag has not changed, this is anachronistic and (to borrow Suu Kyi's phrase) overly-optimistic at this time. Fry1989 eh? 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: in sourcepage will be read Copyright © 2003-2011 Myspace LLC all right reserved May or may not be eligible for {{PD-textlogo}}; discussion is needed. Эlcobbola talk 20:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sadiq Khan.M (talk · contribs)
[edit]Various resolutions, from 3 different cameras, and one of them is an obvious copyright violation. I very much doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder.
- File:Puri-jagannath.jpg
- File:Sadiq khan (director).jpg
- File:Balaji sakthivel director.JPG
- File:Brindha Sarthy.JPG
- File:Film Producer.JPG
- File:N.Subash Chandra Bose Producer.JPG
Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Site promo - out of project scope.
Art-top (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PHTutoriais (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Franzfiera (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubtful authorship - images from site atopicca.eu without permission.
- File:Atopica logo wiki 2.png - variant of site logo with 2 other logos
- File:Atopica effects.jpg
- File:Atopica logo wiki.png - variant of site logo
- File:Atopica concept.png - from here
- File:Atopica logo.png - variant of site logo
Art-top (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Onlineshopper (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos from more2home.dk without permission. Promo images.
- File:Bombay Sofa med chaiselong.jpg
- File:Genoa sovesofa.jpg - from here
- File:Hjørnesofa i læder eller stof.jpg
- File:Genoa sovesofa med chaiselong.jpg - from here
- File:Genoa chaiselong sovesofa i stof.jpg - from here
Art-top (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Guilhermecfc (talk · contribs)
[edit]False authorship claims and false PD rationale. These are obviously neither the uploader's work nor works created by the Brazilian government.
- File:Goleiro coritiba.JPG
- File:CORITIBA-SE.gif
- File:ComercialFutebolClube.gif
- File:Selo Comemorativo centenario.png
- File:Bandeira do coxa.jpg
- File:Mascote coritiba.jpg
- File:Ct da Graciosa 2.jpg
- File:Trofeu serie b.gif
—LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Images appear to have been taken from Google street view - see File:Insuresafe building indowntown ttown.png in which uploader did just that.
- File:Bryantbankintuscaloosa.png
- File:First federal bank in tuscaloosa alabama.png
- File:UA school of medicine in tuscaloosa, AL.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the uploader did not take these from street view. They were taken with a Blackberry phone you moron. I still have all of the original photos as well. Why don't you bother actually MATCHING the photos I took with street view rather than making such an absurd claim with zero evidence. It's really simple to debunk your accusation by comparing the images to street view which you evidently failed to do.
It's a great thing criminal investigations aren't left up to unabashed imbeciles such as yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhYno12 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stardoll24586 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, uploaded by a sockpuppet of User:Dari Feitosa.
Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Cross wiki puppet stuff Herby talk thyme 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Flag invented by a user. MauriManya (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support As Maurimanya said, this flag doesn't exist. One user created it on en.wiki and, without even checking if it was fake or not, I took the decision of uploading it on Commons two years ago. Go ahead. --Góngora (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)- Delete – Out of scope.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Please use {{Vd}} or {{Vk}} -- {{Support}} is ambiguous -- do you support deletion or support the image? . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Flag invented by a user. MauriManya (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support As Maurimanya said, this flag doesn't exist. One user created it on en.wiki and, without even checking if it was fake or not, I took the decision of uploading it on Commons two years ago. My mistake. --Góngora (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Out of scope.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite the claim on the page, this comes from a copyrighted document, [3] Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Copyright violation.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite the claims in the file, this comes straight out of a copyrighted document [4] Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Copyright violation.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is not the uploader's own work. See
- http://jubileemag.com/2012/05/lecrae-opens-up-about-controversial-new-song-church-clothes/ and
- http://blog.beliefnet.com/wholenotes/2012/06/a-conversation-with-christian-hip-hop-artist-lecrae.html Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The file appears to be a resized version of the first image on the second link above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, same as File:Lecrae Press Picture.jpg which I tagged as {{Copyvio}}. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – You should have tagged it with copyvio.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You should make it easier to nominate as copyvios. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is easy. Go to the left side of your screen and click "Report copyright violation" in Toolbox options.—Bill william comptonTalk 12:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This image is from a Wikia project. It does not have an explicit license. According to http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Community_Central:Licensing we may not assume it to be published under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Lymantria (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Incompatible license.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment – This is not a "personal picture". Please do Google image search before nominating files. The subject of image is a character of BBC Three TV series How to Live with Women. But the file needs OTRS permission.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. --Waldir talk 08:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – Commons is not Wikipedia. There are already so many animated flags present on Commons, e.g. Category:Animated hybrid flags.—Bill william comptonTalk 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't see what the "not wikipedia" argument is addressing. The deletion was proposed on the basis of a Commons policy. Secondly, I don't think it is fair to compare this flag with those on the category you linked; those have a specific purpose of representing several countries that are connected through some common trait (either language or membership of an international organization). The same can't be said of this file: what possible use could it have? What informational or educational or illustrative value could it provide? Note that these aren't rethorical questions; please answer them if you can. --Waldir talk 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just gave an example. There are plethora of such files on Commons, e.g. animated GIF flags, animated flags, animated state flags of the United States, etc. My argument is just that, if we already have so many animated flags and other country symbols then why not to keep this one.—Bill william comptonTalk 03:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't see what the "not wikipedia" argument is addressing. The deletion was proposed on the basis of a Commons policy. Secondly, I don't think it is fair to compare this flag with those on the category you linked; those have a specific purpose of representing several countries that are connected through some common trait (either language or membership of an international organization). The same can't be said of this file: what possible use could it have? What informational or educational or illustrative value could it provide? Note that these aren't rethorical questions; please answer them if you can. --Waldir talk 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Why out of scope?--Miguel Bugallo 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia--Miguel Bugallo 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've already addressed the "not Wikipedia" remark in my comment above. As for why it's out of scope: it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing a possible use case, though. --Waldir talk 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia--Miguel Bugallo 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact that we have many other images which we probably should not keep is not a reason to keep this one. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Misleading representation of a molecule. Poor quality and not used anywhere. Leyo 09:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree it is misleading. And why choose something chemically unstable and containing a highly radioactive isotope like [7Be-11Be]+? Couldn't be further from a real-world example. ChemNerd (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Misleading and poor quality. --Fgrosshans (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This "anonymous self-published" work looks like it comes from a badly scanned book. It is probably copyrighted. Fgrosshans (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Prière de donner les sources et les supposés copyrights avant de suspecter quoi que ce soit. Rien ne justifie de demander la suppression d'un travail personnel sur une simple et mauvaise "impression".--Indefini (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Toutes mes excuses, l'impression était renforcée, à tort, par votre nom d'utilisateur Indefini. Néanmoins, je maintiens que l'image est la photo floue et détourée d'un autre plan. Si ce plan est votre travail, pourquoi ne pas mettre une image de meilleure qualité ? Si votre travail correspond à la superposition de deux plans existants, vous devez créditer les plans originaux. À moins que le tracé des rues de Paris en arrière-plan soit aussi votre travail. Fgrosshans (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Après une recherche sur internet, j'ai trouvé l'original, sur cet article du Figaro, antérieur de 12 jours à votre soumission : http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2009/04/09/03004-20090409ARTFIG00454-paris-la-premiere-enceinte-medievale-mise-au-jour-.php . Le plan complet est ici http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/enceintes_paris.pdf , et inclut une légende correspondant aux 4 zones du plans qui ne sont pas des enceintes. Êtes vous l'auteur de ce plan ? Fgrosshans (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Qui vous dit que le plan de cet article du Figaro est un "original" ? Y voyez-vous un copyright ou quelque chose qui empêche de le diffuser sur Wikimedia ? Votre but, si je comprends bien, est d'empêcher de diffuser un plan qui reprend une représentation du Paris actuel agrémenté des diverses murailles qui l'ont ceinturées. Ce doit être très intéressant de parcourir ces pages pour retirer des éléments illustrant des articles mais je pense personnellement qu'il est beaucoup plus utile d'en ajouter. Alors, si vous trouvez un copyright, faites votre besogne mais dans le cas contraire, laissez plutôt les lecteurs en profiter. Au fait, je ne suis pas l'auteur du plan de Paris et je n'ai pas non plus construit les diverses enceintes de la Capitale.;o) Puisque même mon pseudo vous intrigue, vous serez au moins fixé sur ces points.--Indefini (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Il est plus utile d'en ajouter, certes, mais sans violer la loi.--Fgrosshans (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Quelle loi est-elle violée ? Où est le copyright ? Je vois que ce qui vous amuse surtout, c'est d'en supprimer. Les articles vont être de plus en plus ridicules sans illustration adéquate. Même le Figaro a repris cette carte et la diffuse en toute tranquilité, pour vous dire. Les droits doivent être réclamés par beaucoup de monde ! Enfin, bonne chasse et superbes annulations présentes et à venir !--Indefini (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Il est plus utile d'en ajouter, certes, mais sans violer la loi.--Fgrosshans (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Qui vous dit que le plan de cet article du Figaro est un "original" ? Y voyez-vous un copyright ou quelque chose qui empêche de le diffuser sur Wikimedia ? Votre but, si je comprends bien, est d'empêcher de diffuser un plan qui reprend une représentation du Paris actuel agrémenté des diverses murailles qui l'ont ceinturées. Ce doit être très intéressant de parcourir ces pages pour retirer des éléments illustrant des articles mais je pense personnellement qu'il est beaucoup plus utile d'en ajouter. Alors, si vous trouvez un copyright, faites votre besogne mais dans le cas contraire, laissez plutôt les lecteurs en profiter. Au fait, je ne suis pas l'auteur du plan de Paris et je n'ai pas non plus construit les diverses enceintes de la Capitale.;o) Puisque même mon pseudo vous intrigue, vous serez au moins fixé sur ces points.--Indefini (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - given that the original Fgrosshans found was published on 9 April 2009, and this map was uploaded on 24 April 2009, it seems impossible that the website could have copied from Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I maybe should add (for non-French) that the website is the website of Le Figaro, a major French newspaper. This decreases even further the probability that the copy is done the other way around.--Fgrosshans (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
no permission, photographer „Rich. Wörsching“, see image Polarlys (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- when will this be {{PD-old}}? --McZusatz (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't exactly matter, since it won't be PD in the US until circa 2045 (if we assume the "circa 1950" refers to the date of publication). Commons requires all images to be PD in both the country of origin and the US, since the servers are based there. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Therefore: Delete. --McZusatz (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Therefore:
- It doesn't exactly matter, since it won't be PD in the US until circa 2045 (if we assume the "circa 1950" refers to the date of publication). Commons requires all images to be PD in both the country of origin and the US, since the servers are based there. Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: / . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine, hence it unfortunately must be deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 06:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The sculptors were Mukhin, Fedchenko, Agibalov, and Mizin [5]; in 1944, both Mukhin and Fedchenko were still alive [6], therefore the image violates the copyright as there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Needs to be deleted.Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Common Good (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's a derivative work? Could you provide a URL of the supposed photo from which this item was derived? Sp33dyphil 23:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling". I think it is quite obviously that those images are directly from Samsung. It is the first presentation of this brand new smartphone, which was only released on 29 May 2012. Nobody else could be the creator of those large images. Could you provide a URL to a site where those images were released under a free license? -- Common Good (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- See my similar reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling, No.1 .jpg. Sp33dyphil 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling". I think it is quite obviously that those images are directly from Samsung. It is the first presentation of this brand new smartphone, which was only released on 29 May 2012. Nobody else could be the creator of those large images. Could you provide a URL to a site where those images were released under a free license? -- Common Good (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a derivative work. First of all, it's a photograph of a video of a photographic advertisement of an object. By your logic, any still image of such a video or photographic work, assuming both are rights-managed, would be a copyright violation as derivative. Using that logic, if I take a photo of an art exhibition and the photo shows artworks in the scene, I must have committed a copyright violation by making a derivative work of the artworks — an obviously wrong assumption. It's not your fault though, WP needs better legal guidance for both admins and editors alike. You are right in your feeling that it's an advertisement, and as such, is protected: "copyrightability is met because "[a]dvertisements are clearly copyrightable," (1 Nimmer on Copyright § 2.08[G][4]). However, an illustration: in Custom Dynamics, LLC v. Radiantz LED Lighting, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 2d 542, 549 (E.D.N.C. 2008) the court found no originality for copyright purposes in photographs of motorcycle taillights where such photographs were meant "to serve the purely utilitarian purpose of displaying examples of its product to potential consumers" and therefore the photographs did not merit copyright protection in the way that copies of the taillights themselves would. The court said
The point is that the photographic (still or moving) representation of the object at issue is not the same thing as copying the object itself, or reproducing its advertisements, and this is particularly applicable in photos that depict a scene where an object in the scene is of a copyrighted design, like one taken of a scene at an art exhibition. More and better guidance is needed to illustrate this by WP legal, so you should definitely ask for it. — Sctechlaw (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)If Custom is claiming a copyright in the ability to show product-description photographs and technical details of aftermarket motorcycle lights in general, Custom's claim is weak because it is essentially an attempt to copyright an idea. "Although copyright protects against more than literal' copying . . . it does not afford an exclusive right to ideas. . . ." Robert A. Gorman, Copyright Law 24 (2d ed.2006). Copyright law has always distinguished between ideas or concepts (which may not be copyrighted) and particularized, original expressions of ideas (which may be copyrighted). See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ("In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea. . . ."); 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.03[D] (Lexis-Nexis 2007) ("Copyright may be claimed only in the `expression' of a work of authorship, and not in its `idea.'").
- One other note you may find helpful: the court in FragranceNet. com, Inc. v. FragranceX. com, Inc., 679 F. Supp. 2d 312, Dist.Ct., (ED New York 2010) said:
Hope that helps. — Sctechlaw (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)"images of a third-party's intellectual property may receive less protection than a completely original work. Such minimal protection would not afford the registrant of the copyright protection against all subsequent depictions of the same subject matter. Rather, the protection is against a precise re-creation or copying of the registrant's work...."
Deleted: Clear DW of images on the screen. THe comment "if I take a photo of an art exhibition and the photo shows artworks in the scene, I must have committed a copyright violation by making a derivative work of the artworks — an obviously wrong assumption." is exactly backwards , unless the art works are de minimis you cannot reproduce someone else's work without permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Common Good (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think it's a derivative work? Could you provide a URL of the supposed photo from which this item was derived? Sp33dyphil 23:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling". I think it is quite obviously that those images are directly from Samsung. It is the first presentation of this brand new smartphone, which was only released on 29 May 2012. Nobody else could be the creator of those large images. Could you provide a URL to a site where those images were released under a free license? -- Common Good (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Look, I totally disagree with your deletion rationale purely because it has absolutely no basis and plausibility, and with a lack of evidence against the photo, I suggest you withdraw your action. Do you really believe that, of the thousands of people who were present at the launch ceremony, only the photos documenting the event would have to only been taken by professional photographers? If your rationale is correct, there wouldn't be any photos at , and other electronic device-launching events. Do you really believe that an official photographer would have occupied a location as offset as the image in question, not have focused on the person on stage, and not have taken a photo clearer to this image? FYI, if you were to have a look around, you would have came across this, this, and this, which are official photographs of Samsung Electronics released by its official Flickr account SamsungTomorrow; scour the 'net as you may, I assure you that you will not find a photo that could be the parent image of this supposed derivative work. By the way, what role does "which was only released on 29 May 2012" play in your deletion rationale? As for your request, you obviously did not see the Flickr link on the image's page next to "source". I've worked hard to scour the web looking for freely-released images of the 3 May launch event, and eventually managed to persuade a Flickr user to change the license status of their works; it's quite disappointing that a user could just waltz past and slap a deletion template onto an image without thinking it through sufficiently. I am also disappointed that you believe a photo like that could only be taken by Samsung. Sp33dyphil 10:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether cruzgt is a professional photographer. As long as the smartphone was not presented to the public only the producer knows how the smartphone will look. The parent image is the background which was designed by Samsung. Of course I have checked the source link. I really appreciate your search for free images (I am doing the same very often). I do not believe this photo was taken by Samsung (sadly). cruzgt is the photographer. I do not doubt that.
- We might crop or blur the copyrighted part of the photo. But as you already mentioned the photo is not focused on the person on stage, blurry and I think the photo would become pretty uselesss. -- Common Good (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, when are you close this deletion application? Sp33dyphil 07:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Look, I totally disagree with your deletion rationale purely because it has absolutely no basis and plausibility, and with a lack of evidence against the photo, I suggest you withdraw your action. Do you really believe that, of the thousands of people who were present at the launch ceremony, only the photos documenting the event would have to only been taken by professional photographers? If your rationale is correct, there wouldn't be any photos at , and other electronic device-launching events. Do you really believe that an official photographer would have occupied a location as offset as the image in question, not have focused on the person on stage, and not have taken a photo clearer to this image? FYI, if you were to have a look around, you would have came across this, this, and this, which are official photographs of Samsung Electronics released by its official Flickr account SamsungTomorrow; scour the 'net as you may, I assure you that you will not find a photo that could be the parent image of this supposed derivative work. By the way, what role does "which was only released on 29 May 2012" play in your deletion rationale? As for your request, you obviously did not see the Flickr link on the image's page next to "source". I've worked hard to scour the web looking for freely-released images of the 3 May launch event, and eventually managed to persuade a Flickr user to change the license status of their works; it's quite disappointing that a user could just waltz past and slap a deletion template onto an image without thinking it through sufficiently. I am also disappointed that you believe a photo like that could only be taken by Samsung. Sp33dyphil 10:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Samsung Galaxy S III unveiling". I think it is quite obviously that those images are directly from Samsung. It is the first presentation of this brand new smartphone, which was only released on 29 May 2012. Nobody else could be the creator of those large images. Could you provide a URL to a site where those images were released under a free license? -- Common Good (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear DW of the three images on the screen. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted image, cannot be released into public domain by anonymous editor. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Question en:University of California suggests that the university which published the document might be part of the Californian government. Does this make the image {{PD-CAGov}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think so, as the website carries a copyright notice (c Regents of the University of California). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep According to http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html , copyright was never renewed on any issue of California Agriculture prior to 1964.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Although the pictures were taken by a US government employee and published on a US government website under the US government employee's official title,[7][8] the employee's personal home page suggests that it was taken on personal time.[9] {{PD-USGov}} only applies to photos taken during official duty, so this doesn't seem to be a valid case of {{PD-USGov}}. See COM:HD#File:Mech 06.jpg probably a copyvio (?) (permanent link). Stefan4 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a fair assessment; looks like I uploaded this back before I really knew the workings of Commons, too, and didn't bother renaming it during the upload. Thanks for the note! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've emailed the photographer informing him of this, letting him know that it is likely to be deleted here if he takes no action, and asking him to consider releasing it under a suitable free license. I will post any reply here. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Got a very quick affirmative reply. I will ask him to email OTRS; I've withdrawn my delete !vote and suggest that this should be kept temporarily to allow time for OTRS processing. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've emailed the photographer informing him of this, letting him know that it is likely to be deleted here if he takes no action, and asking him to consider releasing it under a suitable free license. I will post any reply here. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep He has sent an email confirming CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL dual licensing to OTRS (he copied me on it). I've tagged the file with the dual license and marked it as OTRS pending. cmadler (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment An email was received via OTRS (ticket:2012071310008816). I can't decide yet if it's a valid permission or not. Trijnsteltalk 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming it's the email he copied me on, it used the default language at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, using the "standard" license choice listed there. If this language is not suitable, that page should be immediately corrected! And, it was sent from the email listed on his website (linked at the top of this discussion), upon which the image appears, so I think there should be no question that he is who he claims. It seems to me that this should be a fairly straightforward OTRS verification; what's the problem? cmadler (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Now has valid OTRS permission. --Krd 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
GMoyano
[edit]- File:Madres Marcha Resistencia.jpg
- File:Escrache Hermelo.jpg
- File:Juicio Patti.jpg
- File:Anulación leyes impunidad.jpg
- File:Escrache Galtieri.jpg
- File:Volante Linea Fundadora - No al indulto.jpg
- File:Volante Madres.jpg
- File:17 Aniversario del golpe.jpg
- File:Volante Madres Linea Fundadora.jpg
- File:Solicitada La Prensa.jpg
- File:Solicitada Clarín.jpg
- File:Carcel de Devoto 1980.jpg
- File:Huelga de Hambre.jpg
- File:Convocatoria a marcha.jpg
- File:International week of the desaparecido.jpg
- File:Angelelli.jpg
- File:Periodico Madres de Plaza de Mayo.jpg
- File:No Punto Final.jpg
- File:Ronda Madres de Plaza de Mayo.jpg
- File:Niños Desaparecidos.jpg
- File:Dos generaciones.jpg
- File:Coloquio internacional para una convención contra la desaparición forzada de personas.jpg
- File:Concetración popular contra el indulto.jpg
- File:Derecho identidad.jpg
- File:Identidad impuesta.jpg
- File:20 años.jpg
- File:Derecho a la identidad.jpg
- File:Escraches.jpg
- File:Identidad.jpg
- File:Escrache.jpg
- File:10 años.jpg
- File:Juicios.jpg
- File:Juicio y Castigo.jpg
- File:No al indulto.jpg
All those images are posters, banners, advertisments, etc; uploaded by User:GMoyano. He claims that they come from a compilation from Presidencia de la Nación, and licenced them as such, but there is no specific link to the location of the image hosted. Even more, I did not see any section in the site that would fit any such "compilation". But even if the link appears, they may still be unacceptable. If HIJOS, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo or other human rights organization creates a banner, the banner belongs to them, not to the presidency. If I took a photo of a banner and try to upload it with a free licence it would be an unacceptable derivative work, as the original copyright remains, and if a third party does the same (X create something, Y takes a photo and claims a free licence of it, and Z uploads it to Commons) it would still be unacceptable. --Cambalachero (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Antes que nada, me encantaría poder tomar estos pedidos de borrados sin intención politica, sin embargo ya hubo varios archivos borrados, algunos contrarios no sólo a la legalidad si no también de la lógica. Uno de ellos fue una "carta abierta" que obviamente no se reservan derechos como un pilar fundamental de la misma, de otra manera, sería una "carta cerrada"...
- Por otro lado, también es difícil encontrar la "buena fe" cuando de ser necesario un "link" a la licencia, podría haberse solicitado a mi usuario, con anterioridad" a pedir el borrado.
- De cualquier manera, explico lo que ya he hecho en otras oportunidades, Presidencia de La Nación ha realizado una una compilación de diferentes "carteles" respondiendo a la temática de la lucha por los Derechos Humanos.
- La misma, como otras compilaciones realizadas por Estado Nacional, están expresamente liberadas de derechos de copyright.
- Respondiendo a lo dicho en esta discusión. Las organizaciones, al igual que es común en las campañas de bien público, liberan los derechos de las imágenes, textos, logos y demás que contentan esas publicaciones. GMoyano (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Por último, traigo lo ya expresado antes, las publicaciones de "presidencia de la nación" (así como de los ministerios) se puede leer claramente: "Publicación de distribución gratuita. Prohibida su venta. Se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro con expresa mención de la fuente y autores.".
- Creo que luego de esto no hay más necesidad de seguir con estas "nominaciones". GMoyano (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please talk in English if you can. Commons is a site with users from many different countries, with many different languages, so -English is used as the default language in general community discussions, so that everybody can understand.
- You seem to overestimate the scope of the {{CC-AR-Presidency}} license. It applies to the website of the presidency and nothing more, at least for the moment. It is not similar to the {{PD-USGov}} license, because there is main difference: there is no law, decree or regulation in Argentina saying that works of the government are in public domain. It is just a CC icon at the web page, and so it only applies to the content produced by that web page. It does not apply to things that the presidency may do outside of that page. For example, the Ministry of Education (which should be one of the first interested ones in freely redistributing content) not only does not have the CC icon, but it has the © icon instead. And futhermore, the license does not extend to other people's works that got into the network of works of the presidency. The presidency did not "absorb" other people's copyright, unless there is evidence that such a thing happened, and if they didn't, they can't license it. And I have good reason to suspect that HIJOS and the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo did not intend their works to be free: neither the HIJOS site nor the Abuelas site have the CC icon, in fact HIJOS has the other one. And wat about Clarín? Are you seriously stating that they gave up their copyright to the presidency? In fact, presidency had been using a non-free license until recently, did not provide any clarification to our mails, and only changed to a Commons-compatible CC some months ago, when I forced them to do it (see Template talk:CC-AR-Presidency-old#Bad template for new files for the whole story).
- In any case, I'm still waiting for a link to the source of these images within that page. Cambalachero (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Veo que ahora hay un simple deseo de borrar estos documentos, no por problemas de licencia, sino que hay una evidente intención política para borrarlos.
- I see now there is a simply desire to erase these documents, not for license issues, instead there is a obvious political intention to erase them.
- De todos modos, el único problema que veo es la licencia que he utilizado, a causa de un malentendido acerca de la licencia.
- Anyhow, the only problem I see it's the license I used, because a misunderstood about the licence.
- De todos modos, lo dije una y otra vez. Es un libro cuyo título es "76,11 Afiches. Momentos Que hicieron historia". Es un libro hecho de la instalación artística del mismo nombre. Usted puede ver la página aquí.
- Anyway, I said it over and over. It's a book whit the title "76.11 afiches. momentos que hicieron historia". It's a book made from the artistical instalation of the same name. You can see the page here.
- El libro tiene el ISBN 978-987-26311-7-8.
- The book has the ISBN 978-987-26311-7-8.
- El libro dice claramente:
Impreso en la Argentina. Publicación de distribución gratuita. No está en venta. Prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de este libro específicamente mencionar la fuente y los autores
- The book clearly says:
Printed in Argentina. Free distribution publication. Not for sale. Reproduction in whole or part of this book specifically mentioning the source and authors
- Por lo tanto, repito, espero que tome este nominaciones y acabar a todos.
- Therefore, I repeat, I hope you take this nominations and finishem all. GMoyano (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You cited the terms of use twince... and each time you cited polar opposite terms. Is reproduction allowed or forbidden? Better scan the page and upload it somewhere (not in Commons, in some other site, and link to it) so we can check what does it really say. Have in mind that "free distribution is allowed" is not enough: see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. Commercial reuse must be allowed, and the terms of use you cited seem to mean that it is not. Even more, I checked the ISBN and the book was published on June 2011, when the Presidency was using a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA, which is exactly that (free distribution is allowed, commercial reuse is not), which was not allowed in Commons (and that's why they had to change it to the current terms). Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Es)Por un error al traducir de un idioma al otro, se dio el error que mencionas. En todo caso, te confirmo que la leyenda que se encuentra en el libro es
Impreso en la Argentina. Publicación de distribución gratuita. No está en venta. Se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro con expresa mención de la fuente y autores
- Yo tengo en cuenta que no es suficiente con que sea de distribución gratuita no es suficiente.
- Al parecer tendrías que tener en cuenta que dice claramente que "se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro".
- No entiendo por qué seguís hablando de la página web de Presidencia de La Nación, cuando está claro hace un tiempo que esto no depende de la misma, si no es un libro publicado por Presidencia de La Nación.
- Creo que no hay razones para que no se considere que se cuenta con la licencia de estas imágenes, cuando se están permitiendo las reproducciones totales o parciales.
- (En)Due to an error in translating from one language to another, it have the error you mention. In any case, I confirm that the legend is in the book is
Printed in Argentina. Free distribution publication. Not for sale. Reproduction allowed in whole or part of this book specifically mentioning the source and author
- I have in mind that it is sufficient that free distribution is not enough.
- Apparently you would have to take into account that clearly states that "reproduction allowed in whole or part of this book."
- I do not understand why you keep talking about the website of the Presidency of the Nation, when it is clear for some time that does not depend on it, if not a book published by the Presidency of the Nation.
- I think there is no reason to not believe that it has licensed these images when they are allowing full or partial reproductions.
- GMoyano (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The current licence is still {{CC-AR-Presidency}}. Which one do you propose to use instead? Besides, more than your text, I would like to see a scan of the terms of use. Three times you cited it, three times you cited texts that do not match each other, so I want to see something certain. Besides, commercial use and derivative works must be specifically allowed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Es)
- Veo que hay una clara mala intención para no reconocer las fuentes.
- De cualquier manera, como seguiré una y otra vez respondiendo a tus "inquietudes":
- No cambié la licencia usada porque podría ser tomado como un acto de mala fe si se lo realizara cuando se está solicitando el borrado. Una vez resuelto este, pasaré a realizar todos los cambios pertinenes, entre ellos agregar el ISBN del libro en cada uno de los artículos.
- Desconozco los métodos de commons para poder precisar qué licencia se debe colocar en los archivos, pero es claro que existe la potestad de reproducción total o parcial sobre el contenido del mismo.
- La líneas que cité del libro, lo hice 4 veces, en las que una sola, por un error en la traducción, falto una palabra.
- Actualmente no tengo a mi disposición un scanner para poder subir la página donde aparece esto, pero si quieres puedes consultar el resúmen vía web en esta dirección.
- (En)
- I see a clear malicious intent not to recognize the sources.
- Anyway, as I will continue again and again answering your "concerns":
- I did not change the license used because it could be taken as an act of bad faith if it is done when requesting the deletion. With this decision, I will make every pertinenes changes, including adding the book's ISBN in each of the items.
- Commons not know the methods to determine which license should be placed on file, but it is clear that there is the power of reproduction in whole or in part on the contents.
- The lines I quoted from the book, I did it 4 times on that one, by an error in translation, I miss a word.
- Currently I have at my disposal a scanner to upload the page with this, but if you can see the abstract via the web at posters this direction.
- GMoyano (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's no malice, it's simply that I don't believe you. I have checked the link you gave: the text you quoted is nowhere to be found. I should be at page 42, among the credits, but it isn't. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Cambalachero has it correct in his first paragraph -- each of these is a derivative work of a copyrighted poster, banner, or page. In order to keep them, we will need permission from each of the creators, one at a time. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
no deseo compartir mis imágenes zaunka2006 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yo, el propietario legal de esta imagen fotográfica , deseo retirarla de los archivos de Wikipedia zaunka2006 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You put it in the public domain -- you cannot reverse that. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen es de mi propiedad y no deseo compartirla por mas tiempo en esta página zaunka2006 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kept: You're not able to retract images you've released on Commons. You stated your awareness of this by uploading the file. Yann (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Soy su propietario y no deseo hacer mas uso de mis imágenes en wikipedia zaunka2006 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use, no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept -- PD cannot be reversed. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen es de mi propiedad y no deseo compartirla por mas tiempo en esta página zaunka2006 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kept as previous closure. Please stop nominating again and again. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
no deseo compartir mis imágenes zaunka2006 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen es de mi propiedad y no deseo compartirla por mas tiempo en esta página zaunka2006 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kept: You're not able to retract images you've released on Commons. You stated your awareness of this by uploading the file. Yann (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de esta imagen no deseo su utilización en commons zaunka2006 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep You uploaded it under a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept – you're not able to retract images you've released on Commons. You stated your awareness of this by uploading the file. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yo, como propietario de la imagen, no deseo ponerla a disposición de Wikipedia por mas tiempo zaunka2006 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept see above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Esta imagen es de mi propiedad y no deseo compartirla por mas tiempo en esta página zaunka2006 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kept as previous closure. Please stop nominating again and again. Yann (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Vuelvo a reiterar que, yo, como propietario de la imagen, deseo su borrado de los archivos de wikimedia commons. La repetitiva negativa a mis peticiones supone una violación de los derechos de autor de esta y las demás imágenes que en su momento publiqué. zaunka2006 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep As above. The license you gave when you uploaded this image cannot be taken back. There is no violation of your copyright and this excellent image is in use. If you nominate this or any other of your images for deletion again you will be blocked from editing on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FaranjiPyrard (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:President Mohamed Amin Didi.jpg
- File:Sultan Mohamed Fareed.jpg
- File:Shamsudhin Iskander III.jpg
- File:Thinadhu Hakim Didi.jpg
- File:Maldives Revolution 21 8 1953.jpg
- File:Maldives Traditional Dress.jpg
- File:Budda head Thoddoo Maldives.jpg
- File:Veranda swing kings palace 1885.gif
- File:Thodu stupa Maldives.jpg
- File:Tourism intoduction Maldives.jpg
- File:Rehendi khadheeja.jpg
Group of images taken from http://www.maldivesroyalfamily.com and http://www.maldivesstory.com.mv with nonsense licenses. For example:
- File:Thodu stupa Maldives.jpg - dated 1950s with pma +70 license. Even if photographer died the second after taking the photo, it would not be PD until 2020. Site says nothing about CC license. Quite the contrary: "Maldives Story Copyright © 1999, Republic of Maldives" [10]
- File:Budda head Thoddoo Maldives.jpg - Source is Copyright © 1999, Republic of Maldives" [11], same as above. Public display and/or PD sculpture are irreverent; Photograph would require release by the photographer.
- File:Tourism intoduction Maldives.jpg - No CC license at source. Quite the contrary: "Maldives Story Copyright © 1999, Republic of Maldives" [12]
- File:President Mohamed Amin Didi.jpg - Author is only "family photograph"; no release by heirs at source website, as claimed.
- Etc., you get the idea; See also user's deleted contribs.
Эlcobbola talk 18:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted File:Budda head Thoddoo Maldives.jpg as FaranjiPyrard reuploaded it after it was deleted. Эlcobbola talk 18:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Veranda swing kings palace 1885.gif, published in en:The Graphic in 1886, by one "C. W. Rosset". I haven't been able to find dates for Rosset in a few minutes of web search, but Rosset seems to have been prolific in the late 19th century but there is no trace of them publishing anything later than the 1890s, so I think this one is safely PD. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one, per Infrogmation . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
User has uploaded numerous copyvios taken from a museum website (e.g., File:Triebwerksgruppe.png, File:Terra Sigillata Trinkgefäß mit Hippokampos.png, File:Augenarztstempel des Lucius Virius Carpus.png and File:Logo Museum Riegel.png). These are expected to be the same. Note metadata author field states "copyright 2009". File:Augenaztstempel.JPG appears to be the image from which File:Augenarztstempel_des_Lucius_Virius_Carpus.png was cropped.
- File:Basilika Riegel.JPG
- File:Trinkgefäß mit Hippokampos.JPG
- File:Augenaztstempel.JPG
- File:Römische Keramik.JPG
Эlcobbola talk 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
britishwildlifeandnature.wikia.com
[edit]- File:Agrius convolvuli living.jpg
- File:Taleporia tubulosa1.jpg
- File:Charissa obscurata1.jpg
- File:Antispila metallella mine plus case.jpg
- File:Eugnorisma glareosa1.jpg
- File:Aporophyla nigra1.jpg
- File:Orthosia miniosa1.jpg
- File:Bucculatrix ulmella mine.jpg
- File:Caloptilia stigmatella damage.jpg
- File:Cochylis roseana.jpg
- File:Cochylis molliculana.jpg
- File:Coleophora pennella2.jpg
- File:Thera cupressata.jpg
- File:Xanthia gilvago1.jpg
- File:Eriocrania sangii larva.jpg
- File:Theria primaria.jpg
- File:Eidophasia messingiella.jpg
- File:Epermenia chaerophyllella.JPG
- File:Eudonia angustea.jpg
- File:Polymixis lichenea.jpg
- File:Macrothylacia rubi2.jpg
- File:Gypsonoma oppressana.jpg
- File:Hypochalcia ahenella1.jpg
- File:Cucullia verbasci1.jpg
- File:Hellula undalis.jpg
- File:Moitrelia obductella.jpg
- File:Phyllonorycter nicellii adult.jpg
- File:Phyllonorycter stettinensis mine1.JPG
- File:Pennisetia hylaeiformis gall.jpg
- File:Thumatha senex1.jpg
- File:Nola cucullatella1.JPG
- File:Stigmella suberivora damage.jpg
- File:Yponomeuta irrorella.jpg
- File:Ypsolopha mucronella1.jpg
These images are from a Wikia project. They do not have an explicit license. According to http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Community_Central:Licensing we may not assume them to be published under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Hence there is no valid license --Lymantria (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I misread that page. It indeed seems the CC licence is only for text.. Sorry.. :( Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Falles
[edit]These are some of the images associated whith a yearly held event in Spain where paper maché sculptures are created and then burned. I think these images violate our copyright policy since they are 3D works of art that aren't permanently on display. Because of that they don't fall under Freedom of Panorama. Some of the images in this category also derive their design from the works of Disney and the like.
- File:Carlos borras plantando.jpg
- File:Carlos borras-taller.JPG
- File:Falla Ayuntamiento 2010.jpg
- File:Falla infantil jcca.JPG
- File:Falla Mayor.jpg
- File:Falla Villarrobledo.JPG
- File:Fallas-carlos-borras1.JPG
- File:Planta jcca.JPG
- File:Valenciana.jpg
Vera (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the files breaks any copyright of Disney. Disney doesn't has the copyright of a style of designing! None of those files should be marked for speedy deletion, as long as all the files about the festivity of the Falles are in the eyesight for the same reason, and We should discuss first if it's true or not that they don't end in the FoP. They should'nt be in speedy deletion, it's impossible for a normal user (non administator or superuser) to exchange the "speedy deletion" template to the normal one in hours!!!
FoP in Spain: Any work liable to be seen or heard in the reporting of current events may be reproduced, distributed and communicated to the public, but only to the extent justified by the informatory purpose.
So, at least Images that show general views of the monument and photos of culturally remarcable ninots (the prized one, for example, which are recopilated in articles in both Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia) should be alloed in commons.
Further, the law says: Article 40bis further states the above law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."
The fallas are burned. The monuments (who, in fact, where permanently showed in the streed during its whole lifespan) does no longer exist: How can those photos generate a prjudice of the interest of the artist, when he created the monuments depictes for being destroyed? They cannot have economical benefits of a work burned years ago.--Coentor (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)--Coentor (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, the "Carlos Borrás" files were subject of a self-promotion article, so probably the own artist or someone close to him uploaded the files!--Coentor (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Falles are permanently placed in the street, as you can see in Commons:Fop#Permanent_vs_temporary. Falles lifespan is short, but they are on exhibition for their whole lifespan, so they are permanently on display.
- And about Disney:
- Only falles showing an identifiable Disney character could be doubtful. I can't see any in the proposed images.
- Even if falles show a copyrighted character, we can't assume it's a copyright infringement. Character could have been licensed to falles maker, or maybe it wasn't, but we don't know. Then this wouldn't provide ground enough to delete - even if a Disney character were in those images, where none is.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is public art as its purpose is to be exhibited in public streets during its short lifetime. They are not temporary exhibited as they are not moved to another place. They fall under FoP. If any of them is a derivative work that is another question. --V.Riullop (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep seems clear to me: Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same.--Coentor (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Note for the record that "Any work liable to be seen or heard in the reporting of current events may be reproduced, distributed and communicated to the public, but only to the extent justified by the informatory purpose." does not apply -- Commons requires a much broader license than that. The conclusion that these are "permanent" because they are on display for their entire lives is correct and the reason that they qualify for the FOP exemption. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, http://gibraltarpedia.org doesn't exist. Prof. Professorson (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – GibraltarpediA is an upcoming Wikipedia project, similar to MonmouthpediA. So, it's pretty much in scope.—Bill william comptonTalk 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- See en:Gibraltarpedia Victuallers (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep like Bill william compton--Arnaugir (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The website http://gibraltarpedia.org is accessible now. Mohamed Amarochan (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Speedy keep. Notable project still in its infancy, terrific design I might add.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per all of the above. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 22:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Is author really unknown? If not, probably doesn't qualify for PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The website where I've taken it from tends to provide all of the information available regarding an item, although of course this is not to say that it is therefore an anonymous work. The page states that it is out of copyright, so I assumed it would be acceptable for upload. I'm not at all a copyright expert though, so I'm sorry if I've uploaded without a suitable license! Hope this information helps anyway. Raywil (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 06:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.164.191 20:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Picture was taken in 2007; hence subject to the law before 2008. Per en:Ivan Fomin, designer's death occurred in 1936 which was 71 years prior to 2007.
SBaker43 (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
No date or source of any publication prior to 20 year old indicated. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- This also affects the cleaned-up version File:Calle Hipólito Yrigoyen Córdoba (Argentina) Siglo XX.png (which is strangely marked {{Cc-by-sa 3.0}} without any attribution of the author). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It´s a photo of 1920's, probably in PD. --Andrea (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Commons isn't a collection of "probably" free content. A photo taken in the 1920s but only recently published would not be in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete Es una imagen sacada de la web, y el autor es desconocido, la licencia también. ¿Entonces cómo es posible que se encuentre bajo esa licencia?, es una posible infracción de los derechos de autor, por más De minimis que parezca.-- 
George Miquilena · talk 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 06:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
nombre está mal escrito, debe decir "Armas Varonía de Ortiz (Linaje de Lope Ortiz)". Además las versiones anteriores no son las correctas, sino solamente ésta. Atenasdestiny (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
razones que explica el autor, debido a yo haber confirmado aquel error según encontré en varias fuentes. Marceloochagavía (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: A bad name is not a reason to delete. Please use {{Rename}}. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)