Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/04/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
No clear in-scope use. Another pointless Flickr transfer by Russavia. Ubcule (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept Denniss (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. A file page talking about how to file the bottles? Kuailong (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, please look at this one: File:Drinking_water_filling.png. Thank you.--Kuailong (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: spam Mys_721tx (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Spam and/or out of scope. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lamnhattien77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of songs, album covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Nhungngaymuaroi.jpg
- File:Phuongvadung2014bar.jpg
- File:Phuonghoaky2004.jpg
- File:Phuongvahuy90.jpg
- File:Thuphuong80.jpg
- File:Đêm Nằm Mơ Phố.ogg
- File:Unbreak My Heart cover.ogg
- File:Cô Gái Đến Từ Hôm Qua.ogg
- File:Unbreak My Heart.ogg
- File:Lansongxanh cover.jpg
- File:Demnammopho.jpg
- File:Phuongvahuy.jpg
- File:Phuonghuymccover.jpg
- File:Muathucuaphuong.jpg
- File:Thu Phương trong studio tại California, Hoa Kỳ năm 2004.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be very educational. See COM:NUDITY. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- well, delete it.... Butter25 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Two issues here. First, the copyright belongs to the photographer and it is unlikely that that is our uploader. Second, what is the educational value of this? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the only contribution of a new user. I am not at all sure this is "own work" as claimed. It looks dated and perhaps scanned from a halftone. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-free map coming from Géoportail. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Friedhelm Herbst (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are the only two contributions from this user. Both are claimed to be "own work". The second is obviously scanned from a halftone, probably a newspaper. The first is probably a studio portrait, from around 1970. While it is possible that both are, in fact, "own work", it seems more likely to me that this inexperienced user has made a mistake here.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality banner with no educational value or forseeable use. Seems to be an advertisement banner of sorts, if anything. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WWE Batman131 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The source of these images is http://www.sherdog.com/. There are two problems with the site. First, there is no guarantee that the site or the persons posting to the site actually own the copyright to any of the images there. Second, while, as the uploader says, "Sherdog allows photo sharing", it allows only inward sharing. There is nothing on the site which suggests that any images on the site, whether posted by users or by Sherlov itself, are licensed. Quite to the contrary, its ToS explicitly claims copyright in everything there.
- File:Rafael-Carvalho Bellator.jpeg
- File:Godofredo-Pepey UFC.jpg
- File:Nina-Ansaroff UFC.jpeg
- File:Conor-McGregor UFC.jpg
- File:TJ-Dillashaw UFC.jpg
- File:Thomas-Almeida UFC.jpg
- File:Anthony-Johnson UFC.jpg
- File:Rafael-dos-Anjos UFC.jpg
- File:Ryan-Benoit UFC.jpg
- File:Andrei Arlovski.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the underlying statue is free, the photograph is not. Per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, PD-ART only applies to 2D works, and not statues. Furthermore, the museum's OASC project only gives free licenses for academic usage, and not commercial usage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I could not find any OASC marking for this particular image. It was on a related page. How does the Met Museum treat this image? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It asserts full copyright on its non-OASC images, as I've mentioned at this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the underlying statue is free, the photograph is not. Per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, PD-ART only applies to 2D works, and not statues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Creator took an original logo and added poor enhancements. Low-quality derivative of a logo with no educational value or foreseeable use. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't find the guideline, but I think I read somewhere on Commons that we should not blindly consider "own work" to be "own work". For example, this uploader must prove that he or she is an astronaut, in my opinion. Plus he or she already has a copyvio. This looks like another copyvio to me unless a trip to space can be proven. Dontreader (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This file can be found (fuller version) in the gallery on this page: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64.htm under AH-64D Longbow. Here are two specific links: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah64-image3.jpg and http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64DTILT.jpg. Lack of proper description seems to indicate effort to avoid being detected as not "own work". Dontreader (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abhishekraysingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope, Commons is not a private photo album or a place for self-promotion.
- File:Abhishek Raysingh.jpg
- File:Abhishek raysingh.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Stardom.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Incredible looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Angry Looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Rockstar looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh boss Looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh The Rockstar.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Sexy Looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh Looks.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abhishekraysingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons isn't a personal photographic album, out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Ashish Gupta (Avtc Groups of companies).jpg
- File:Abhishek raysingh Rockstar.jpg
- File:Srishti raysingh-20150407-WA0054.jpg
- File:Srishti Raysingh Sizzling Looks.jpg
- File:Srishti Raysingh 2015.jpg
- File:Srishti Raysingh-20150407-WA0053.jpg
- File:Srishti Raysingh.IMG.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abhishekraysingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of scope, Commons is not social media
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Hot boy of india 2015.jpg
- File:Abhishek raysingh - Wow's looks youtube.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Simple looks youtube.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Cute and cutie of india.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Angry looks Youtube.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Incredible looks.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Founder of A&lsoft.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - youtube.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - without shirt.jpg
- File:Abhishek Raysingh - Brand Personality.jpg
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajveerpandey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope, Commons is not a prive photo album or a place for self-promotion.
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 37.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 36.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 35.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 34.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 33.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 32.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 31.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 30.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 29.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 28.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 27.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 26.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 25.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 24.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 23.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 22.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 21.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 20.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 19.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 18.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 17.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 16.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 15.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 14.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 13.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 12.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 11.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 10.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 9.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 8.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 7.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 6.JPG
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 5.jpg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 4.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 3.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 2.jpeg
- File:Rajveer Pandey at Events 1.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparent selfie, no clear in-scope use. Not in personal use. Ubcule (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Widespread across web predating its upload here. Lack of background information. Probable copyvio of clip art. Ubcule (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shijauddin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images' only use was at en.wikipedia for en:User:Shijauddin, which was being misused as personal webspace by user with no proper contributions. (Now deleted due to that misuse).
Ubcule (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal(?) image. Ubcule (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. User has not made any other contributions to Commons. Ubcule (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PADAMKAFLE (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images. All three images *were* in use at en.wikipedia, but only as misuse of facilities as a personal webpage. That has now been removed, and they are no longer in use.
Ubcule (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparent unused personal and/or promo spam image ("shahan firdaus [uploader] is Best singer") Ubcule (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Herr Ziffer (talk · contribs)
[edit]According to two Wikipedias the uploader is a vandal and/or a sockpuppet. According to the uploaders talkpage we had a lot of copyright violations here on Commons already [1]. According to some of the uploaded (File:Dragan Čović (02-09-2014).jpg, File:Dragan Čović (05-09-2014).jpg) files the claim "own work" is unreliable for his uploads.
- File:Dragan Čović (02-09-2014).jpg
- File:Dragan Čović (03-09-2014).jpg
- File:Dragan Čović (05-09-2014).jpg
- File:Karamarko i Čović.jpg
- File:Elvira Abdić-Jelenović (2).jpg
- File:Elvira Abdić-Jelenović (1).jpg
- File:Fikret Abdić (1).jpg
- File:Fikret Abdić.jpg
- File:Budimir Živko 2011.jpg
- File:Jurišić Zvonko.jpg
- File:Jurišić Zvonko 2012.jpg
- File:Živko Budimir 2011.jpg
- File:Fahrudin Radončić.jpg
- File:Krešimir Zubak.jpg
- File:HSS-NHI meeting, 2013 (3).jpg
- File:HSS-NHI meeting, 2013 (2).jpg
- File:HSS-NHI meeting, 2013 (1).jpg
- File:Krešimir Zubak in 2012.jpg
- File:Fahrudin Radončić 2010 (1).jpg
- File:Fahrudin Radončić 2010 (2).jpg
- File:Ljubo Bešlić.jpg
- File:Brojana Krišto1 (corpped).jpg
- File:Borjana Krišto2 (corpped).jpg
- File:Brojana Krišto on the election day, 4 October 2010.jpg
- File:Milan Bandić, Borjana Krišto and Ljubo Bešlić in Mostar, 2010.jpg
- File:DraganČović.png
- File:331808 4538463751638 879322369 o.jpg
- File:Budimir Zivko.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused; out of COM:SCOPE. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I may made a mistake. I was thinking this image was free. But I fear it is not for commercial purposes nor can it be changed. Please someone have a look on the linked website for a check. Christian Bolz (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Ein Zeitschriftencover ist kein eigenes Werk. Alnilam (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Photographer is not uploader. No evidence of permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Restored per OTRS #2015041310025762. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Photogapher is not uploader. No evidence of permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Restored OTRS #2015041510008205 . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. Should be in SVG. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from non-free software screenshots.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from non-free software screenshots.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 14:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be \found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag (whose only description is "Banderín": it cannot be any more vague than that); not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 14:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The flag was introduced by someone, who said it would be the flag of Oecusse, but it isn't. No use in user pages, too, so no need. It is even not very good work. --JPF (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused fantasy flag; not in COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support.--Zoupan (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Missing source: collage affected by (part) File:Chico Science em Berlim.jpg = Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chico Science em Berlim.jpg Gunnex (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
de:Plasti deleted; no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: probably not personal artwork, but copyright violation Didym (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Uploader claims that it's his or her own work. I have my reservations about that, considering that the photo is by Deborah Anderson. See: http://www.mtv.com/artists/julian-lennon/ Cold Season (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
obvious copyvio (TV screen taken with an Iphone) XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Only upload by user. I can't find any evidence that this is a notable or significant organisation that would warrant the logo being on Commons. Ubcule (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal fluff, out of scope. Ubcule (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Logo of band with no indication of major notability. Ubcule (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Want removed Randomcandyblog (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
want removed Randomcandyblog (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
want removed Randomcandyblog (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a scanned poster, COM:DW Sealle (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Looks like. No proper description. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Although the underlying statue is free, the photograph is not. PD-ART only applies to 2D works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The file at the Met Museum is marked OASC, which is for images of works of art that the Museum believes to be in the public domain. If not PD-ART, what should be used? Thanks. Zeete (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, PD-art does not apply to 3D objects, and so PD-art cannot apply here. Although the Met has released this image as part of its OASC project, per the image resources page their images are only license free for academic use, not commercial works (for which the Met claims full copyright). Furthermore, the terms and conditions state that "Users may not modify Materials on the Websites.", including OASC images; that's essentially a no-derivatives clause, so even if this image did fall under OASC (it doesn't) it wouldn't be free enough for Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could you explain why the image is not under OASC "(it doesen't)"? I thought the Met Museum collections link states that it is. Thanks for your help to understand this. Zeete (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- We're not using it for purely academic purposes (as Commons allows commercial reuse), and thus the OASC terms do not apply. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could you explain how OASC applies to the many paintings from the Met Museum? e.g. Washington Crossing the Delaware. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't, and I never said it does. PD-art does. PD-art means, in short, that all faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art which are in the public domain are likewise in the public domain. Please read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've read When to Use several times and it does not cover sculpture well. Is there a better description? Or can there be no sculpture images from a museum? Is there an example of a sculpture using a museum's image?
- It doesn't, and I never said it does. PD-art does. PD-art means, in short, that all faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art which are in the public domain are likewise in the public domain. Please read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, at the Met Museum, the Leutze is marked OASC. Would that make it restricted public domain? Does the Met Museum give up its rights when the image is marked PD-Art? What do you think? Zeete (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot "restrict" public domain. PD-ART means, essentially, one ignores all licensing claims over an image to which PD-Art applies (i.e. a faithful recreation of a 2D painting which is in the public domain). With PD Art, Commons says (paraphrased) "Under US law, a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional public domain image does not show the originality necessary for a claim of copyright" and thus any licenses on an image are considered null and void by Commons. The Met may try and legally say otherwise (the National Portrait Gallery in London did, though the legal situation in the UK is different), but that is Commons position. Again, most of that is explained at the page I linked to; the NPG part can be read here.
- I fail to see how having a whole paragraph dedicated to how 3D works are not covered (#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art) as well as an FAQ question is "not cover[ing] sculpture well". It can't get much more explicit than "{{PD-Art}} cannot be used for 3D objects such as sculpture, even if the sculpture is very old." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Also, at the Met Museum, the Leutze is marked OASC. Would that make it restricted public domain? Does the Met Museum give up its rights when the image is marked PD-Art? What do you think? Zeete (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand this better now. I've removed all use of these images. Zeete (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a photograph at the Memorial Mural of University Hall at Facultad de Ciencias Medicas Sancti Spiritus. Unless the uploader took and owns the original photograph it's unfree. Mackensen (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Historical/promo photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Mahmood Jarasha.jpg
- File:Mike Matarazzo.jpg
- File:Anwar El-Emmawi.jpg
- File:Islam Al-Masri Egyptian Bodybuilder.jpg
- File:Sami AlHaddad.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhonatanpaul (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:RECURSOS APRENDIDOS ACTIVIDAD 7 - PERUEDUCA.pdf
- File:TRABAJO DE RECURSOS PROPIOS.pdf
- File:RECURSOS PROPIOS.pdf
- File:MODULO 7 ACTIVIDAD.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability which should be replaced with wiki-table. Contains non-trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Should be in SVG. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Заболотний (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused charts. Should be in SVG.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Collection of web site screenshots of unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional images of non-notable band, out of scope.
- File:Lethal Shiver.jpg
- File:Ixiom.JPG
- File:Ixiom.jpg
- File:Kylmä.jpg
- File:Lethal Shiver.png
- File:Forgotten.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional or personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional photo of non-notable band, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Text only, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promotional image, out of scope. Only used on a user page also nominated for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image of non-notable person, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused and unusable composite image, superseded by many other earth pictures. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Brianna Haley (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused {{Userpageimage}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal image; Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JosePereyraok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Véase el alcance del proyecto.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hekkobangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Television screenshots. Likely not own work.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not own work. Copyvio. Nakinn 04:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not own work. Copyvio. Nakinn 04:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Still out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete Obviously, the uploader does not own the copyright of the picture (see here; althouth smaller, there are plenty of identical images). --Discasto talk 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This image is found all over the internet. Likely copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation? The left part of this logo is not a simple shape. Kuailong (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I admit the left part is not so simple. Thank you for pointing that out. Please delete it. -JesseW900 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Above COM:TOO, per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is a screenshot of the building's concept image. The original picture can be found here and many other places on the Internet. Kuailong (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please also delete File:QQ截图20141126103416.png. --Kuailong (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. A logo that does not seem be used anywhere. The file name literally means "car body advertisement". Kuailong (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. This is a promotional material for some wine and it is not used in any article. Kuailong (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promotional material. The file page is used to promote this website. See the "Summary" section. Kuailong (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promotional material. This page is used to promote a clothes line. Please also delete the talk page. Kuailong (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promotional material about a photo service. No related article. Kuailong (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. An article about how to come up with a good title to promote your brand. Kuailong (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. This is an operation manual for an automobile company. Kuailong (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. This is promotional material about a new Point of Sale terminal. Kuailong (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promotional material about a new technology company. Disguised as a png file. Kuailong (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional material for a dating site. Kuailong (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Fake license, this is not US navy related. And it is also an advertisement. Kuailong (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Promotional material about some self-invented IQ test. Kuailong (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: too low res to be 'Own work', lack of metadata, unaccessible location to spotters. Gyrostat (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio via (example) http://www.airlinerworld.com/view_article.asp?ID=2017 (2010, credit: "Airbus image") = http://www.airlinerworld.com/central/images/articles/2017.jpg, per http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-saudi-arabian-takes-delivery-of-first-ordered-342036/, most likely a work of "© Airbus/P. Masclet". Uploaded by a serial copyright violator. Gunnex (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and Gunnex Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I created this page unknowing to the fact that I may be infringing copyright. I would like this image removed. Anarchyte (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by NahidSultan Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Giuseppe Lauria (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Blocked on it.wiki
- --M7 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not compatible license (BY-NC-SA) Discasto talk 23:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot of http://bit. ly/1EZEZw4 Gyrostat (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not a web host for fictitious flags. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's fiction. Qwertyus (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not a web host for fictitious coats of arms. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's fiction. Qwertyus (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not a web host for fictitious maps. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's fiction. Qwertyus (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not a web host for fictitious maps. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's fiction. Qwertyus (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not a web host for fictitious maps. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's fiction. Qwertyus (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be 'Own work': described as taking off from HKG whereas the aircraft is wearing test registration (see note). This photo was actually shot at XFW ([2]) -> copyright violation. Gyrostat (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Very nice, but not used, and I think it is out of scope (not educationally useful). Dontreader (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused. I don't think this image does anything to illustrate the school in the description. Out of scope. Dontreader (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
So he's in the Colombian Air Force? Wonderful, very patriotic, but unused, and out of scope, in my opinion. Dontreader (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Qatar. Since this image infringes Richard Serra's copyright, it cannot be kept without a license from him. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in Qatar Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Qatar.. Since this image infringes Richard Serra's copyright, it cannot be kept on Commons without a license from him. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in Qatar Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Uploader User request. Mavrikant (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep According to Czech law, it's okay. Freedom of panorama includes two-dimensional works. Jedudědek (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)- Keep It falls clearly under {{FoP-Czech Republic}}. Btw, the Czech copyright law don't use a term "derivative work" - if needed, use more appropriate term instead. --ŠJů (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fjärilsstigen
[edit]"The law requires works to be a work of art (konstverk). Information boards and maps are considered works of literature (litterära verk) and are not covered by article 24."
No FoP-exception for this.
Josve05a (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep Free: The text is blurred. Photographs which are permanently installed in a public place outdoors = free, see this discussion.--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Vem har skrivit texten? Om någon myndighet skrivit texten, kanske det räknas som ett myndighetsyttrande enligt {{PD-Sweden-URL9}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Texten är förmodligen skriven av Nynäshamns kommun och Naturskyddsföreningen i Nynäshamn (som satte upp skyltarna), men texten (utom bildtexterna) har jag täckt över så att den inte gå att läsa längre. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
"The law requires works to be a work of art (konstverk). Information boards and maps are considered works of literature (litterära verk) and are not covered by article 24."
No FoP-exception for this. Josve05a (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep The protected area (skyddsomång) is very narrow for maps. This means that a derivative of a map rapidly loses its status as a derivative. For maps it is the totallity that is protected, not the facts, not the style, but the total map picture, "den samlade kartbilden". For a map to be protected it must pass the threshold of originality, which maps don't normally do. This map doesn't reach the threshold of originality, but is best considered a printout of a database and protected as such. The protected area for databases is also very narrow, for example there are streetnames on the map, which are not legible on the photo. This means that as a database it is sufficiently different from the original. The text is by a public authority. Edaen (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep It is "FoP-Sweden", the map is (now) blurred, the text is by a public authority and the photos är free, see this diskussion. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The artworks are {{FoP-Sweden}}. The text comes from a public authority and may count as a 'statement' per {{PD-Sweden-URL9}}. The map is now blurred out. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not in use, and out of scope, I believe. Dontreader (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Subject has an article in what seems to be a Wikipedia closely related to French. It would not survive on the English Wikipedia even one week (not notable at all and unsourced), but Commons doesn't deal with those issues. Dontreader (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the frwiki-entry got deleted once again and is now protected against recreation but mg:Florent Bezara is still surviving... Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, not used. Yann (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The description is not serious (FB pic). Unused. Out of scope. Please look at his other uploads. There are many. Dontreader (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Subject has Wikipedia article. It looks like a joke (read it if you know French), as does this picture, but unless that article is deleted, I believe this image can stay on Commons. You guys decide, of course. Dontreader (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, not used. Yann (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, but unused and out of scope. Dontreader (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Serbian Cross.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Moldavia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Coat of arms of Croatia 1495.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of SVG file. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Wallachia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Coa Hungary Country History (19th Century).svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously false that this is "own work", and it's a very dishonest statement which could lead to a copyright violation. The image is somewhere in this military website, as proven by this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=missile+deployment+%22f/a-18%22&biw=1440&bih=799&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aKEgVauqMJbboASdl4CYBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=%22f%2Fa-18%22+fires+missile&imgdii=_&imgrc=bM77PfpXGP90WM%253A%3BaEV_y02eg3zYbM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.navair.navy.mil%252Fimg%252Fuploads%252FAARGM.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.navair.navy.mil%252Findex.cfm%253Ffuseaction%253Dhome.display%2526key%253DAF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49%3B768%3B525 Maybe there's a public domain rationale that can be used since the picture was probably taken by a serviceman (not sure about that rule), but the uploader would have to prove that this is the case because there's the theoretical possibility that a civilian photographer took the picture. Dontreader (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment That link isn't working the way I expected. Please click on this link: http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/AARGM.jpg Also, just perform a Google image search with the words "f/a-18" fires missile Dontreader (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment I think, although not 100% sure, that the image can be found in this slideshow, although cropped and at a slightly different plane angle. I can't imagine that it's a different picture, really, unless the camera can take very many shots per second. Even so, that would not explain the tilting, which I believe was achieved using software. Notice that this seems to be a private company, so that means more trouble for providing a public domain rationale: http://www.orbitalatk.com/ Dontreader (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Most likely taken originally from http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4016 (2008, credit: "Photo by Mike McGinnis") = http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/AARGM1.JPG (higher res, identical exif). navair.navy.mil is an official U.S. Navy Web site which might be {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Gunnex (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks Gunnex. I think this article might help, too. Almost certainly Mike McGinnis and Lt. Michael McGinnis are the same person because other F/A-18 pictures from that Navy website were taken by "Michael McGinnis", such as here. So it seems clear enough to me that the file in question was taken by a Navy serviceman, and qualifies as PD, as you said. Obviously the file would have to be modified, using that PD rationale. But still, there should be consequences for the uploader for stating "own work". Dontreader (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, should only be hosted at local Wikipedias Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per {{pd-text}} and {{pd-simple}}. Tm (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-textlogo}} says "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information." --Ras67 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
File:City Views. Phillips Square. From the 17th floor - University Tower Building BAnQ P48S1P01215.jpg
[edit]duplicate of File:Phillips Square Montreal Conrad Poirier.JPG Louperivois Ψ @ 04:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour Louperivois, merci d'avoir levé ce doublon. À mon avis, c'est l'autre image qui devrait être retirée, car celle-ci a été officiellement téléversée par l'institution BAnQ dans le cadre du Projet Poirier mené par Fdaveau et moi-même. Il est vrai que l'image « officielle » est de moindre qualité et n'a pas été nettoyée par les utilisateurs, mais elle contient toutes les données institutionnelles contrairement à l'autre. Si vous voulez, je me charge d'écraser avec la meilleure version et de delinker... Cordialement, Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Je n'ai pas d'opposition, mais j'ai choisi par ordre d'ancienneté, d'utilisation et de qualité. À ce titre peut-être que le premier importateur aura, lui, une opposition. Je suis au courant du projet, j'ai commencé la catégorisation de ces photos.
- Il y a aussi comme doublons File:Architecture. Loyola College, Montreal BAnQ P48S1P01104.jpg et File:Christmas. Visiting Santa at Eaton's BAnQ P48S1P06507.jpg.
- Louperivois Ψ @ 18:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Per the nomination. This is a duplicate and it is of lower quality than the image that Commons already has. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- C'est vrai Asclepias et Louperivois, préférons le travail de Skeezix1000. Est-ce qu'il serait mal vu de copier le contenu de la description dans le fichier qui sera conservé ? Cordialement, Benoit Rochon (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Il est bien sûr toujours possible d'améliorer les pages de description des fichiers existants. Et aussi d'améliorer les fichiers par de meilleures versions. Il ne manque rien d'essentiel à la page de description de 2008, mais rien n'empêcherait d'y ajouter, par exemple, des informations sur le médium, le paragraphe sur la collection, ou le modèle Institution:BAnQ Vieux-Montréal. Mais pas le modèle BANQ-image, qui dans son état actuel ne concerne que les téléversements faits par des personnes directement liées à BAnQ. On pourrait même éventuellement songer à un modèle qui serait disponible et pourrait être utilisé par tous les utilisateurs qui téléversent ou qui participent au suivi des photos de C. Poirier, modèle qui pourrait être adaptable à tous les cas, mais sans rien détériorer. Par contre, ce qui aurait été fâcheux et, disons, très douteux du point de vue éthique, c'aurait été de se mettre à détruire les traces des téléversements patiemment faits par les utilisateurs de Commons depuis sept ans, et même, comme suggéré dans la première réponse, d'aller jusqu'à en attribuer le crédit à quelqu'un d'autre comme s'il s'agissait d'un nouveau téléversement fait par BAnQ, ce qui aurait ajouté l'insulte à l'injure. Certes, les contributeurs de Commons qui recherchent, trouvent et téléversent des images du domaine public n'ont aucun droit à un crédit en tant que tels, mais disons que le respect entre contributeurs devrait faire en sorte qu'on ne fait pas non plus exprès de faire disparaître la trace de leurs contributions valides.
- Par ailleurs, c'est bien que des personnes liées à BAnQ contribuent elles aussi depuis un an, mais les téléversements faits par les personnes liées à BAnQ laissent encore souvent à désirer à plusieurs égards. Outre l'absence systématique de catégorisation thématique et parfois l'apposition de modèles de statut inappropriés (problème déjà discuté ailleurs), il y a aussi des aspects techniques préoccupants. On dirait, par certains détails (différences de cadrage, inversions, ...), que les images (ou au moins certaines images) téléversées par ces personnes semblent provenir d'une deuxième série de numérisations effectuée sur les photographies de C. Poirier, différente de la première série de numérisations de la collection complète rendue disponible au public par BAnQ sur son site depuis de nombreuses années. De plus, les versions de ces fichiers téléversés par BAnQ sur Commons sont la plupart du temps plus petites que celles qui sont disponibles sur le site de BAnQ. Quelquefois c'est le contraire, tant mieux, mais c'est rare. Idéalement, il faudrait refaire presque tout le travail en remplaçant les fichiers qu'ils ont importés par les fichiers de meilleure qualité disponibles sur le site. Pour ne prendre comme exemple que l'image dont il est question dans la présente demande, on peut comparer avec celle disponible sur le site de BAnQ et voir la différence. (En passant, le fichier de 2008 de Commons est plus grand que le petit fichier de 2015 de Commons mais il est légèrement plus petit que celui disponible sur le site de BAnQ.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Je ne comprends pas; toutes les images de BAnQ sont-elle donc disponibles en ligne ? Si oui, pourquoi les avoir numérisées ? Si non, peut-on écraser la version avec la meilleure disponible ? Super projet en passant. J'ai un réel plaisir à remuer ces protos. Louperivois Ψ @ 02:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oui, toutes les images des photographies de Conrad Poirier sont disponibles en ligne depuis longtemps. D'ailleurs, comme on le voit avec l'image dont il est question ici, par exemple, on les utilise au besoin. Mais toutes les images de BAnQ dans l'absolu dans d'autres fonds ne sont pas nécessairement en ligne. Oui, on peut écraser l'image du fichier de 2008 avec l'image originale légèrement plus grande, à condition qu'il n'y ait pas eu de travail d'amélioration fait sur le fichier de 2008 ou en s'assurant, s'il y a lieu, de conserver la même qualité. Et oui, à mon avis, dans les cas d'autres images où les versions qui ont téléversées par les stagiaires de BAnQ sont de moindre qualité, c'est-à-dire dans la majorité des cas, ont peut les écraser avec les versions originales de meilleure qualité qui sont disponibles à BAnQ. (Mais attention, il y a quelques exceptions où l'image de la première numérisation était petite ou inversée, et alors la deuxième se retrouve meilleure. Il y a aussi de très rares cas où on peut voir que le stagiaire a fait un certain travail de modification, par exemple en rognant une partie de la photo.) Je sais que Benoit Rochon va peut-être te donner un avis contraire
, mais c'est parce qu'il pense que les versions téléversées par les stagiaires sont conformes aux images originales, alors que ce n'est pas nécessairement le cas. En fait, techniquement, les notices de BAnQ sont liées aux originales, pas aux versions des stagiaires. (On sort du cadre de la discussion de suppression, mais si tu t'intéresses à explorer la collection complète des photos de Conrad Poirier, il y a quelques instruments utiles, à utiliser en conjonction. Le site présentant quelques collections de BAnQ, qui permet de jeter un coup d'oeil rapidement par ordre numérique ou en filtrant par thèmes ou par chronologie. Le serveur d'images, dossier du fonds P48 (le fonds Conrad Poirier), pour voir les images elles-mêmes et utiliser celles qui sont utiles. Aussi Pistard, utile par exemple pour trouver rapidement une fiche descriptive à partir de la cote d'une image. Après un certain temps, tu vas devenir habitué à naviguer entre les images et les notices et à savoir à peu près dans quelles parties du fonds se trouvent différents types d'images. Note qu'on ne peut téléverser sur Commons qu'une partie de la collection, c'est-à-dire les photos qui sont dans le domaine public. Du moins jusqu'à ce qu'on réussisse à trouver qui sont les héritiers de Conrad Poirier pour pouvoir leur demander s'ils acceptent de libérer les autres.) -- Asclepias (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oui, toutes les images des photographies de Conrad Poirier sont disponibles en ligne depuis longtemps. D'ailleurs, comme on le voit avec l'image dont il est question ici, par exemple, on les utilise au besoin. Mais toutes les images de BAnQ dans l'absolu dans d'autres fonds ne sont pas nécessairement en ligne. Oui, on peut écraser l'image du fichier de 2008 avec l'image originale légèrement plus grande, à condition qu'il n'y ait pas eu de travail d'amélioration fait sur le fichier de 2008 ou en s'assurant, s'il y a lieu, de conserver la même qualité. Et oui, à mon avis, dans les cas d'autres images où les versions qui ont téléversées par les stagiaires de BAnQ sont de moindre qualité, c'est-à-dire dans la majorité des cas, ont peut les écraser avec les versions originales de meilleure qualité qui sont disponibles à BAnQ. (Mais attention, il y a quelques exceptions où l'image de la première numérisation était petite ou inversée, et alors la deuxième se retrouve meilleure. Il y a aussi de très rares cas où on peut voir que le stagiaire a fait un certain travail de modification, par exemple en rognant une partie de la photo.) Je sais que Benoit Rochon va peut-être te donner un avis contraire
- Je ne comprends pas; toutes les images de BAnQ sont-elle donc disponibles en ligne ? Si oui, pourquoi les avoir numérisées ? Si non, peut-on écraser la version avec la meilleure disponible ? Super projet en passant. J'ai un réel plaisir à remuer ces protos. Louperivois Ψ @ 02:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- C'est vrai Asclepias et Louperivois, préférons le travail de Skeezix1000. Est-ce qu'il serait mal vu de copier le contenu de la description dans le fichier qui sera conservé ? Cordialement, Benoit Rochon (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Both in use, not exact duplicate. Yann (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to challenge the uploader's claim that this is a simple geometric shape that is not protected by copyright law. This seal design as a whole is not "simple". Kuailong (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would also like to request a review for the following files uploaded by the same user:
- File:Harbin Bank logo.svg
- File:ChinaEximBank.png
- File:Chinalco Logo.jpg
- File:DongFeng Motor logo.svg
- File:China Mobile Logo 2013.svg
- File:Agricultural Bank of China logo.svg
- File:SPD BANK Logo.png
- File:Bank of Communications.svg
- File:IndustrialBankCo logo.jpg
- File:China Development Bank(CDB).png
- File:Leadcore Logo.jpg
- File:Kingsoft logo.png
- File:CHINA_POST_Logo.svg
- File:China National Nuclear Corporation logo.gif
- File:Ansteel logo.jpeg
- File:Three Gorges logo.png
- They all are company logos and are claimed to be {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}}. But in my opinion, at least for some of these files, the claim is very hard to be justified.--Kuailong (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, all the logos on the list are of simple geometrical and graphical shapes. But to be frank, unless there is a CLEAR DEFINITION of what shape constitutes as simple, and what constitutes as not, I think this discussion probably won't lead us anywhere. -JesseW900 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: All except one. Yann (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Same image as File:Renmin University of China logo.jpg that was previously deleted. Wcam (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be deleted by somebody already.
Not sure if this is outside the threshold of originality required for a PD Logo. Kelapstick (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep After looking at the examples at COM:TO, I don't think it meets the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Miniapolis 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: derivative of a non-free logo, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andriod will win in 2016.jpg and w:en:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg. I would prefer not to waste your time here, apparently but some people insist on it. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The file has survived two previous deletion nominations -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andriod will win in 2016.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andriod will win in 2016.jpg 2 -- the first of which was on the same grounds as this one, so adding a speedy deletion template is not appropriate. AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: I think the Windows logo is too complex for PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Given source is obviously missleading (image hosting service, which is not the source of the wikipedia article), authors of the used wikipedia article are not named and CC-by-sa-4.0 is not the licence for wikipedia text. Same problems with the image in the background. Thats a legal catastrophe. Deletion would be safest solution, if the uploader does not fix the major problems himself. Don-kun (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The same goes for File:Ui share fact 1.png and File:Ui share fact 2.png. Shame on WMF for uploading such obvious violations of the copyright of the users.. --Don-kun (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I second that: The responsible party has to provide the correct information or the files have to disappear. @WMF: Office action, anyone? → «« Man77 »» [de] 16:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Yellowcard (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- should be done.--CennoxX (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Please do not delete: Thanks for pointing out the missing credits for this file. As the original uploader of this file, I have now added the missing attribution and license credits. Therefore, I do not think this file should be considered for deletion anymore, as outlined in <my longer comment on my talk page and a request page>. Please let me know if you think any other information is needed — or remove the deletion notice from the file page. Thank you.ASherman (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- You need to provide a source link to the image you reused and to the article you quoted per COM:L#License information. You should research the authors who wrote the quoted text from the version history of the article. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I completely understand your concern. Each "Description" section of the photos had a link to the Strasbourg article image attached to the word "Photo" in the second line. I have now changed this to the title of the Strasbourg image so the link is more visible and still available for readers. As for the article text, we are checking with legal on whether to attribute the highlighted text from the article. However it seems unusual and not practical. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, as the text is still not attributed at all. As a side remark, I sincerely hope that the view that text attribution and licensing is "unusual and not practical" is neither meant to be understood literally nor the official position of the WMF.--Cirdan (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You have uploaded this file to Wikimedia Commons and you are thereby bound to the policies of this project, among them COM:L. If you chose to ignore this, it will be most likely deleted even if you consider these requirements as “unusual and not practical”. Please understand that we are also concerned about the risks of potential reusers outside of WMF projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- All images should now have a link to the Strasbourg Wikipedia article and its edit history; within the image "Description" section. For further discussion or questions please visit the talk page linked HERE. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You should thank CennoxX for this work which would have been your obligation. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I really appreciate all the insight and help through this process. Thank you so much CennoxX.ASherman (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:ASherman (WMF), is it correct to assume that you will integrate this feature into the app ASAP?--Cirdan (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- This question and others can be answered by User:Slaporte (WMF) on his talk page.ASherman (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:ASherman (WMF), is it correct to assume that you will integrate this feature into the app ASAP?--Cirdan (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I really appreciate all the insight and help through this process. Thank you so much CennoxX.ASherman (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You should thank CennoxX for this work which would have been your obligation. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- All images should now have a link to the Strasbourg Wikipedia article and its edit history; within the image "Description" section. For further discussion or questions please visit the talk page linked HERE. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I completely understand your concern. Each "Description" section of the photos had a link to the Strasbourg article image attached to the word "Photo" in the second line. I have now changed this to the title of the Strasbourg image so the link is more visible and still available for readers. As for the article text, we are checking with legal on whether to attribute the highlighted text from the article. However it seems unusual and not practical. ASherman (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- You need to provide a source link to the image you reused and to the article you quoted per COM:L#License information. You should research the authors who wrote the quoted text from the version history of the article. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an SVG of this flag. Fry1989 eh? 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Freie Deutsche Jugend.svg. Yann (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Photo en CC BY-NC-ND sur le site d'origine http://www.boreally.org/evenements/100ans-bourget-80ans-armee-lair/attachment/deux-dassault-flamant-volant-formation-bourget/ et importée ici explicitement avec la même licence BY-NC-ND alors que ce n'est pas une licence libre acceptée sur Commons Habertix (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour, je ne connais pas les règles précises en vigueur. La licence complète utilisée sur le site d'origine est CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 FR, est-ce que je doit/peut la renseigner quelque part dans les paramètres du fichier ?
- Hello, I don't know exactly how the rules apply in this matter. The complete name of the license I've checked on the source website is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 FR
- --Hoshimoriyo (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- CC BY-NC-ND est une licence Creative Commons, mais ce n'est pas une licence libre : voir Commons:Bandeaux_de_licence#Licences_libres_Creative_Commons. Et si je me trompe, le nom du photographe sera certainement effacé de l'image. -- Habertix (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC).
- à mon humble avis (et vous remarquerez que cet argument objectif ne va pas dans dans le sens d'un but subjectif que j'aurais pu avoir), il n'est pas permis d'enlever le nom, par la clause "Pas de modifications" de la licence.
- Je m'en remet à plus compétents que moi sur le sujet. Cordialement, --Hoshimoriyo (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- CC BY-NC-ND est une licence Creative Commons, mais ce n'est pas une licence libre : voir Commons:Bandeaux_de_licence#Licences_libres_Creative_Commons. Et si je me trompe, le nom du photographe sera certainement effacé de l'image. -- Habertix (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC).
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Original research without reliable sources. Sample comparison with File:Woj.poleskie-Polska spis powszechny 1931.pdf (pp. 56-58) reveals that percentage points for individual counties do not match the alleged results of 1931 survey. Example can be drawn from the analysis of File:Województwo poleskie - podział administracyjny 1939.png with names of administrative centres not mentioned here. Yellow color here marks Powiat Kobryn (westside in Poleskie, see: Jewish: 8,697+1,792 (10,489); Ukrainian: 21,934; Polish: 10,040; Belarusian: 5,208; Russian: 3,373. Total is 41,004 including Polish at 24.5% ... Polish is NOT "less than 10%", it is 24.5%. Please DO NOT count "local" as non-Polish because "local" means all of the above ("local" is 62,854). This map is intended to prove that Poles "did not live" in eastern Poland, a preposterous claim by Soviet propaganda attempting to justify the invasion of Poland. Poeticbent talk 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note, the uploader of this map removed the deletion nomination tag from the file description, even though the information contained in it clearly states: "Do not remove this tag until is closed." Thank you, Poeticbent talk 13:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Morgan's 1890.jpg. Louperivois Ψ @ 20:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Not exact duplicate. Yann (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
a better file has been uploaded, File:59 Street entrance 1 vc.jpg Vcohen (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Not exact duplicate. Yann (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused; out of COM:SCOPE. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong location Eduardofpl (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No license, uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This file is an incorrectly named duplicate of the correctly named Guadalupe River Landscape.jpg Maile66 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and maybe rename. This is not an exact duplicate of File:Guadalupe River Landscape.jpg as there are different contrast and colours in this photograph. This makes it a valid secondary version which could be kept even with this rather descriptive title. It would be helpful though to rename it to File:Guadalupe River Landscape (2).jpg or something similar. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Actually, this one is better. Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The university claims copyright. I think it is probably over the ToO. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for notification. The logo was uploaded by the university officials. What should be done to prove it? Maodit (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- An authorized official of the university must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
photo à l'envers Géry PARENT (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
ʏɔ ʎɔ ðɛçɪðɔ Moshetshuva (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Tillstånd av Stina Wirsén att använda i Wikipedia"
English: "Permission by Stina Wirsén to be used in Wikipedia"
That is not enough. we need explicit permission given to license this under a free license, for everyone to use. Josve05a (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims. This looks like quite an old photograph. I doubt it was created in 2009. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also File:Presentation-histoire001 (1).jpg by the same uploader, postmarked 1910. Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
2 of the 3 uploads by this user are clearly not own work. One of those two might be old enough to be PD, but no source is cited. The third has a very low resolution, which makes it also unlikely to be own work.
- File:Eerste wafelbakmachine uit 1932.jpg
- File:Bakkerij Vegter in ongeveer 1900.jpg
- File:Vooraanzicht Jac. Vegter B.V. vanaf 1988.png
Vera (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Meggasimonn as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Bad Photo Amitie 10g (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see any reason to delete this file, which shows a bottle of a specific brand of Bavarian beer. The quality is not bad (as was claimed), and anyway, deletions because of bad quality should only be made when the file is absolutely useless or redundant (because there are many other fine file covering the subject). Neither is the case here. Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mato Grosso (Paraíba) regarding official symbols
[edit]Coat of arms (brasão) and flag (bandeira) of Brazilian municipality pt:Mato Grosso (Paraíba) emancipated in 1994 (see also http://matogrosso.pb.gov.br/o-municipio/), failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) published or commissioned (...) prior to 1983." No trivial text/shape logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-shape}}. All coats of arms and flags of Brazilian municipalities are established by municipal law. See also (as a working example) File:BrasaoValparaiso.png.
Gunnex (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
1955 photo from the Ernest Hemingway collection in the JFK Presidential Library. Claimed to be PD-USGov, but I don't see why that should be true; being located at the JFK library doesn't make this photo a work of the US federal government. In fact, the page there for this image [3] says "Copyright: Status unknown". So the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 20:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Included: File:Spencer Tracy ca. 1955.jpg (a detail image). --Rosenzweig τ 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
We are missing information about the death year of the sculptor. w:Murō Saisei looks old, so the sculpture was probably made at the end of his life or after his death, so the sculptor might not have been dead for at least 50 years. Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. While the date of the statue is unclear, COM:FOP#Japan does not allow commercial reproduction of outdoor works of art. --DAJF (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and DAJF. Green Giant (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that this is "own work" as claimed -- the subject died in 1910. It may well be PD, but it is too recent to assume that without any further information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
While it is barely possible that this image is "own work" as claimed, it seems very unlikely as it appears to be circa 1915. While it may be PD, we need more information to determine that. If this is its first publication, Swedish law gives it a copyright of 70 years pma. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yet another eldiario.es license washing (see here) Discasto talk 22:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This coin seems to be less than 50 years old, as required per COM:CUR#United Kingdom. Stefan4 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
False claim. Beeld en Geluid is not the author, therefor not the copyrightholder. EvilFreD overleg 23:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you sure this claim is false and Beeld En Geluid is not the author? As Beeld En Geluid organized this exposition, I can imagine they created this image and actually are the copyright holder. However, I'm not sure about the black and white image of Freek de Jonge, they used in this image. Clausule (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly what I meant. EvilFreD overleg 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Appearantly the copyright holder is Floris Andrea. EvilFreD overleg 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly what I meant. EvilFreD overleg 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Likely license washing by eldiario.es (this is the subject's twitter picture, see here) Discasto talk 23:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits Javier Lopez Fabian as photographer. No indication that uploader is this person or otherwise owns the copyright. Storkk (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I assume good faith when reading that Hilda Tenorio is granting permission on this file's discussion page to use this image; however, the photo was taken by "Humbert", which is admitted by the uploader in the description, and therefore he owns the image. I found his website here: https://www.facebook.com/HumbertGarcia03/info?tab=page_info with a link to the website he works for. The photos on the Facebook page have the same logo. I believe a declaration of consent using COM:CONSENT is required from Humbert Garcia to verify that there is not an accidental copyright violation occurring here. If transfer of ownership took place, then that would have to be proven. Dontreader (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. No response from uploader. Green Giant (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Same problem as with another picture uploaded by this person. Can't be "own work". Unless a transfer of ownership occurred, the company that owns this picture is here: https://www.facebook.com/EstudioMaguey/photos_stream The logo is always the same, although the year changes. The website might be down, but the company should grant permission, I believe, perhaps by sending a request through Facebook. Dontreader (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. No response from uploader. Green Giant (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
False information that some POV pusher added to an article; now removed. See http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/20685/extent-of-empire-of-lalitaditya-muktapida for details. Uploader has had a bunch of images deleted for copyvio Shii (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
not latest Maveseven (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Sry not undestandable Sanandros (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
nicht mehr aktuell !!! Maveseven (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Original uploader's request and not (longer?) used. But, should not be better to overwrite with a newer version if you want to use? --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission from photographer, out of scope. --Jcb (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Being made in 1949, it is unlikely to be own work. Permission needed. Sealle (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Amateurphotography already existed 1949 Sanandros (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: Do you claim that user:Pravoslavie91 could make this photo himself in 1949? Sealle (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ther user has a track record of uploading postcard scans and files of unknown origin as own work. I believe that this 1949 photo is not own work either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- 2649 × 1873 seemed to be not a photographic format (1.41, thus it's more than 4/3). --Brateevsky {talk} 07:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per above and Com:PCP --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This image seems to be a copyright violation because there is no valid permission by the photographer given. Please note that the name of the photographer differs from the user name who uploaded this image. As long as there is no valid OTRS permission this image should not be kept here 93.194.193.70 09:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
--> The photographer Bernhard Fischer is the photographer of the church ICF Singen and I got the oral permission of the church and Bernhard Fischer to use this photo for wikipedia.
- Please send a permission. See COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: If you somebody wants to contact them here he can go on. Sanandros (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No educational use, fictional coat of arms Zoupan (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- It definitely should not be used in a Wikipedia article, but it's pretty harmless (similar to a number of other such files). AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In dubio pro reo as the file is used in it wp Sanandros (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This is supposedly a fictional cart of arms for a so called "new Yugoslavia", whatever that is. So the image should be deleted as OOS since it doesn't serve any educational purpose. Adamant1 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Такого флага нет даже в проекте, и, вообще, проекты флагов не подлежат загрузке на commons Permjak (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Оставить This is proposed by the artists to become the flag of Pskov Oblast since December last year. The Governor of that Oblast said that Pskov Oblast needs a flag. (Это предлагается художниками, чтобы стать флаг Псковской области с декабря прошлого года. Губернатором этого области говорит, что Псковская область нуждается в флаг) 99.230.181.231 18:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Вот что предлагают и проекты флагов охраняются авторским правом.--Permjak (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it's a real-world proposal which exists outside Wikipedia, then it should certainly be kept, provided that there are no copyright problems... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well the project apparently exists. And you mean that all the content of Category:Proposed flags should be deleted? Yeah, we can't be sure about the current copyright status of the proposal, but somehow I doubt its authors would mind it being promoted in Wikipedia. On the hand I dislike it that the flag already is used as if it were officially adopted. And I have yet another reason for disliking it: it's a rival of my own proposal >:( Hellerick (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just calm down. There's nothing to criticize about the flag, it's just a proposal. There are other people who have their own proposals. If you dislike the flag then don't comment about it. 99.227.139.70 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Did I sound as if I weren't calm? Sorry, I'm cool. I don't care much about the issue. Hellerick (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just calm down. There's nothing to criticize about the flag, it's just a proposal. There are other people who have their own proposals. If you dislike the flag then don't comment about it. 99.227.139.70 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Flag of Pskov Oblast.png and File:Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg - different flags - tongue, spots, front right paw, tail.--Permjak (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but since it's just a project I thought it would be pointless to spend too much time recreating it, since I don't know whether the differences are intentional anyway. Once and if adopted there will be an official image deserving thoroughful redrawing. Hellerick (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 23:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why Are? Proposed another flag, the flag File:Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg came up with a Hellerick.--Permjak (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- (А можно то же самое по-русски, а то я плохо понял? Hellerick (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC))
- Почему? Предложен другой флаг, а флаг File:Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg придуман Hellerick.
- Если вы думаете, что разные язык, хвост, когти и пятна - это мелочи и несущественно, то глубоко заблуждаетесь.--Permjak (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- В геральдике — несущественно. Там главное соблюсти геральдическое описание герба, а не графику отдельного его рисунка. И если не ошибаюсь, растрепанность хвостов, когти и расположение пятен в геральдиеский лексикон не входят. Разумеется, если появится официальное изображение, то желательно воспроизвести именно его. Hellerick (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- И с такими познаниями в геральдике вы затеяли спор? Permjak (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- В геральдике — несущественно. Там главное соблюсти геральдическое описание герба, а не графику отдельного его рисунка. И если не ошибаюсь, растрепанность хвостов, когти и расположение пятен в геральдиеский лексикон не входят. Разумеется, если появится официальное изображение, то желательно воспроизвести именно его. Hellerick (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Если вы думаете, что разные язык, хвост, когти и пятна - это мелочи и несущественно, то глубоко заблуждаетесь.--Permjak (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why Are? Proposed another flag, the flag File:Proposed flag of Pskov Oblast.svg came up with a Hellerick.--Permjak (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
23. Цвет в геральдике является столь же важным различительным элементом, как и фигуры. Одни и те же фигуры, в одном и том же сочетании, но с различной расцветкой, могут служить гербами совершенно разных муниципальных образований. В этой связи цвета всех деталей герба должны быть точно определены и строго соблюдаться при изготовлении цветных изображений герба. Недопустимо при изготовлении цветных изображений герба упрощать установленную расцветку фигур или опускать установленную расцветку деталей (например, если в гербе имеется золотой лев с червленым языком и зелеными глазами, то ни в одном из изображений герба язык и глаза не могут быть даны золотым цветом) – в противном случае будет получено искаженное изображение, не могущее квалифицироваться как изображение данного герба.
— Методические рекомендации по разработке и использованию официальных символов муниципальных образований
Kept: The title of the image clearly says "proposed" and etc. from discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Dessin non libre / non free picture Habertix (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour, je ne connais pas les règles précises en vigueur. La licence complète utilisée sur le site d'origine est CC BY 3.0, est-ce que je doit/peut la renseigner quelque part dans les paramètres du fichier ?
- Hello, I don't know exactly how the rules apply in this matter. The complete name of the license I've checked on the source website is CC BY 3.0
- --Hoshimoriyo (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Je n'ai pas trouvé d'indication d'une licence particulière sur l'image initiale.
- De toute façon, sans autorisation de Matt Groening (ou du propriétaire des droits), les représentations de Bender Bending Rodríguez sont interdites, même si c'est vous qui le dessinez : c'est pour cela qu'il n'y a aucun Tintin sur wikipédia en français. -- Habertix (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC).
- La licence est indiquée en bas à droite de la page d'origine.
- Informations annexes, sans vraiment savoir ce que ça vaut comme argument:
- je l'ai trouvé via cette recherche google (paramètre "Réutilisation et modification autorisée")
- cette image (que je crois similaire)est utilisée sur l'article en:Bender_(Futurama)
- cette image est considéré comme "domaine publique"
- Questions annexes :
- est-ce que cette licence CC BY 3.0 serait autorisée pour l'hebergement sur Wikipédia français ?
- est-ce que l'image hébergée sur Wikipédia anglais peut servir d'illustration d'article sur Wikipédia français ?
- Cordialement, --Hoshimoriyo (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: It's a derivative work of a cartoon character "Bender". Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- anything about previsous questions and comments ? --Hoshimoriyo (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-RU-exempt}} ze-dan (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment/Keep What is the argument for deletion? The image seems to be extracted from a commemorative postage stamp which seems to fall under "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like)" Hohum (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- On this image there are no state symbols and signs. --ze-dan (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- A postage stamp, like a banknote, is a state document, surely? Else, how would a banknote be one, and a postage stamp not? Hohum (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- On this image there are no state symbols and signs. --ze-dan (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Stamps are free only as a whole picture, cropped or otherwise reworked stamps are not free. rubin16 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- What is the source for this strong statement? "Free" here means they can be hosted on Commons, i.e., can be altered. Materialscientist (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It even says so on the license tag: For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps.. This is a quite common restriction. —Wuzur 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No attributes of a postage stamp = no reason to use PD-RU-exempt. Sealle (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If this happens to be deleted: Please redirect to a version that actually is a stamp as the image is widely used. —Wuzur 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: when the stamp is public domain, parts of it are public domain too. --JuTa 06:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to the opinion of closing admin in previous discussion, Russian postage stamps are NOT "public domain". They are "exempt from copyright". Many stamps feature copyrighted works of art, such as paintings by modern artists, cartoon characters, Olympic games mascots etc. Decision to keep cropped image of such stamp essentialy means that everyone can crop out such works of art from the image of a stamp, use them and make derivative works of them. If we encourage such actions, this can lead to major legal problems. Until we have explicit statement from Wikimedia Foundation lawyers allowing to disregard these concerns, we should delete cropped stamps. As for a more broad problem of suitability of images that are "not free enough", there is a long-standing consensus of making money and postage stamps exempt from a more general policy of not allowing such images. As Rubin16 stated, same thing happens, for example, with {{Money-EU}}: they are free, but there are restrictions on derivative works. As a conclusion, parts of the stamps aren't covered by the Russian legislature as copyright exception and couldn't be stored as freely licensed works. Grebenkov (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also this stamp: I don't think someone would argue that if we crop out the image of Mickey Mouse, it will be available for reuse, including the production of derivative works. --Grebenkov (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mickey Mouse stamps are a different story - it is Azerbaijan, and I believe the line below the diamond on top right is a notice that the image is copyrighted (© Disney [4]) - I can't 100% verify that right away for this stamp, but I saw such copyright notices on other Disney stamps from either Azerbaijan or neighboring countries. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan stamps are exempt from copyright: {{PD-AZ-exempt}}. There are no exceptions in the law that would allow to grant copyright protection to the specific stamp. Copyright notice just underlines the core issue with Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet stamps: they cannot be protected by copyright as a whole (this is by law), but parts of them can be (and most of the time are). --Grebenkov (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are saying that a government can put a copyrighted image on a stamp (without an agreement with the copyright holder), add a few minor details like a border and stamp value, and the stamp would be in public domain (if there is an appropriate law in that country). This is wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, not in "public domain", but "exempt from copyright". This exemption covers only one particular reproduction of the work of art, it does not make the work itself free for use. --Grebenkov (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are saying that a government can put a copyrighted image on a stamp (without an agreement with the copyright holder), add a few minor details like a border and stamp value, and the stamp would be in public domain (if there is an appropriate law in that country). This is wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan stamps are exempt from copyright: {{PD-AZ-exempt}}. There are no exceptions in the law that would allow to grant copyright protection to the specific stamp. Copyright notice just underlines the core issue with Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet stamps: they cannot be protected by copyright as a whole (this is by law), but parts of them can be (and most of the time are). --Grebenkov (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mickey Mouse stamps are a different story - it is Azerbaijan, and I believe the line below the diamond on top right is a notice that the image is copyrighted (© Disney [4]) - I can't 100% verify that right away for this stamp, but I saw such copyright notices on other Disney stamps from either Azerbaijan or neighboring countries. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- __________________
- Kept again, please see File:1977_CPA_4774.jpg from which this image was extracted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Previously ruling admins seem to be unaware of Russian copyright law. This photo of Brezhnev is owned by RIA Novosti and will remain copyrighted for decades. While the copyright status of full Russian postage stamps can be debated (since they contain copyrighted artistic portions that cannot be cropped out but are considered to be PD official documents when used in full), but this cropped version is 100% not ok. Another user in the future could easily upload the original of it that could not be considered public domain by any reason. The closer cited the idea that if a whole work is PD, then parts of it are PD too - but that doesn't mean that this copyrighted image must be kept, it means that stamps with copyrighted portions (like the one this came from) should not be allowed. While the Russian part of Wikipedia Commons is notorious for copyright violations due to the complex and retroactive nature of Russian copyright law, the precedent of misunderstandings by inexperiended users is no excuse for violating copyright rules established in Wikipedia Common's charter and the very licence template that this file uses. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_O-R#Russia deals with issue explicitly -- the whole stamp is free from copyright, but the painting is not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Необходимо удалить фотографию, т.к. она не соответствует действительности. Настоящая фотография Якова Александровича Малика изображена на русской версии страницы! 93.76.204.250 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
is extracted from this poster, honey: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Germ_Warfare_-_NARA_-_5729961.jpg
Kept: Image was from NARA, but titled and described as wrong person. I fixed the description and the category and put a "rename" tag on it to have the file renamed "Dean Acheson" which is who it really is. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio since almost identical to copyrighted cover picture, see http://www.allmusic.com/album/janis-original-soundtrack-mw0000318456 146.60.150.137 22:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted as a derivative work of a copyrighted photo. —Angr 20:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Images from www.araldicacivica.it
[edit]- File:Guardialfiera Coat of Arms.png
- File:Viganella-Stemma.png
- File:Cervia-Stemma.png (except for the version from 2007 which seems to be fine)
- File:Monterotondo stemma.gif
- File:Palmanova-Stemma.png
These are all claimed to be from [5] and there is no source of permission, so COM:COA#Coat of arms "found on the internet" would appear to apply here. See also the related discussion at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 27#File:Varapodio-Stemma.gif. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Araldicacivica was among the first sites granting Wikipedia permission to reproduce their contents. Of course there is no relevant ticket about it, since there was no OTRS back in 2004. The disclaimer on their site says it's ok to republish their pictures as long as they're credited, although on it.wiki we currently seek for a full authorization by municipalities to use the "real", actual insignia. --Elitre (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- All drawings from Araldicacivica.it (ie the arms "ridisegnate" [redrawn], such Palmanova ad Cervia in our case) are under cc-by-sa 3.0 (see disclameir in italian: «Tutti i contenuti sono sotto licenza Common 3. In pratica le immagini possono essere usate liberamente purché si citi sempre la fonte» [All contents are licensed under the Common 3. In practice, the images may be used freely as long as you always refer to the source]), the situation is naturally different for the coats of arms "official" contained on the site, that may be used only as a fair-use.GJo (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- P.s.: sorry for my bad english.GJo (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It says "Common 3", not "CC-BY-SA 3.0". "Common 3" could mean any of CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY.ND 3.0. A non-commercial restriction is unlikely since it is suggested that "le immagini possono essere usate liberamente" without mention any commercial limitation. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, the license has been clarified: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.GJo (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- It says "Common 3", not "CC-BY-SA 3.0". "Common 3" could mean any of CC-BY 3.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY.ND 3.0. A non-commercial restriction is unlikely since it is suggested that "le immagini possono essere usate liberamente" without mention any commercial limitation. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Ok now it is clearly not ok for Commons (NC and ND). --MGA73 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per [http://www.araldicacivica.it/disclaimer/ and Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA.--Trixt (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Painful but necessary. Not suitable licence. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 02:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Images from www.araldicacivica.it
[edit]Another set of images has been uploaded:
- File:Zafferana Etnea-Stemma.png
- File:Casalediscodosia arms.png
- File:Peschiera del Garda-Stemma.png
- File:Cino-Coat of Arms.jpg
- File:Baldissero d'Alba-Stemma.png
- File:Settala(famiglia)-stemma.png
- File:Cavenago(famiglia)-stemma.png
- File:Riva Valdobbia-Coat-of-Arms.png
- File:Provaglio d'Iseo-Coat-of-Arms.jpg
- File:Breno-Coat of Arms.png
Stefan4 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- ____________
- Deleted. As above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Images from www.araldicacivica.it
[edit]The visual style suggests that these originally might come from araldicacivica.it or that they alternatively are scans from books or something. At the very least, the attribution requirement is violated since the author isn't indicated. They just refer to deleted pages on enwiki and itwiki.
- File:StemmaRaveo.jpg
- File:StemmaLauco.jpg
- File:Stemmavillasantina.jpg
- File:StemmaEnemonzo.jpg
- File:StemmaMoggio.jpg
- File:Ovaro-Stemma.gif
- File:Comeglians Stemma.jpg
- File:Rigolato-Stemma.jpg
- File:Claut-Stemma.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Images from www.araldicacivica.it
[edit]Another set has been uploaded:
Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This claims to be the coat of arms of the Yugoslav king, however, there are no sources for this. The use of this file should be replaced with File:Grb Kraljevine SHS 1918 - 1921.png, the actual coat of arms. Zoupan (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The lack of source and description makes this file impossible to use, then out of scope. BrightRaven (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This claims to be the coat of arms of the Yugoslav king, however, there are no sources for this. The use of this file should be replaced with File:Grb Kraljevine SHS 1918 - 1921.png, the actual coat of arms. Zoupan (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The lack of description makes this file out of the project scope. BrightRaven (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Copy-paste of modern coat of arms on a very bad background. There is no use for this file, as there are plenty of other, better made and actual coat of arms, on commons. Zoupan (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you could link us the the alternative then we could decide.--Sanandros (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatives are easily found in the categories, but here goes some links: File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg, File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.png, File:Grb Kraljevine SHS 1918 - 1921.png.--Zoupan (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Superseded by File:Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg. BrightRaven (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)