Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Logo of a microbrewery. Likely copyrighted. Uploader claims permission to use the logo has been granted by the company. No such permission found on the source website. 70.237.201.211 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Use {{Logo}} next time
- --D-Kuru (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - logo
out of projects scope Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Already Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
pornographic 193.172.72.152 13:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Project scope#Censorship: "Commons is not censored" --D-Kuru (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
MIME type: video/mp4. Doesn’t play here. AVRS (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Belgium says "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
There is one copyright-protected image on the page 27 -- I've forgotten it, I will upload a improved version afterwards. PAD (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If you need the description back, feel free to ask somebody. AVRS (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope Sterkebaktalk 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
I deleted this image, because it's source was "google". I don't think that it's now the uploaders own work# D-Kuru (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because tineye was off I wasn't able to tineye this image. Now tineye is on and I found this image on http://awa.blog.cz/0703/dero-goi
- Looks like a clear copyvio too me
- --D-Kuru (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Several images of the uploader have been deleded for copyvio. This image seems to be another one -- --Dferg (T-) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Seems to be not own work, in addition, most of the images of User:Edurne19 have been deleted for copyvio. --Dferg (T-) 12:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed, as it was deleted in the past --Dferg (T-) 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not the same image however. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Kanonkas(talk) 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Most pictures uploaded by the user are copyvios -- --Dferg (T-) 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a copyvio. Kanonkas(talk) 14:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
all Karlakrj (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio + potential scope issues. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Contains a copyright notice, no proof that uploader holds copyright. TenPoundHammer (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Photograph repeated. See Mabel Norman page and category --WayneRay (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep photo may be repeated but the other is in Black and white so two different photos so I vote Keep WayneRay (talk) 23
- 22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
per Commons:Derivative works ; I do not think COM:DM applies to this picture. Teofilo (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- In square centimeters, the graphics are perhaps 10% of the picture, but they are, in my opinion, more than 50% of what is really interesting on this picture. See also other peoples' opinions on CT:L#Does "de minimis" apply to this picture ?. Teofilo (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The logo is just as de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. The Logo is clearly the one of the most important things and not COM:DM abf /talk to me/ 13:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Are logos univerities allowed?
D-Kuru (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 13:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Display at the Royal BC Museum. Not covered by freedom of panorama in Canada, which makes it a derivative work of the original copyrighted display. --jonny-mt 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain why this would not be covered by COM:FOP#Canada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for the question. Given that this is the Royal BC Museum, I recognize that this firmly qualifies as a public building, but I would argue that the 2d mural of the clouds and mountains--which is specifically not covered under Canadian FOP--is significant enough to nullify any de minimis arguments, and that it is questionable whether this museum exhibit qualifies as a "permanently situated". You could also argue that the mammoth isn't a "sculpture" per se, but that's not an argument I can fully support.
- Incidentally, if this image is deleted, I believe Image:Mamut lanudo.jpg should also be reexamined. --jonny-mt 08:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The blue-white background does not really qualify for copyright protection in my opinion, and the mountains are only a minimal component and an inevitable background of the 3D mammoth. Alternatively, the background is an integral part of the installation. I conclude
- The blue-white background does not really qualify for copyright protection in my opinion, and the mountains are only a minimal component and an inevitable background of the 3D mammoth. Alternatively, the background is an integral part of the installation. I conclude
- Pieter Kuiper has summed up my feelings already. I think this is a perfect example of FOP. I don't see how it could not qualify as a sculpture, or as permanent. It's been there since I was a kid. Is there some reason that you are looking for excuses to delete it?
- To answer your question, I saw the image while browsing the en:Woolly mammoth article, and I thought there were sufficient grounds to nominate it for deletion, which I have explained above. Incidentally, I don't look for "excuses to delete"--I look for ways to make sure that Commons remains a useful repository of free images and media. --jonny-mt 05:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This looks to be covered by the FOP. Keeping in the spirit of that and the keeps. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This animated GIF is very likely made from television screenshots. In that case, it is a derivative work and violates the copyright of the television series' producers. Uploader has also previously uploaded a photograph taken by a professional photographer and claimed as his own.[1] Jappalang (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, per nom and Infrogmation. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This file is on page on it.wiki Fire Pentecostal Church. This "worldwide" (?) movemente is looking like an hoax or spam. See this discussion --← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. see COM:FAIRUSE and COM:PS abf /talk to me/ 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Effectively a duplicate of Circle sign 857.svg, which uses current naming convention for WV county route shields. bmpowell (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted and added West Virginia road signs category to the other image. Kimsə (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
this is an image from a non-free film, namely en:Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu. As such, it may be copyrighted. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Very propably a copyvio, appears here (maybe from wikipedia), seems to be an image from music album or something like that. Martin H. (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Available at the external source already in 2003,[2] four years before the upload here. Lupo 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
most likely not own work, i suspect a copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, orphaned. —Ceran (speak) 02:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The same applies to the uploader's other work:
- File:Panthera (Leo) atrox Leidy. N. Amerika.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Panthera (Leo) atrox.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Panthera (Leo) atrox Leidy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Smilodon populator.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--Kimsə (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
en.wiki credits this to http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/BRL64-m.html#MINUTEMAN , which credits it to a private aircraft company, not the us govt - copyvio Mangostar (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Mangostar as according to the given URL this image is copyrighted by Autonetics, a division of North American Aviation which is now owned by Boeing, i.e. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
this is originally licensed by-nc-sa (nonfree), the person on the blog that is borrowing it cannot relicense it. originally from http://flickr.com/photos/julien_harneis/3009852745/. Mangostar (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I received express permission from the author to use it here, and sent OTRS a request about it. Guess I forgot to put {{OTRS pending}} there... Master of Puppets (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the OTRS system that mentions "Kibativillagers". Can you tell us exactly what heading you used for your email and when it was sent, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it's because I already got a reply? I'm not sure. Anyway, ticket # 2008112010012173; the reply was "can't be NC", but the picture's creator said he'd change the license over on Flickr; he's already given me permission to use the photos, if that matters. Master of Puppets (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. At the moment, the permission mentioned in OTRS is non-commercial only, but by all means let's leave this one open to give you time to see if the author will allow a more open licence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- He made it BY-SA. I'm going to be "bold" (as we call it on en-wiki) and remove the deletion tag, as I'm trying to put the pic up on our main page. Sorry for the inconvenience! Master of Puppets (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. At the moment, the permission mentioned in OTRS is non-commercial only, but by all means let's leave this one open to give you time to see if the author will allow a more open licence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it's because I already got a reply? I'm not sure. Anyway, ticket # 2008112010012173; the reply was "can't be NC", but the picture's creator said he'd change the license over on Flickr; he's already given me permission to use the photos, if that matters. Master of Puppets (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the OTRS system that mentions "Kibativillagers". Can you tell us exactly what heading you used for your email and when it was sent, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept as the license at Flickr was indeed changed to cc-by-sa-2.0 which was also confirmed by a Flickr reviewer. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is strictly forbidden to crop German stamps. You should know that --Mutter Erde (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- What people outside of commons do with these stamps is not our business. They are only PD, when they are stored complete Mutter Erde (talk)
- Also: doesn't Public Domain mean "no restrictions"? no, that´s a big error. Otherwise German wikipedia could use the pics of Citizen Kane - but they can't. Only to mention one example. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- The issue of Citizen Kane (and US Government works) is completely different to the subject at hand: de:Gemeinfreiheit of German stamps. Again, where does it say that the de:Nutzungsrecht for stamps precludes their cropping? Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- So visual quality is now a criterion for deletion? I don't think so. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- @ croppers and keepers: See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:George Grosz, Café.jpg (contributions by NobbiP.) Mutter Erde (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was aware of that discussion, but it only quotes the third-hand opinions that I mentioned before — it doesn't add any official weight to the nominator's original assertion. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- for me it is clear that this picture has to be
Urheber- und Urhebervertragsrecht, Von Haimo Schack, Veröffentlicht von Mohr Siebeck, 2007, ISBN 316149489X (Available as Google-book)
page 267 ff "Amtliche Werke"
514 - § 5 ...schließt § 5 UrhG mit den amtlichen Werken eine ganze Kategorie von Werken vollständig vom Urheberrecht aus. Das öffentliche Interesse an der ungehinderten und möglichst weiten Verbreitung amtlicher Werke ist so groß, dass jegliche Monopolisierung durch das Urheberrechtausgeschlossen werden soll...
516 - § 5.1 erklärt Rechtsnormen, Bekanntmachungen und Entscheidungen und ihre amtlich verfassten Leitsätze für gemeinfrei. Alle nach außen gerichteten Äußerungen der drei Staatsgewalten, gleich ob ... Bekanntmachungen... sollen im Interesse des Staates an einer möglichst breiten Information der Bevölkerung frei verwertet werden dürfen.
further comments for § 5.1
http://www.brennecke-partner.de/90731/-----5-UrhG-Amtliche-Werke
§ 5 ... das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind, mit der Einschränkung, dass die Bestimmungen über Änderungsverbot und Quellenangabe in § 62 Abs. 1 bis 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 und 2 entsprechend anzuwenden sind...
- The first quote simply explains the need for Gemeinfreiheit (Public Domain) of public works, it doesn't say anything about Änderungsverbot (prohibition of modifications). The second quote is merely the published wording of the relevant section of the law: § 5 of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz), more autoritatively published here. Neither provides any help for the isue under consideration here. On the other hand, here are two commentaries which support my position (that Wikipedia is not prevented from using cropped versions of German postage stamps); I am aware of "Landgericht München: GRUR 1987, 436 - Briefmarke; v. Ungern-Sternberg GRUR 1988, 766, 768", which is specifically addressed by these two commentaries:
- "Dem amtlichen Interesse geradezu zuwider liefe eine Anwendung des Abs. 2 auf Banknoten, Münzen, Postwertzeichen (Briefmarken), Wappen der öffentlichen Gebietskörperschaften und sonstige künstlerisch gestaltete Hoheitszeichen" (Commentary by Schricker/Katzenberger); and
- "die Literatur steht dem jedoch überwiegend ablehnend gegenüber, da Briefmarken nicht zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht, sondern zum Gebrauch herausgegeben werden" (Commentary by Dreier/Schulze, citing two examples from the literature).
It seems to me that the question whether § 62 (Änderungsverbot) applies at all depends on the interpretation of § 5 (1) and (2). There doesn't seem to be consensus about this within the legal fraternity. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per Mutter Erde and Michael Bednarek (thanks for the analysis) and this summarizing statement by the Deutsche Post. German post stamps are only PD provided they are unchanged and (a) printed either enlarged (> 125 %) or downsized (< 90 %), or (b) with a black bar. Crops that focus on the depicted art are copyrighted by the artist. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No Source given. Copyright status is highly unclear! 132.199.232.16 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Missing essential information: license/permission/source
Possible copyvio violation - logo Zirland (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-textlogo}} applies, obviously. –Tryphon☂ 14:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replaced by Mantella baroni map-fr.svg Poleta33 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It is possible to delete this image which is replaced by Mantella baroni map-fr.svg. It is my first image and I have changed many options in my new creations. Givet (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not an exact duplicate; this one is in English, the other one is in French. –Tryphon☂ 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an image depicting something natural. If you find this offensive or objectionable in any form, then you should not have opened this page to begin with. The picture is showing "ejaculation" thus it should remain. If the main concern is your children coming across these images, then it is simple you are not monitoring your kids; thus making you incompetent parents.
-JT
I am concerned about finding this type of material in an encyclopedial context. First, this individual ejaculation is neither typical nor natural, anyone could surely agree. Second, what is NOT pornographical in it? So why publish it on a "serious" site, if the reason is education? And third, can any kind of material be published here? --← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 10:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is not by the uploader and was openly on the internet for the past 10 years I keep running across it on occasion, so I say copyright infringement and a lie by the uploader WayneRay (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Comment: if the above is true I will of course change my vote. My previous answer was based on the arguments of Körnerbrötchen. /FredrikT (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment If it is indeed a commonly found old internet video, could we please have a source to check against? --Simonxag (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to note that the purported source is "own work" and the uploader appears to be inactive. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- How do we propose to establish any such copyright status? Several users have called for the labeling of this image as an infringement, but is this substantiated? It'd be good if we could solve this before closure. The way of the discussion somewhat depends on it. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If you type "Cumming with no hands 1st try. Spritzing" into the Google search box, you get 2 pages with links to porn sites hosting this same video along with several other variations (different angles, with hands, without hands, etc.) Also, it is a fact that a couple of these porn sites slap their copyright watermark on all video clips uploaded to them including this one. The originator of this video clip goes by the nick of “krooga” on a couple of these porn sites and one of the tags that is used for these video clips is always “spritzing” If you use that word in the search box of the porn sites, you can find even more variations of this same video shoot. If you click on the google link to xtube and then click on the name “krooga” to view his profile you will find this comment ... "Hi Krooga - just thought I'd let you know (if you didn't already) that Wikipedia has pics of you shooting! If you check it out under 'ejaculation'.....up pops YOU! (I recognised the T-shirt!) Jul 06 2008, 7:16 pm from Iheartmusx"
![7 Image:Mäck_"Dirty"_Mörff.gif](#Image:Mäck_"Dirty"_Mörff.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9jL21TL25NyCvBLgr0Mq9Sp3dBKprBK3vNb0hOo2FXJAsRaDmQyk8Pau8OakzDbrz0npdVnsdFMO0Oajm4btiPbteQrji5yDaQyDmQbDmQahYTuq1Fn2s6tKyCo2THdZh1L3w7vgBOJfCAKprRJjTHtKy2KAnAbAJXnG%3D%3D##c-SterkeBak-2008-11-20T19:30:00.000Z-Image:Mäck_"Dirty"_Mörff.gif){kind=link}
Taking all of these facts into consideration, I believe that this video and the other versions and still frames compiled from this video that were uploaded to Wikipedia and the Commons are a copyvio and were not uploaded to Wikipedia and the Commons by the person in the video. Infofreak (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the proof that this video is a copyvio. This video was uploaded to Wikipedia and the Commons under the license of "Public Domain".
When you click on this link [3] and play this video, in the lefthand corner you can plainly see the copyright watermark "c2007 Spritzing". Same person, same angle, same video shoot, so it is a copyvio. Infofreak (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. First of all, clearly in scope. Then, on the account of copyvio, all I can say is that it is not the same as [4] and unlike most of those similar videos, it is not watermarked. –Tryphon☂ 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
more accurate: Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem --Kostisl (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) It must be deleted, it has been replaced by Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, because it was not clear which Greek Orthodox Patriarchate it was refering to.--Kostisl (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Category currently contains images of Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and all Greece. Man vyi (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Non-empty category; better do a move request, and if truly equivalent, redirect it. –Tryphon☂ 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:S E L Shah New.jpg
[edit]Sorry, as a newbie I didn't realize I could use speedydelete. Awaiting correctly worded grant form from author, as permission was not what Commons require, so want to delete the image until that's sorted. Have now tagged the image for speedydelete. Esowteric (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. (by mike lifeguard) abf /talk to me/ 13:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Source website says the copyright status to be assessed. There is no proof for the given license tag, it is unknown whether this was actually taken in Australia. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The AWM website now states the copyright status is "Copyright expired - public domain" which fits both Australian and British Government (Crown Copyright) criteria : i.e. copyright on images made under government service lasts only 50 years. They appear to have reclassified all WWI and WWII images as copyright expired. Logic indicates only a military flyer could have taken this aerial photo in 1942. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Edits of Shtanga
[edit]Single purpose account, falsely retagged many works that are no longer PD in Russia as PD-Ukraine.Special:Contributions/Shtanga. Images should be deleted and user blocked. -Nard the Bard 01:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Closed. If these are to be dealt with by DR, each one should be tagged. Users have so far been given no notice. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)