Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_small.JPG){kind=link}
Unused personal photo. This is the only contribution of the uploader (a year ago). Since it is unused and has no other useful content, this is out of COM:SCOPE. 81.147.163.183 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 05:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please, do not nominate empty categories, they qualify for speedy deletion. That is what the person who wrote {{Delete}} meant, because that is what it means on other wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: wrong name, delete, see Category:Hof HaCarmel central Bus station
Associated with repeated heatsinkchina.com spam insertions on en:Heatsink. Serves no purpose other than to market companies product. SpinningSpark 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously promotional picture. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete. Image is redundant (pictures of heatsinks aren't hard to come by) and clearly part of a spammers project. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete.--Ex13 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per above --Dferg (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. This is the only contribution of the uploader. Since it is unused and has no other useful content, this is out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dferg (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This photo is taken against Yushukan Museum policies; photographs are strictly forbidden in that museum beyond the entrance lobby. --173.3.71.166 11:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep It does not matter - not a copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete per nom. --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the policies of a museum shouldn't direct ours, unless the museum management themselves have an issue with this, it is not a copyright issue nor any other kind of issue. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - breach of museum "policy" is not a copyvio. If the image is appropriately licensed by the photographer (which it is) and is not otherwise a copyvio, it stays. – ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. not only does this not constitute a copyright infringement, you're also jumping to conclusions. some museums don't allow pictures to be taken regularly or everyday, but allow some people to photograph pictures or pieces to have a documentation of the item, assess damages, post on their web page, etc. also, a museum policy has nothing to do with wikipedia...--Camr (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- KeepI have been to the Yushukan and I know they have this policy, but there are a lot of times that myself or others could take photographs with permission or people looking the other way. This is perfectly fine. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be a problem only if the copyright of the photographed object were cancelled because of FOP. As it does not seem to be the case, the museum policy is not relevant here. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
the picture was weird. Siimmoon (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Image is broken. MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in use on the user's page, and now correctly tagged with {{Userpageimage}}. –Tryphon☂ 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Cookie: Promotional content: used for self-promotion, not used anymore
_-_small.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_small.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is not educational or informational - it may have contained information but that has been removed, it is not linked to from anywhere but the creators user page. The image is watermaked in a way that contradicts the apparent license. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
_-_small.JPG){kind=link}
The image is derived from the Vedic Square and is of my own research. I find it quite perplexing that Mr. Carpenter would mention that numerous geometric patterns and symmetries can be observed in a Vedic square, yet he immediately ommits my own discovery. Maybe it's out of jealousy that he himself could not do this after writing a book on this wonderful subject? Whatever his reasons, I find it comical because as I was discussing this with members in an online forum, he was dissecting my information and requested my image to be deleted (as we were discussing it too!). He obviously noticed this (due to a backlink to the Wicki page) and got to work straight away. Otherwise, it was still there unchanged for over one week. Coincedence? I think not. Maybe he wants to revise the graph as his own work in the future (I suspect). I even approached Mr. Carpenter via email, appolagised for the lack of educational information and asked him if I could provide him with a revised edition, explaining how this graph can be brought about. I even appolagised for my lack of editing skills on Wickipedia (as I am new) and asked him if he could assist me? But he has not responded and again, I think he is just plain arrogant and jealous. The image is of my own work and not from any other (I have prior proof of date and postings). There is even a site link I provided that describes to everyone, just how one can bring out this geometrical pattern. I just didn't provide that information on Wickipedia, but as I mentioned, I have informed Mr. Carpenter that I do have that information in my revised edition. He has not responded! EyePhi (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
_-_small.JPG){kind=link}
- Hello again,
- I'm sorry that you didn't notice the response on my talk page - but I wasn't going to replicate it via e-mail. Please not accuse me of not responding before checking that I actually didn't respond.
- Now no-one is doubting that the image is the product of your own research (this is part of what makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia, but this is a Commons issue not a Wikipedia one), but the question is whether it falls into the scope this project which personal artwork with no obvious educational use does not.
- Should you upload anything else related to the Vedic Square or otherwise, that would be a completely separate issue and so long as it is within the Common's policy I should not have an issue with it.
- Yes, your forum postings brought the content to my attention - but that is a good thing as Wikimedia projects are supposed to edited to best ability of their users.I find the unfounded accusations that I plan to breach Commons policy or Wikipedia policy in the future to be irritating and I don't believe they will help your case but that is not an issue for here. If you wish to discuss my integrity as an editor further, then take it back to my talk page on either Commons or Wikipedia. But I assure you I am not, nor do I suspect anyone else is, jealous of your ability to get a graphics package to make shapes for you.
- Beyond that, I do not feel I need to justify my use of the Deletion Request protocol any further.
- Thankyou for your interest and please don't be discouraged from learning from and contributing to wikimedia projects in the future - but perhaps read up on the policies and remits first.
- --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No I didn't notice it at all untill you responded to my post above today (again!). Maybe you should have emailed me like I amicably did to you? Why didn't you respond to my email from days ago, instead, suddenly appear as soon as a link is posted about the topic? Very interesting isn't it? It just comes accross as very impolite and one can see an intent of animosity when you don't respond directly and then carry on editing the way you did. Something you may want to consider in future?
- Regardless of what you think, the image of "OneEye" is derived directly from the Vedic Square using graphing tools such MS-Excel. How else is one to graph numbers? Using pen and paper alone? How do you think your own images (posted on the "Vedic Square" page) was created? Magically? You used "graphing" tools for your images, just like I did.
- It seems other such institutions whom deal with Vedic Maths have taken this image as being such patterns that derive from the Vedic Square and will also feature as an article in their coming monthly newsletter. I find it bemusing that you could not see this "geometric pattern" as such also, even when you mention on your Vedic Square page that; "Numerous geometric patterns and symmetries can be observed in a Vedic square"? All I wanted to do was to add to that as such. Yet, you posted your own so-called "symmetries" without question as if it is any more "educational" than my image.
- I believe that I am genuinely contributing to the topic, since it is mentioned clearly that there are many "...geometric patterns and symmetries..." on your edited page. I will continue, with backing, that my find is educational, just as much as your own images posted on that page. EyePhi (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I did not e-mail you because I had already responded to your message and didn't feel the need to replicate my response. I did at no point deny the existence of a pattern, nor that the vedic square was the source material, however if I applied graphic filters to an image of the Statue of Liberty to the point that it no longer had anything to do with the statue - then I could no longer claim that it provided any information, let alone pertaining to New York.
- The image that I posted was based on given sources, and wasn't in conflict with Wikipedia's policies since it was neither self promotion nor original "research". Being used appropriately on another wikimedia project does put a file within the Commons Scope which I have linked you to over and again.
- Beyond that I don't think your really interested in contributing in a positive way to either project and I think you should consider your motivations for being involved. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- So what you're ultimately saying is, if it's 'someone else's work', it's fine to cite as a source, rather from the 'horses mouth'? How is that even certifiable, let alone credible? I bet you don't even know what you have posted is correct or not, I presume? That's just the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. And what has "filters" got to do with this? If you equate "graphing" tools to "filtering", then you better request the deletion of many informative images and graphs from Wicki's Commons files, such as, fractal's and Laplace graphs. Birol Koc (Bizza) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No Original Research is a Wikipedia policy, yes you can read about it on Wikipedia but Wikipedia policies are not up for discussion outside of Wikipedia. My point about filtering an image beyond recognisability was that although your image may have started as a Vedic Square it is now just a piece of personal artwork that is not in the Commons Scope. Please actually do read up on these policies - they are important.
- I do know that the content I posted was correct, through reliable sources and personal verification - these are important for any form of actual research.
- The reason I created the other image is because your edits highlighted the need for improvement to that article - nothing more.
- --Paul Carpenter (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? All graphs and images start off from some form of tabular framework or other numerical constructs. My so-called "artwork" is not from my own design. It is (as I have been telling you from the beginning) derived from the Vedic Square itself. Do you even know HOW it was formed by any chance? Do you know that all types of graphs are formed in the same manner? Through "graphing" tools? And what do you think the images you put up were derived from? You know what? ...fine then. Have my image taken off. It's people like you that makes Wickipedia a laughing stock for information sourcing anyway. What a joke! -Birol Koc (Bizza) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
_-_small.JPG){kind=link}
- File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BallonKathedrale02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:DW; this would require permission by the artists; see http://www.jankaeser.ch/index.php?id=31 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see no reason for a cancellation. The camera location was on public property in Switzerland, and the balloon was in the Austrian airspace. The artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air. --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is for works that people have access to; art that remains locked up in the artist's studio does not need it. This work does not fall in the exceptions for works "permanently situated". Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright protection is for works that people have access to; art that remains locked up in the artist's studio does not need it. This work does not fall in the exceptions for works "permanently situated".
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 21:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Böhringer.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since when does publication mean that you can do whatever you want with the work? That would basically mean all published works are public domain, no copyrights whatsoever. –Tryphon☂ 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was not nominated for speedy deletion, which to me means that deletion of the image is not given, and there's something to discuss and to vote "for" or "against", so I voted to keep the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, yes, but I guess your vote was not random, was it? As you said, there is something to discuss, and I'm trying to figure out what makes you (and Böhringer) think that just because it's published, it's free. Understanding opposite arguments is the key to building a consensus and reaching an enlightened conclusion. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I read the arguments that the image's creator Böhringer has provided and agreed with him.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, yes, but I guess your vote was not random, was it? As you said, there is something to discuss, and I'm trying to figure out what makes you (and Böhringer) think that just because it's published, it's free. Understanding opposite arguments is the key to building a consensus and reaching an enlightened conclusion. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was not nominated for speedy deletion, which to me means that deletion of the image is not given, and there's something to discuss and to vote "for" or "against", so I voted to keep the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. FOP in Switzerland. Yann (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:BallonKathedrale01 edit.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:BallonKathedrale02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Renominating, as COM:FOP#Switzerland only applies to works of art that are permanently situated. The law text even says that it must be on the ground, on the soil: (German: "Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet...", Italian: "un’opera che, in modo permanente, sia situata o si affacci su suolo accessibile al pubblico...") - not in the air. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Not only permanently situated, but also on the ground: Il est licite de reproduire des oeuvres se trouvant à demeure sur une voie ou une place accessible au public [1]; which means It is legal to reproduce works permanently situated on a publicly accessible way or place. Delete. –Tryphon☂ 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now we have the three national languages covered... –Tryphon☂ 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as not permanently situated as required by COM:FOP#Switzerland. If, as has been suggested, the balloon was actually in Austrian airspace at the time then COM:FOP#Austria is probably relevant but that doesn't seem to permit this either. The previous arguments to keep this image seem limited to the "artist obviously puts emphasis on publication, otherwise he would not allow his work to fly through the air" but that is less than convincing. Adambro (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- What about asking the artist for permission? His mail address is readily available. I like the photograph and I hope the artist agrees with keeping it on Commons. --Iotatau (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea, Iotatau--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, definitely not permanently situated. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Are we sure this is an artwork not an oddly shaped flying machine? --Simonxag (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jan Kaeser describes himself as "Kunstschaffender" - producer of art, artist. On the page that I linked to in the first DR he states: "alle auf diesen Seiten gezeigten Werke und Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt" - all works shown on the page are protected by copyright. He signed this appeal against copyright infringement on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Simonxag meant w:UFO
--Mbz1 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in that case we would need to know about copyright on the alien planet. ;) Seriously though, this has not much similarity to a usual balloon, thus I think sufficient originality has been reached to warrant protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if the creator styles himself an artist, then in the world of en:An Oak Tree it must be art. So Delete. --Simonxag (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if the creator styles himself an artist, then in the world of en:An Oak Tree it must be art. So
- Well, in that case we would need to know about copyright on the alien planet. ;) Seriously though, this has not much similarity to a usual balloon, thus I think sufficient originality has been reached to warrant protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe Simonxag meant w:UFO
- Jan Kaeser describes himself as "Kunstschaffender" - producer of art, artist. On the page that I linked to in the first DR he states: "alle auf diesen Seiten gezeigten Werke und Fotografien sind urheberrechtlich geschützt" - all works shown on the page are protected by copyright. He signed this appeal against copyright infringement on the internet. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I usually go to visit an art exhibition. They do not fly over my head and in different countries. Therefore, I see neither a permanent nor any other installation. The balloon flies in other countries. Is copyright the same everywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Böhringer (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2009 October 9 (UTC) *** sorry --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Has anyone gone ahead and requested permission from the artist? This artwork would be a shame to destroy, especially since he might allow us to keep it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That could still take Pieter Kuiper, instead of delete --Böhringer (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll email the artist.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Info I emailed the artist and got his response (his phone numbers, address and emai address removed by me to post here):
- Dear Mila
- It's OK! Thank you.
- Jan
__________________________________________________________
- Jan Kaeser
- Harfenbergstrasse **
- CH-**** St.Gallen
- Schweiz
- T/F **** ** *** ** **
- M **** ** *** ** **
- E-Mail **** at ********* dot ch
- Web http://www.jankaeser.ch
Am 12.10.2009 17:53 Uhr schrieb "Mila Zinkova" unter
- Dear Jan,
- an image of your balloon was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG
- The image was nominated for the deletion because the image has
- a free creative Commons license, while your balloon is copyrighted.
- Here's the link to the description of the license:
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
- Please email me, if it is OK with you to keep the image on Commons.
- Thank you for your time.
- Mila.
- IMO that excange should be enough to issue the ticket and keep the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Info I just got another emial from Jan. Here it is:
- "Dear Mila
- The question of copyright arises here only for the photo. The copyright must
- be obtained from the photographer of this picture, in a lengthy publication.
- the copyright of the balloon itself is with us. For example, it prohibits
- one Dublikation.
- Regards Jan"
- Now I am not sure , if it is OK to keep the image or it is not.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment January wrote:
The copyright of the image remains with the photographer. The copyright of the balloon stays with Jan He has given no objection to Veröffentlichnug of the photo. For me, this heiist, which may in photo equipment in different WIKIMEDIA!
Many, Many thanks to the work of Mila --Böhringer (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No obvious reason to delete this image. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The artist seems not to claim copyright for the photo of his artwork. The work in itself can still be copyrighted. I have no idea what Böhringer tries to say above though... Maybe this deletion request can be closed now. /grillo (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- The photographer needs to explicitly agree to the release of the image under a free license. This has not happened so far. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No work of art in its stricter meaning, "just" a work of applied art. No reason to delete at all. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Made by professional artist. No real application for transport. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if this was just a simple balloon, but this is way more creative than the average and thus IMHO definitely reaches the threshold of originality. Just because it still flies, doesn't mean it is only applied art and not copyrightable. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: "it prohibits one Dublikation" (from Mila's e-mail above) sounds to me that no derivative works are allowed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I interpret that letter in the following sense: while photographs are permitted, no one can build a similar balloon. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- So wouldn't that be an unfree license condition? While derivative photographs might not be forbidden, your interpretation does seem to restrict some derivative works (i.e. those in the form of a ballon). --Avenue (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- it is --Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have you forwarded that mail to the OTRS team? The image can only stay here in Commons by adding the OTRS ticket number. --Alpertron (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- it is --Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The e-mail has Mbz1 --Böhringer (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I did not read Mbz1's signature just before the mail contents so I found yours. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I've just started a new attempt to get a permission from the artists (OTRS ticket 2010051610007873) and ask to postpone the closure of this DR until this has been resolved. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Info The DR tag was removed from the file page at 2010-05-26, 09:56:35 because OTRS permission was received. --Saibo (Δ) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept thanks to the permission granted by the two artists, Jan Kaeser and Martin Zimmermann. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Unnecessary, since we already have Category:Tokyo 2016 Olympic bid. Filipe Ribeiro Msg 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted -- Deadstar (msg) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No information. No files included.
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am the nominator. Empty categories without information should be deleted. No? --Bestiasonica (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but on commons one is not supposed to use {{Delete}} for that. Use instead, you can write {{speedy|empty category}} or {{bad name|Replacement category}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Empty cat. Can be recreated when needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I tried to load a .svg done by inkskape. Preiview in safari was just fine, but here I think it doesn't work. Please delete, sorry for the inconvenience. Sebastian scha. (Diskussion) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC) --Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Seems broken viewing with Firefox. --Simonxag (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- File:Step2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Step3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Those three images were taken from this page. At the bottom of the page is a copyright notice, but were tagged as copyleft images. Thus, they qualify as copyright violations. Alexius08 (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete clearly says Copyright © 2005 - 2009 Pharmainfo.net. --Ex13 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
missing information --Moraleh (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
- Delete no licence, missing information--Ex13 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - copyvio and per above. --Dferg (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps it is a copyright violation, but the Commons image was uploaded here in May 2008, while the Flickr image was uploaded there June 2009, so clearly the Flickr image is not the source of this one. Really, I don't see the reason why this needs a deletion request entry, it could have been tagged with either {{Nsd}} or {{Nld}} to be deleted if those problems are not addressed. I have so tagged the image. Infrogmation (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. This is the only contribution of the uploader. Since it is unused and has no other useful content, this is out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - it seems out of the scope to me. --Dferg (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Very low quality image of a non-notable person (he seems to have just a myspace page to his name). Unused and uncategorised. Not in COM:SCOPE Inductiveload (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a work by Judith Wagner (site), a professional photographer (note the signature/watermark to the right of the horse's hoof). The user name of "Death60" does not seem to be one Ms. Wagner would chose. Suspect this was scanned or found online (TinEye has several hits). The relativity low resolution and lack of metadata are all suspicious. Quack? Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete duck. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation almost assuredly. I've also seen this very picture in horse magazines as a advertisement in the past. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Image for comercial purposes - out of scope Dferg (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious advertising, no other possible use. –Tryphon☂ 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete advertising. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Converted from speedy "This is children porno. Illegal in much countries". MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Naked girl in 3rd world country, yes. Porn, no. pornography (n) "The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep See the flickr uploader's Ghana set. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Lack of clothing is not equivilent to pornography, and I see nothing remotely pornographic in this image. Infrogmation (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
What is this? The only desciption is "..." and it is unused and uncategorised, and the name Google translates to "left arm home". Not useful for commons unless it is identified. Inductiveload (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently, it is one arm of A.C. Milan's home strip. However, it is a right arm, not a left arm and I have no idea what it could be used for - maybe icons in a table, but I could not offhand find any examples on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no reason to divide up images of a strip. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Too small and not used anywhere [2] --lovekrittaya (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Lewe_rami%C4%99_home.PNG&w=_100000){kind=link}
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorised personal artwork. Low quality and out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Too bad to be useful Yann (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete D´accord--El-Bardo (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Powers (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright owner is actually claiming royalties and suing for damages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - the license seems unchanged to me.--Avala (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nor is the license being questioned. I'm puzzled by your response. Powers (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Statue is still under copyright, and Freedom of panorama in Denmark only covers buildings. Infrogmation (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Denmark for statues. 67.87.46.39 00:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted JurgenNL (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violation. There is no commercial FOP for public art in Denmark, and this image violates the copyright of artist w:Edvard Eriksen and his heirs.
As per the copyright law, under Article 24(2): "Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes." But Wikimedia Commons perpetually prohibits noncommercial licensing.
See also: [3] and [4]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment by the nominator: it seems this file name was reused. To the closing admin, after deleting this file please lock this filename until either the 70th year anniversary of artist Eriksen's death or the country removes noncommercial restriction on FOP for copyrighted public artistic works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- As per the Danish copyright law, under Article 24(2): "Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbbajer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC+8)
- @Kbbajer: noncommercial licensing is
Not OK. It is clear at COM:FOP Denmark that it is not OK to upload images of public artworks here, until the 70th anniversary of the artworks' sculptors' deaths. Per COM:Licensing: "...images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." Additionally, "Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use justifications: see Commons:Fair use. Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either (highlights added). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kbbajer: noncommercial licensing is
- As per the Danish copyright law, under Article 24(2): "Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbbajer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC+8)
Deleted Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably not free. Not sure though (was notified of this image in #wikimedia-commons) Multichill (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The image appears to be in use at File:FalklandsWarMontage3.jpg. If this image gets deleted, that image has to be changed (or deleted too, but changing is better). Multichill (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep 1982 photo, {{PD-AR-Photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it's problably from an argentine museum... if it is, then it's public domain.--Camr (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is definitely from 1982, {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Press Association image still in copyright - see http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/BRITANNIEN-FALKLAND-KRIEG-JAHRESTAG/11130283afc44e2f9b2cc6f833ff6ad9 there is no reason to assume that the PA did not comply with notice requirements when it was published by them and will therefore still be in copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 20:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How can a photo taken by one of the survivors, released into the public domain in Argentina become copyrighted by AP? WCMemail 16:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- It has not been released into the public domain in Argentina but has entered the PD due to the copyright term, however when the picture was published in the US it will have attracted it's own US copyright the duration of that will be set by US law, the same will apply in every country it was published. LGA talkedits 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 10:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Previously deleted file, see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ARA General Belgrano (ship, 1938) 4ing (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- But previously undeleted, too. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as argued in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ARA General Belgrano (ship, 1938) the US recognized its copyright in the 1980s in a court case (the photographer sued several US newspapers for using it without his consent). Moreover, the ownership and licensing is bogus as the photographer died in 2010. Günther Frager (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per DR mentioned. Not public domain in the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope --El-Bardo (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy deletion, I believe this one could be PD-ineligible --Sv1xv (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, {{PD-ineligible}} certainly applies. –Tryphon☂ 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I also converted to regulad DR the speedy ones for the following three images, uploaded by the same person. All of them are possibly ineligible.
Sv1xv (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- When I uploaded these images for wikipedia, i took these from: http://www.trenscat.com/funis/aerimontserrat_ct.html , http://www.trenscat.com/metrovalles/funivallvidrera_ct.html , http://www.trenscat.com/tmb/funimontjuic_ct.html without author's permision this is a copyryght violation and these images have to be deleted. --Davengum (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some simple images are ineligible for copyright because they consist of very simple geometric shapes and texts or the creative content is very low, or they are commonplace designs. For such cases there are some special license tags, like {{PD-shape}}, {{PD-text}}, {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-ineligible}}. Sv1xv (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). –blurpeace (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Some sort of collage to attempt to make a political point. Low quality and crudely stitched together. Out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no apparent purpose. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, outside of project scope. –blurpeace (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Collage of unidentified people for an unidentified purpose, very low quality, and looks like personal artwork. It is unused even on a user page, and therefore is out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: practically useless in Wikimedia projects. Alexius08 (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Dferg (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) 20 August 2009 User:Lord Hidelan
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I have no idea what this is, but no reason given for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nominator noted a duplicate: File:Alfabeto camuno-t2.PNG, which is in fact of better quality. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
=File:Alfabeto camuno-t1.PNG 20 August 2009 User:Lord Hidelan
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader requested. Replaced by File:Alfabeto camuno-t1.PNG. MGA73 (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
=File:Alfabeto camuno-r.PNG 11:45, 20 August 2009 User:Lord Hidelan
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PNG far superior. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader requested. Replaced by File:Alfabeto camuno-r.PNG. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
=File:Alfabeto camuno-p1.PNG -- 20 August 2009 User:Lord Hidelan
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PNG is superior. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MGA73: Uploader request: Replaced by File:Alfabeto camuno-p1.PNG
Logo of a Brazilian State institution. I dispute the authorship claim "own work". Dferg (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. This is the only contribution of the uploader (a year ago). Since it is unused and has no other useful content, this is out of COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Deadstar (msg) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about not assuming good faith, but I doubt the claim of "own work". This looks like a scan from a half-toned image, typical for a magazine or newspaper. Might be OK for use in en-wiki or fr-wiki with appropriate fair use justification, but not without accurate description of source. Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about not assuming good faith, but I doubt the claim of "own work". This looks like a scan from a half-toned image, typical for a magazine or newspaper. Might be OK for use in en-wiki or fr-wiki with appropriate fair use justification, but not without accurate description of source. Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a URL as watermark in the picture 22:12, 24 September 2009 User:Tamorlan
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete http://cosasdechari.blogspot.com is the link in the image, and user gives no source information. I suspect copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Image is too small, not matched infobox musicion
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused crop of File:Tvxq2.gif. --Simonxag (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not the nominator, I think this was nominated by the creator though. [5] --Paul Carpenter (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I can´t open this file (.xcf) I think i´m not the one and only. --El-Bardo (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. .xcf is GIMP's working file format. Image is same as File:Rüde.jpg. Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also nominated: File:Singapore Airlines Suites class.jpg (duplicate). Drilnoth (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No source given; also, duplicate of above nomination (dubious licensing). Due to camera distortion, I doubt that this is self made. Drilnoth (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Off course it was self-made, I'm no mad man. -194.102.40.179
- Then why is the image so distorted? Also, why isn't there any metadata? Drilnoth (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete http://www.airliners.net/photo/1287007/L/ says photographer is Sam Chui; copyright protected. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can we keep this with a fair use rationale, that it is used to illustrate a product or service? 208.120.20.102 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Commons does not accept images under fair use. If you want to use the image as fair use, you'd need to upload it directly to the wiki that you want to use the image on and follow that wiki's fair use requirements. Drilnoth (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't find image at source ([6]), so licensing can't be confirmed Drilnoth (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Singapore_Airlines_Suites.jpg
NATO Images are copyrighted --GrummelJS (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no information regarding the author (is he a US soldier?), thus copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted Cars character, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Cars modified to look like "Cars" characters. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and referenced discussion. Inductiveload (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work; no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark. Powers (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This has not been uploaded by the artist, so I have doubts that the licence is legit. The artist still owns the copyright, no matter who owns the painting. We will need an OTRS from Mark Silverstone to properly release this file. Inductiveload (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed Mark Silverstone asking for OTRS permission for all the following of M.jordan's uploads:
- Inductiveload (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Site clearly says: "all rights reserved". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The pictures look like they have just been downloaded from Mark Silverstone's website. Conrad Leviston (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) -- 8 September 2009 User:Amgc56
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. ) --El-Bardo (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep On 13:55, 10 August 2009, uploader and User:Amgc56 blanked the page, but did not give a reason. Then information was restored by other users and blanked again by uploader and restored etc. until user added a "delete" template, but again did not give a reason. There is nothing wrong with this image, I see no reason for it to be removed. A file protection might be in order perhaps. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader first blanked this within a month of upload. It's not used and I think we should assume the uploader made some sort of mistake. --Simonxag (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete I see very little potential for use, and per Simonxag. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The permission statement explicitly reserves all rights to the image and only allows reproduction. Derivative works are not permitted. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This image is released under a complete mess of incompatible licenses: PD-self, CopyrightByWikimedia, GFDL, cc-by-sa and GPL. Only used in userspace. –Tryphon☂ 21:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Not PD in US. The photo was taken in 1959, not 1950 as the description page. [7] MtBell (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep China PD is 50 years, right? It's been over 50 years since 1959. Wknight94 talk 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, it might be PD in China but Commons is a US site and it has to be PD in the US as well, which it isn't (see {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Commons is an international collaboration. If the copyright fundamentalists really want to push the URAA here, Commons should move to a country with copyright laws that are more in tune with the rest of the world. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - let's not worry about URAA absurdities. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The image will not be in the public domain in the US until at least 2054.--Rockfang (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Not-PD-US-URAA is not a valid reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Renominating. Not-PD-US-URAA is very much a valid reason for deletion, as the innumerable recent deletions in Category:URAA-related deletion requests/deleted show. Photos in China are copyrighted for 50 years after creation. If this photo was created in 1946 or later, as seems likely from the description which only mentions the dates 1959 and 1950, then it was copyrighted on the URAA date in 1996 in China and so is copyrighted in the US until 2055. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Any files listed here that were deleted and which are in the public domain in New Zealand have been reuploaded under their original filenames at Wikilivres, a New Zealand wiki unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
This was tagged as an unfree screenshot on wikipedia originally, and there is no basis for assuming otherwise. Night Gyr (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Move to English Wikipedia and any other projects where it's in use. Seahen (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Question What is eligible for copyright here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment don't looks like a screenshot --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, image is not sourced, screenshot probably copyrighted as well. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No Source (The website where it comes from does not say where they took it from : no museum or church name, no painter's name). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:JesusRaptor.jpg and File:Cor-jesus.jpeg deleted because "no source".
This file must be deleted not although it is used, but because it is used : using a painting without the painter's name or the museum/church name is highly unencylopedic. We have no evidence that this painting is notable enough to be kept. Notable paintings of the Sacred Heart do exist : File:HerzJesuVelburg.jpg or File:Wüger Steiner Herz-Jesu-Bild.jpg Teofilo (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the file and replaced it with File:HerzJesuVelburg.jpg on :
- ru:Праздник Сердца Иисуса
- zh:耶稣圣心
- sl:Srce Jezusovo
- es:Sagrado Corazón de Jesús
- nl:Heilig-Hart-verering
- it:Sacro Cuore di Gesù
- fr:Sacré-Cœur
- en:Sacred Heart
- en:First Friday Devotions
- en:Catholic devotions
Teofilo (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can not agree with the notability argument. That specific image is so widely used by Catholic I can not begin to tell you. The more artistic image is NOT representative of the devotion at all. I see no good out of that action and a loss of relevance in the real devotion. Catholics do not always pray to the highest fluting art form, but to popular images. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" is no reason whatsoever to delete an image. There are no "notablity" guidelines on Commons either. User-made (and licensed) artwork of this sort is also quite welcome and can certainly be used to illustrate articles too, or be used in a number of other Wikimedia projects (please remember that Commons supports more than the encyclopedias). If we know the painting is old enough to be PD-Old, then the lack of an artist's name is not reason to delete either. Obviously if it can be found out, then it should be added. So, most of the reasoning by the nominator is not correct... there are no COM:SCOPE issues at all. It is quite usable, and in fact is widely used. That said... there really is no source, so there is no indication of what country it is from and how old it is. I'm not convinced this is old artwork. So yes, it is scattered in a number of places on the web (probably helped by being on Wikipedia), but that really isn't relevant. I'm pretty sure I saw bigger versions of it, so I'm not sure the labeled source is really the original one. The source website says (and did in 2005 too) that Reproduction of material from any Catholic.net pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. So... unless a source can be found, or if this is a painting and someone can say where it came from, probably Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" is no reason whatsoever to delete an image. There are no "notablity" guidelines on Commons either. User-made (and licensed) artwork of this sort is also quite welcome and can certainly be used to illustrate articles too, or be used in a number of other Wikimedia projects (please remember that Commons supports more than the encyclopedias). If we know the painting is old enough to be PD-Old, then the lack of an artist's name is not reason to delete either. Obviously if it can be found out, then it should be added. So, most of the reasoning by the nominator is not correct... there are no COM:SCOPE issues at all. It is quite usable, and in fact is widely used. That said... there really is no source, so there is no indication of what country it is from and how old it is. I'm not convinced this is old artwork. So yes, it is scattered in a number of places on the web (probably helped by being on Wikipedia), but that really isn't relevant. I'm pretty sure I saw bigger versions of it, so I'm not sure the labeled source is really the original one. The source website says (and did in 2005 too) that Reproduction of material from any Catholic.net pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. So... unless a source can be found, or if this is a painting and someone can say where it came from, probably
- Ok, I will look for a source or similar image ina few days. History2007 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The image is a popular printed prayer card or print, not a painting from a museum. These images have been produced in their millions & been an important part of Catholic devotion for the last 200 years, and are thus highly encyclopedic. The "painter" will be a commercial hack whose name will not be recorded - the copyright will have belonged to the publisher ("work for hire"), but it looks 19th century & will now be PD in the US at least, though similar images continue to be printed. As a published printed image it will I think be PD in the US unless first printed after 1958 (50 years ago) - is that right? The substituted image is (partly) of the same subject, but a totally different type of image in every other respect - it also shows the subject very badly. Since when did images have to pass a notability test? The nomination shows a complete misunderstanding of what the object is, although the "raptor" nom shows he is aware that the iconography is one of thousands of versions derived from works like the 1740 painting by Pompeo Batoni in the northern side chapel of Il Gésu in Rome, and similar works. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Johnbod on keeping it, but perhaps would not call the artist a hack - the poor guy did a nice image. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Concur with JohnBod ReaverFlash (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a derivative of a painting by Zabateri (Hans Zatzka, 1859-1949). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Too bad to be useful Yann (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For everyone's kind information, I would like to specifically mention that, this I am the exact owner of this image. So, the image shouldn't be deleted. Thanks.
- Comment What´s the specific of this blurred picture? --El-Bardo (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Images of en:User:Gerd 72
[edit]Concerns regarding his images from en.wp:
User uploaded images show wide access to Albanian military (Army, Navy and Air Force) and a images uploaded without metadata or showing a wide range of cameras used. Some images are scans of older images. Seems highly unlikely that the user owns the rights to all these images.
- File:14.5_mm_on_Torpedo_boat.jpg
- File:37_mm_navy_air_defense.jpg
- File:A_traditional_male_folk_group_from_Skrapar.JPG
- File:Agusta-Bell_AB-205_and_AB206_Albanian_Air_Force.jpg
- File:AL_Kronshtadt_Class.jpg
- File:Alb_BO-105.jpg
- File:Albanian_Mass_Games.jpg
- File:Albanian_Minesweeper_M-111.JPG
- File:Army_M-72.JPG
- File:Breda_M37.jpg
- File:Busti.jpg
- File:Chengdu_J-7.jpg
- File:Franciscans.jpg
- File:German_MP_wooden_stock.jpg
- File:Kelcyra_Valley,_Permet.JPG
- File:Magirus_AAF.jpg
- File:Mil_Mi-8_Albanian_Air_Force.jpg
- File:Mil-Mi-4_Z-5_Albanian_Air_Force.jpg
- File:Pashaliman.JPG
- File:Patrol_Boat_Iliria.jpg
- File:Project122bis-2007-Pashaliman.jpg
- File:R_225.JPG
- File:R-117_Patrol_Boat_PCC_Class.jpg
- File:R-215.JPG
- File:Sea_Spectre_PB_MK_III_class.JPG
- File:Shenyang_J-6C_Albanian_Air_Force.jpg
- File:T_59_Training.JPG
- File:Tirana_Sun.jpg
- File:ZIL_157_Mechanical_support.jpg
- File:ZIL-157_NBC.jpg
-- Common Good (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Nominator did not advise the uploader of this nomination for deletion. This raises a concern for me that the new user who uploaded these images may be an unfortunate target of Wikipedia:BITE.
- Note: w:User:Gerd 72 asserts the uploader used to be an official in the Albanian military. As such it is reasonable to wonder whether he or she took pictures of Albanian military equipment while on the job, or while visiting colleagues. I think our nominator is entitled to have doubts about the assertion, but that they should be expressed more tactfully. If our nominator were to agree that an Albanian military official would have opportunities to take some, most, or all of these photos it would be helpful if they spelled out what substantiation of the uploader's role they would require before they believed their assertion. I suggest that someone polite explain to the uploader how to open an OTRS ticket to document their role in the Albanian military. I suggest that the uploader be given a reasonable period of time to satisfy an OTRS team member, and that these deletions be stayed, until then. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Being a member of the Albanian military (although the user says he/she is a NATO advisor) does not automatically mean they are the copyright holder of all the images uploaded. Original concern on Wikipedia was the wide number of cameras used and some images were obviously scanned. As an example of the images above that have data the following cameras have been used, Coolpix L2 (1), Canon PowerShot A60 (3), Canon PowerShot A400 (1), Fuji FinePix A345 (2), Kodax CX6330 (3), Sony Cybershot (1), Sony DSC-P73 (1), Kodak Easyshare C643(2), Nikon E5600 (1), Olympus S820 (1). Although it is accepted that over a number of years an individual may have access to a number of different cameras, it was this large range of cameras which raised the doubt on Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I continue to regard it as deeply regretable that more collegiality and consideration wasn't shown to w:User:Gerd 72. The uploading of scanned images would have been a mistake, many new good faith contributors are honestly mistaken about this. Treating new contributors who make this good faith mistake as vandals, not deserving of the assumption of good faith is very damaging ot the project as a whole.
- I took a closer look than you at the exif data.
- So long as you are going to play detective, please sort the following table on the exif dates.
- The last image, File:Patrol Boat Iliria.jpg, was uploaded the same day it was taken. I suggest this strongly supports w:User:Gerd 72's assertion they took the image themselves.
- File:Mil-Mi-4 Z-5 Albanian Air Force.jpg was uploaded a day after it was taken.
- Note: the exif date some of these remaining pictures were recorded as being taken was 2003-01-01. So, the exif data on the remaining pictures shows the use of nine cameras over seven years. This is not an unreasonable number of cameras to go through.
- Many experienced contributors regard mass deletions of dissimilar items as very disruptive. These are clearly dissimilar items, as you yourself have noted.
- The scanned images were mistakes -- I urge you to regard them as good faith mistakes. This is one class of item that you innappropriately conflated with unrelated items in your nomination of August 30th.
- Should the images taken by w:User:Gerd 72's colleagues each have an OTRS ticket? Some might argue that this is required. This is another class of item that you innappropriately conflated with unrelated items in your nomination of August 30th.
- And then there are the images where the exif date and the upload date are so close together that I think it is unreasonable to challenge that w:User:Gerd 72 took the photos with their own camera, or with the camera of a colleague.
- I am not trying to be unpleasant here. But I remain very concerned over what I regard as several serious mistakes in how concerns about the images w:User:Gerd 72 uploaded were addressed.
- Didn't you argue, on your talk page, that w:Gerd 72 had to take some kind of extraordinary step to prove he took these images? I asked you to try to be specific about what kind of proof you think is required. You haven't done that yet. I suggest to you that it is simply not reasonable to tell w:User:Gerd 72 that you think that extraordinary proof is required that they actually took the images they uploaded when you haven't been specific about what proof you would accept. I think the wider community needs you to suggest specific proofs you regard as reasonable for w:User:Gerd 72 to provide. We need to know so we can make our own judgments as to whether the proof you assert is necessary is reasonable. Geo Swan (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many experienced contributors regard mass deletions of dissimilar items as very disruptive. These are clearly dissimilar items, as you yourself have noted.
- As you persist in failing to assume good faith on my behalf when I nominated the images for review at Wikipedia. The images were released into the public domain I had reasonable grounds to raise it as a concern. Nobody raised any objections to the concerns so they were duly deleted from Wikipedia, some had been moved to Commons hence this deletion request. I did not really want to go into the details but as you fail to accept that I nominated them in good faith I need to explain. As an Wikipedia admin I tend to look out for troublesome images and raise any concerns as appropriate. User:Gerd 72 had uploaded 167 images only 73 had camera EXIF data. Some of the others had no data and a number had data from a number of image software packages and were clearly scans. Of the 73 that had camera data 18 different cameras were used, now I would accept that an uploader may have one or more cameras over time 18 appears to be suspicious. Also the subjects which were mainly albanian military would have required the uploader to have access to the Albanian military from Helicopters, Submarines and special forces. This was grounds enough to raise it as a concern at Wikipedia Possible Unfree Images noticeboard. The uploader was not amused and stated that the reason for the high number of cameras is that he has two of his own (home and work) but also borrowed the cameras of his colleagues. I would note that if he had mainly used two cameras then they would show up in the number of images uploaded by each but that doesnt appear to be the case. Also if he was on duty as a NATO military advisor then it is probable that some of the images taken by him or with his colleagues cameras were not his to pass into the public domain. He was advised to take the matter to Wikipedia Deletion Review but for some reason he did not. Just for your information please find a list of cameras found in the EXIF data (this also includes images uploaded to Wikipedia of which the above are just a selection):
- CEC DC-2320 9 images
- Canon EOS 400D 1 image
- Canon EOS 350D 6 images
- Canon Powershot A60 1 image
- Canon PowerShot A400 3 images
- Fuji FinePix A345 2 images
- KODAK CX6330 18 images
- KODAK DC240 ZOOM 1 image
- KODAK EASYSHARE C643 5 images
- Nikon Coolpix L2 4 images
- NIKON D2X 7 images
- NIKON E3200 1 image
- NIKON E5600 2 images
- OLYMPUS C4100Z, C4000Z 2 images
- OLYMPUS U820,S820 6 images
- SONY CYBERSHOT 3 images
- SONY DSC-F828 1 image
- SONY DSC-P73 1 image
You keep asking what sort of evidence is needed, I dont need any evidence but Wikipedia and Commons requires some evidence that the images uploaded were taken by the uploader and that he holds the copyright to those images. Perhaps an explanation of why the 18 cameras and why Master Cpl David Singleton-Browne, a Canadian Forces combat photographer allowed Gerd 72 to use his camera and for Gerd 72 to uploaded them into the public domain as his own, despite images being labelled as Canadian DND/Crown Copyright? Also note the Seven Crown Copyright images were taken on three different dates so the professional combat photographer must have lent Gerd 72 the camera on more than one occasion, all have now been deleted from Wikipedia and are not in the list above. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS ticket received at Ticket:2009101210028985. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am against this massive nomination for deletion. Each image has its own story. For example the Albanian Mass Games pic, is definitely a scan. What's wrong with that? --66.53.138.162 06:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings!
- I agree that some of these are terrific images. I exchanged a couple of messages with the uploader, who seemed like a good faith contributor and I believe that every single one was uploaded in good faith.
- But I have to agree with the challengers here, some or all of the images scanned from publications are not in the project's scope. Scanned images from publications old enough that the image has fallen into the public domain are OK. Images scanned from other public domain sources are OK. If the uploader is an author, who no longer has the original to some photos, and scans them in from an article they wrote, that would be OK. One more way that a scanned image would be OK is if the uploader got permission from the original author of the book, to scan and use the image, and the original author, or their literary heirs or agents was able to confirm, through a OTRS ticket, that permission to use the scanned image had been granted. Almost all other uses of scanned images are not OK.
- I have to agree that there are clues that some of the other images, although I believe they were uploaded in good faith, may not comply with our scope rules.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted those that looked suspicious (no EXIF, strange EXIF, obvious scans), kept everything else under AGF. Kameraad Pjotr 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)