Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Photographs by Xaviateur
[edit]- File:Entrada a Bell-lloc.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Perpi-thuir.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Photos-0042.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Corail R Grail (127).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Chateau royal collioure.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
According to the declaration in these pictures, the user has the following cameras:
- A PENTAX Optio SVi;
- A Canon EOS 10D;
- A Samsung SGH-P210 (2 pictures, taken very recently, I'm ready to believe this one);
- A NIKON D100 (photograph taken in 2004 according to EXIF, in 2009 according to the user).
No clear sign of copyvio, but I have serious doubts. Not everyone has two SLRs from two competitor companies and yet takes pictures with a compact camera with wrong white balance settings. --Eusebius (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- More pictures have been uploaded with the SGH-P210, I definitely think this one is owned by the user. I've striken the corresponding pics in the list. --Eusebius (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The non-stricken ones. Wknight94 talk 19:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. Teofilo (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Je suis l'auteur du dessin. La représentation des personnages créés par Charles Mouly est suffisamment différente des originaux quant au traité, à la matière, à la couleur, et leur position par rapport à leur « créateur » assez évidente, pour lever toute ambiguïté, c'est un hommage, pas un travail dérivé en vue de je ne sais quoi. Faudrait quand même pas pousser. --Morburre (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Si c'est un hommage, cela entre dans la catégorie "créations artistiques crées par le contributeur sans usage éducatif évident" de Commons:Critères d'inclusion, ce qui rend ce fichier a priori non souhaitable sur Commons. Teofilo (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bon, alors ce n'est pas un hommage, c'est un portrait de la personne en question. Un portrait est-il éducatif ? Morburre (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Je ne veux pas engager un débat unilatéral. S'il y a d'autres avis, ça va, si tout le monde s'en fout, c'est encore mieux.
- Si c'est un hommage, cela entre dans la catégorie "créations artistiques crées par le contributeur sans usage éducatif évident" de Commons:Critères d'inclusion, ce qui rend ce fichier a priori non souhaitable sur Commons. Teofilo (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. According COM:SCOPE, the expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. It here provide information about the characters. Dereckson (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an appeal per COM:DEL#Appeal. "It is important to understand that you do not avoid copyright infringement merely by re-drawing an existing copyright work, even if you introduce artistic additions or embellishments of your own." Commons:Fan_art#Re-drawing_does_not_avoid_copyright_infringement. See also this web page which shows the original characters by Mouly. Teofilo (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Teofilo (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per COM:FA. Characters are very similar to original (otherwise, image is out of project scope).--Trixt (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm supposed to be fair play enough. As a professional illustrator, respect of rules is in my own interest. I agreed once in deleting a drawing that wasn't an exact copy of a photo, but OK. Now I find this completely insane. Nobody gave an advice since april, why ? As a closer friend of Charles Mouly and his family, I could gave an authorisation, but I won't waste their time and my time. So, do as you want, gentlemen. Gentleman. Morburre (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work of copyrighted characters. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a copyrighted poster, not own work Fences and windows (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
eventually a copyvio; image has 142 hits on TinEye [1]. Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Available all over the web, at higher resolution [2]. –Tryphon☂ 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:PikiWiki Israel 2167 Spring in Israel אביב ישראלי - 2009.jpg Netanel h (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. You can use {{Duplicate}} for such cases. –Tryphon☂ 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a crop of a copyrighted cover from the book Jurassic Park, published by Alfred A. Knopf and distributed by Random House, Inc. [3]. The word KNOPF is clearly visible. --Lobo 
Deleted together with the remaining uploads of the user. Seems to be a serial copyvio uploader. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; re-upload of same image that was used for vandalism in en:Squanto. Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, vanity insult/vandalism image. Uploader blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
jpg is better --> image:Los Tres 6 foto.jpg --Warddr (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated of or superseded by: File:Los Tres 6 foto.jpg
Not used anywhere, superceded by File:Selectiverepeat.svg Quadell (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep The png is 16 KB, the svg is an amazing 143 KB, and its text is not easy to translate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I withdraw the nomination then. (Can I just remove the deletion notice, or should I wait for this to close on its own?) Quadell (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nomination withdrawn. –Tryphon☂ 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
no notability (illustration for the article which is just deleted in ru.wiki) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Derivative work: and out of SCOPE
no notability (illustration for the article which is just deleted in ru.wiki) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Out of project scope: attack image
copyvio Jayanta Nath (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
no notability (illustration for the article which is just deleted in ru.wiki) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys for copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
unused and nonencyclopedic Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as being out of scope (description: Ese dia vimos un ovni pero desparacio al rato !) and unused. --Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, unused images waste space on Commons Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Valuable depiction of an archeological site in Sardinia, Italy. But I have doubts on "own work", as the file is very small in size. Teofilo (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The same file is present on that website. Teofilo (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This is a pretty poor and low resolution image of Rome--almost everything is in the shadows. The image was never passed by flickr review and it is unused on Wikipedia for understandable reasons. In this instance, its deletion is not a great loss to Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
image was uploaded from a source that is licensed NC/ND and was put under that license accordingly. However, such a license is not alloewd on Commons and the image should be PD as being from 18th century. Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Art Yann (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The talk page has the following information, which I can't quite follow as my Spanish is rather poor, but seeing the copyright marks it probably means this image is copyrighted. User's only other upload (File:Escorpion.jpg) might be from the same source, but as none is mentioned, I put an {{nsd}} template on it.
- Esta foto tiene copyright según figura en la página de créditos:
- Aviso Legal Todo el material documental y gráfico utilizado en este sitio web pertenece a sus respectivos autores, que se encuentran en propiedad de los correspondientes copyright. Queda prohibido la reproducción total o parcial, por cualquier medio o formato, del :contenido de este web, sin el permiso expreso y por escrito de los autores del mismo.
- Todos los derechos reservados.
- © MADRID SCIENTIFIC FILMS S.L.
- © del texto principal: JOSÉ CERVERA y JUAN LUIS ARSUAGA
- © de los textos científicos: sus autores
- © de las fotografías: sus autores
- © de las ilustraciones sus autores
- Ver en: [4]
- La foto está en : [5]
- Es cierto que se parecen pero son ligeramente diferentes, no lo digo por el color, pero la iluminación es distinta y la posición un poco más elevada en ésta que en la de la web que citas (fíjate en la grieta del frontal, que se ve mejor en esta foto que en la otra). Sin embargo no me parece una foto de aficionado y carece de datos Exif. El autor sólo ha subido tres imágenes a cual más sospechosa, si no fuera porque hay que tener buena fe...--Locutus Borg 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- La foto está en : [5]
-- Deadstar (msg) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The dish's design is not free Teofilo (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, thanks for informing. The dish has been removed.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is OK now. To an admin : please delete the older version. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Utilitarian. Yann (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The Flickr uploader is the photographer. But we need the permission of the Kite's designer. Teofilo (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Appeal
[edit]Although the policy page COM:DEL#Appeal requires all appeals to be processed on Commons:Undeletion requests , this appeal application, written by me on 15 April 2009 is moved here because user:Abigor requested me there to do so : « Please start a new Deletion request, this page is for undeletion. Huib talk 10:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an appeal per COM:DEL#Appeal "you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests".
This seems to be a copyrighted toy : a kite figuring the design of a big cat or tiger. The image should be deleted per COM:DW : "Legally, most toys are art". Teofilo (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I reviewed the FOP situation. Whily my above comment still applies, I think we can
- I reviewed the FOP situation. Whily my above comment still applies, I think we can
Deleted. Article 25.2 of the Intellectual Property Law of Vietnam stipulates: Persons and legal persons who use the works as stipulated in Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not make any affect to normal exploitation of the works or prejudice the rights of the authors or copyright owners; they must provide information about the name of the authors and origins of works. The author of the work is not credited here, hence it is a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Picture dated 1926. No evidence is given that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Teofilo (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Before concluding too quickly that the author is unknown, can someone provide a link to the source page, so that we can check if a name is written there or not ? Teofilo (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- edit conflict:
- {{PD-Norway50}} says, that the author must be dead for 15 years. We don't know the author, so we can't be sure. Although the death + 15 rule does not apply for works of unknown authors, this does not help in this case, cause it is not relevant whether _we_ don't know the author. It's only relevant whether the author _generally_ is unknown, unknown to everybody.
- But the image is quite old and it's likely that the author is dead for more than 15 years. So, if somebody would find the name of the author (or evidence that the name is generally unknown), we most likely could keep it. --Slomox (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Found with Tineye: [6] says, that it was the Amundsen expedition. The text names four persons participating in that expedition and a crew of twelve unnamed persons. So, if all those 16 persons are dead for more than 15 years, the image must be free. --Slomox (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- http://cms2.npolar.no/cruise/en/kongsfjorden/ny-alesund.html only says "Image: Norwegian Polar Institute Photo Library"; if the Polar Institute does not know the author of an image in its own archives, nobody else will. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
request withdrawn (PD-Norway unknown author) Teofilo (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing requires our contents to be PD both in the USA and courntry of origin. This book was published simultaneously in Philadelphia and London. It is not PD in the UK (author died in 1945) Teofilo (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PS-US. Yann (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
private picture, no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used. There's no article on the society, so unless one is made, the image is useless Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't used, seems to be self-promotion by author. No article on the book or author in English or German wikipedias Jonjames1986 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
no traceable permission --NoCultureIcons (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of presumably copyrighted advertising image. Powers (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the building was demolished, but buildings are free, and the building was decorated "permanently". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- When they put up the image, they did so because they knew it would be deliberately demolished soon after. I don't think this qualifies as permanently, thus
- When they put up the image, they did so because they knew it would be deliberately demolished soon after. I don't think this qualifies as permanently, thus
- Well, yes, the building was demolished, but buildings are free, and the building was decorated "permanently". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The advertising image is neither a building, a sculpture, a model for a building nor a work of artistic craftsmanship. Those are the only works that attract FOP in HK. (2D photos/posters are not covered) MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.fen.org.ar/natacion/imagenes1/Meolans%20preparandose.jpg without attribution and altered Fences and windows (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong format (pdf) for image Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I uploaded this file before converting it to a correct image format. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no freedom of Panorama except for buildings in Denmark : see COM:FOP#Denmark Teofilo (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete it, I was shaky about adding it anyway.
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
He was 72 years old in 1939, therefore not necessarily dead. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If one assumes that the book was not published in Europe before 1917, it is OK with {{PD-US}}, though. Teofilo (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-US}}. –Tryphon☂ 10:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
per COM:FOP#United States (this is not a building) Teofilo (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't make a specific request for File:Glass_orbs_at_Museum_of_Glass_2.jpg : exactly the same. Teofilo (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
can I discuss? I'm banned. Deathgleaner (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no freedom of Panorama for artwork in the USA Teofilo (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unless mural in photo is public domain or artist has given permission to reproduce under free licence,
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Unused image wasting space Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No reason to delete. We have plenty of space left (and deleting files doesn't save space anyway). –Tryphon☂ 11:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Logo of a not notable band, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Traitors --Blacklake (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in the USA except for buildings COM:FOP#United States. If it is old enough, {{PD-US-no-notice}} might apply though. But one must find out when it was painted. Teofilo (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No indication of age, so must assume post-1977 (and reasonably it is). Rocket000 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Non SVG Bumps Chart Images
[edit]- File:Bumps b01.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b02.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b03.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b04.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b05.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b06.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b07.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b08.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps b09.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps n01.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps n02.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps n03.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o01.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o02.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o03.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o04.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o05.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o06.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o07.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o08.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o09.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o10.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o11.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o12.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o13.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o14.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o15.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o16.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o17.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps o18.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps r01.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps r02.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bumps r03.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All these images have been replaced with much better SVG versions (as can be seen here), and these are no longer being used on any pages. Ozhiker (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Baconbits89
[edit]- File:CR Final Logosmall.jpg
- File:Ncfcalbumart.JPG
- File:GEDC0142.JPG
- File:GEDC0114.JPG
- File:GEDC0014.JPG
All photos of User:Baconbits89 are photos of a not notable band. See [7]. --Blacklake (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. All unused and unlikely to have any valid use given that it's a non-notable band. Rocket000 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what reason is there to believe that this image was ever released under CC-BY-SA? Its author is quoted as Anothony Lloyd, somebody other than the original uploader, and all we're given is a comment "released". Dzordzm (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We have asked the original uploader of this image to :en (en:User:Ancient Land of Bosoni) to provide further information.--Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The picture should be deleted. Should the women in the picture not be asked if it was ok with her? She should have already undergone trauma and now further trauma could be faced by her by placing her picture here.BalanceRestored (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- If she would ask for that, we would rather surely do that. But without this, the image - in addition to being used on several projects - has value as a (sort of) document of a war crime (en:Mass rape in the Bosnian War).--Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think some one should blur her face out, so at least she is not directly identified.BalanceRestored (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- would that be ok, if I submit the photo again after editing that? BalanceRestored (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You could do that of course. However, that would solve only the problem that you mentioned, but not the one about licensing.--Túrelio (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need to remove or blur the picture! many Bosnian wartime pictures are used worldwide, and we all approve the usage of pictures so that everyone can see the "thing" we had in our country so it doesn't happen to anyone, anywhere again! If you blure the picture it will lose its purpose. there is no need of a picture with a raped woman if you can't see her face, and see how "fucked up" she is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.110.79 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23. Apr. 2009 (UTC)
- we all approve is rather irrelevant as this is not about your or my personality rights, but about hers. And whether the image would became less usable depends on the extend of the blurring. Anyway, this rfd is about copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- In all honesty the discussion thus far does not seem to have presented any reason to believe that copyright has been respected in case of this image. We know that the uploader has ulterior motives (see enwiki user talk page) and a history of questionable behavior, we know that the author of this image is somebody other than the uploader, we are given a rather arbitrary license with no attempt whatsoever to its justification, and we are asked to help a worthwhile cause by ignoring a rather obvious case of copyright infringement (and thus perpetuating it ourselves). Three weeks later, it may be time to reach the obvious conclusion. --Dzordzm (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- One month... --Dzordzm (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- If she would ask for that, we would rather surely do that. But without this, the image - in addition to being used on several projects - has value as a (sort of) document of a war crime (en:Mass rape in the Bosnian War).--Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The picture should be deleted. Should the women in the picture not be asked if it was ok with her? She should have already undergone trauma and now further trauma could be faced by her by placing her picture here.BalanceRestored (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've looked again into the alleged author/photographer: it's not "Anothony Lloyd", but Anthony Loyd. And that would at least well fit to en:Anthony Loyd, who was actually a war reporter in Bosnia. Thereby it is plausible (not proven) that this image was shot by him. In addition, this gives us the potential possibility to contact him directly and ask for confirmation and permission. Anybody has contact data (email)? --Túrelio (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Silly me for thinking that the burden of proof is with those who want to include material. Next time stuff like this ("released"!!!) gets sent to our local wiki I will kindly direct the uploader to rather concentrate their efforts to Commons. Whatever. I tried to find this guy's email and I couldn't. Keep the copyvio if you really like it. --Dzordzm (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, and quite clearly. This image has no source, and there is absolutely no evidence that the photographer ever licensed it under the claimed CC-BY-SA-3.0. It also violates Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues in that it “unreasonably intrude[s] into the subject's private or family life”. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There are LUFC logo in the banner (Logo isn't a free image) --Kivary (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, copyvio—Ben.MQ (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Copyright violation: logo of Leeds United A.F.C. is included in the image hence copyvio (it was nominated for deletion, I replaced it with copyvio)—Ben.MQ (talk) 17:17, 9
I believe that this may be a copyright violation. The original uploader, Mino fly , has had a problem with non-free images. See also Mino fly April 2009. This image was deleted three times on the English Wikipedia due to it being either non-free or licensing issues, deletion record. The same user uploaded the file again and another user fixed the license prior to the file being uploaded to Commons. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) --CambridgeBayWeather Talk 01:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
eventually a copyvio from here. Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is the uploader's own work it is out of COM:SCOPE if it is from some famous painter, the permission is missing Teofilo (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
possibly a derivative work of en:File:Anaphase-flourescent.jpg (Claimed license from copyright holder not verified). Common Good (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The original uploader on English WP, en:User:La goutte de pluie, stated "From www.wadsworth.org/bms/SCBlinks/web_mit2/RES_MIT.htg/imf3_em.jpg - from the Wadsworth Center, which is sponsored by the New York State Department of Health, and is devoted to informing and educating the public, so it's implicit public domain." The image was deleted with the comment "Claimed license from copyright holder not verified." Edgar181 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. I don't see how this drawing can be used for educational purposes. Teofilo (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
upon the group's request. Sigharia (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable as image is low-res and unused.--Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
upon the group's request. Sigharia (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable as image is low-res and unused.--Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it was in use until Sigharia removed it from fr.wp a month ago. –Tryphon☂ 08:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, that changes the situation slightly.
- @Sigharia, why did you remove the image from the article (as you left the edit summary empty) and what did the group give as reason for their request? --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it was in use until Sigharia removed it from fr.wp a month ago. –Tryphon☂ 08:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
These are the only free images of the band we have. Yes, they're low-res, but it's better than nothing. Is there a reason why the group doesn't want pictures of them on the Wikipedias? Rocket000 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The group found that a page on Wikipedia was not very interesting for them from a "commercial" point of view as the page only exists in French. At the time the page was created and accepted on the French version of Wikipedia, it was absolutely refused by the German and British Wikipedia rules and administrators. That's why I requested to suppress the page and the image linked to the article. --Sigharia (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they don't really have a say in wikipedia's content, do they (I mean, no more than anyone else)? I'm sure they have their own website where they can do whatever promotion they want, but we don't care much about their commercial interests. –Tryphon☂ 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an image taken on-board a Soviet orbiter, hardly created by NASA, thus PD-NASA does not apply. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know and it doesn't really matter, because intercepting signals is not a creative action making you the copyright holder. Please see my reasoning on the DR you cited. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be PD already as this Sputnik 5-flight happened in 1960. In addition, this image itself probably doesn't qualify as work of art (and the associated protection) because it was taken by an automatic camera as there were no humans on the spacecraft, just two dogs.[8] --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know and it doesn't really matter, because intercepting signals is not a creative action making you the copyright holder. Please see my reasoning on the DR you cited. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please also see my reasoning on the above linked DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gagarin Vostok 1 ELINT.jpg for why this is not PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I read that, and I don't agree with your reasoning. In video monitoring also, the cameras are set in a specific direction, with specific parameters, but it doesn't make the images from such cameras copyrighted. That's exactly the same case here. The camera is fixed once and for all, and no human operated it. It is even more plain, because in modern video monitoring systems, the cameras could be remotely rotated, focus could be changed. Your reasoning for the Vostok image is wrong as much as it is wrong here. Yann (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, all I'm asking for is a consistent deletion policy. Should this be kept, please request undeletion of the other image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- These images in Soviet space orbiters have certainly not more "copyright" attached (i.e. none) than this image, which is tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The ineligible tag was added later on, I don't think it is valid. But you're right, this is on the same level. Though the image you cited is a work of the US government anyway, so no need to discuss whether it is ineligible. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- These images in Soviet space orbiters have certainly not more "copyright" attached (i.e. none) than this image, which is tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, all I'm asking for is a consistent deletion policy. Should this be kept, please request undeletion of the other image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I read that, and I don't agree with your reasoning. In video monitoring also, the cameras are set in a specific direction, with specific parameters, but it doesn't make the images from such cameras copyrighted. That's exactly the same case here. The camera is fixed once and for all, and no human operated it. It is even more plain, because in modern video monitoring systems, the cameras could be remotely rotated, focus could be changed. Your reasoning for the Vostok image is wrong as much as it is wrong here. Yann (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please also see my reasoning on the above linked DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gagarin Vostok 1 ELINT.jpg for why this is not PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per the arguments of ChrisiPK in the linked DR. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this photo has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license; it is sourced to SyrianHistory.com, though this may not be the actual copyright holder; it is claimed to have been first published in Syria and to be now in the public domain, but no information about the original publication or photographer is given. —Bkell (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, SyrianHistory.com says at the bottom, "© 2008 all rights reserved." —Bkell (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-Syria seems totally uncontroversial. BanyanTree 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't used, and has a nondescriptive name and inadequate description, so finding a use is near impossible Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Problems of source, copyright and author. BanyanTree 04:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
