Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/12/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_The_Art_Collection_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_-_WGA22068.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_14.04.2010.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:'Oorlogsmonument' Muggenbrug Schagen.jpg. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I have deleted the other file as this one is in use. Please use {{Duplicate}} for such images in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
File:David Teniers (II) - The Art Collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in Brussels - WGA22068.jpg
edit_-_The_Art_Collection_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_-_WGA22068.jpg){kind=link}
_-_The_Art_Collection_of_Archduke_Leopold_Wilhelm_in_Brussels_-_WGA22068.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low res bad colors copy of file:David Teniers d. J. 008.jpg and file:DAVID_TENIERS_EL_JOVEN_-_El_Archiduque_Leopoldo_Guillermo_en_su_Galería_de_Bruselas_(Kunsthistorisches_Museum_de_Viena,_1650-52._Óleo_sobre_lienzo,_123_x_163_cm).jpg Shakko (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicate of much better copy Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:La torre del fang, por debajo pasa el AVE dirección Sagrera2.jpg. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Delete --Javierito92 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Plan to work another new image, so try to delete this image. K.b.cheng (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Self-request for recently created file. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete this animation to create another new one. K.b.cheng (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Self-request for recently created file. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not use this picture at moment, so try to delete it. K.b.cheng (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Self-request for recently created file. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep no real copyright problem in this case IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a photograph of a unique piece of architecture, with a special design, and the hotel is the main focus of the photo. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trixt (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 11:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has been discussed already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Another picture of the building, File:Sequoia_Lodge.jpg, is currently under DR, so it would be nice of us to close them in the same way. In US law, a number of court cases about buildings have been for fairly mundane residential houses. I'm forced to assume that anything but the most purely derivative work would be likewise protected in France, including protected against photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg Yann (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; until shown otherwise, my theory is that the limit for copyright for buildings is the same as for novels or photographs. In most countries, you can not copy someone's novel or photograph, no matter how unoriginal, until said unoriginality reaches the level of simple copying. If an architect actually sits down and draws out a new building, it gets a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I think that this passes the threshold of originality. --Bob247 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Thanks to Prosfilaes for a very clear statement of the issue. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.147.158 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close -- deleted per discussion above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
image used only on vanity page deleted off enwiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vishal_Sharma DS (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image copyright 2011 Getty Images. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2434642432/nm4129745 Eevn (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a photo of Derren Brown at all. Very likely non-free, it was uploaded to enable vandalism with this edit to Derren Brown. AussieLegend (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree completely.--Gaarmyvet (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Very small size, low quality photo with two people in foreground. Doesnt contribute any value to the topic "kayaking". Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - also possibly out of scope - non-notable subjects INeverCry 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a Getty Images picture, and clearly copyright by them; as such, it does not belong on Commons. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Unused image used for personal attack, I suspect Sreejith K (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Likely a TV screenshot. Jespinos (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Flickr license is noncommercial [1] Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, you seem very interested in my photos. Well, I uploaded this back in February when I was fairly new to here and since most of his photos are free to use, I probably just assumed. Apologies as this photo and the other one are clearly violations. (Though if I shoot him an email for OTRS he probably wouldn't mind since most of his photos are used). MavsFan28 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: What do you think are the license review and change-of-license tags for ?!? Denniss (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Flickr license is non commercial [http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithallison/5202935833/in/set-72157625457457970 Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: license was valid Denniss (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This halftone image appears to be a scan from a newspaper. Therefore, I doubt that this is the uploader's "own work." Senator2029 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is showing a paper on the bottom (sticker) it shows were I work I.D. and for safety reasons I should never post any info about myself. Smarty9108 (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Broken image: wrong SVG. There is a better alternative:
--Angelus(talk) 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, Delete. D5A (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete without drastic fix -- there's not much in the SVG file except an embedded raster... AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a broken image that needs to have a huge fix. Better off just deleting. -Djsasso (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files used only on vanity page deleted off enwiki - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vishal_Sharma DS (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable music group, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
User claims to be subject, an apparently notable person, and claims this is own work, yet it is clearly not self-taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Placeta de Tazona.JPG. Froztbyte (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a website. Rapsar (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football organization. Rapsar (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Promotional picture, obvious advertising, out of scope, doubtful own work, missing EXIF Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 07:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not own work. See Google and http://www.wallpapershunt.com/wallpaper/racing-track-in-green-fields_w955.html Wouter (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of "Frankfurt an der Oder Gotha tram nr 57 , Linie 1.July 1990 - Flickr - sludgegulper.jpg" Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a photo made in the 1960s. Unlikely taken by the uploader. No infos on author, permission. A.Savin 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This scan was made with a foto from my family archives. Non other owner. Антониум 11.47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copy of File:Caterpilar.JPG, due to script error. Bishnu_Saikia (Talk) 11:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Uploader claims to only have authority to upload this photo for non-commercial purposes. But we don't host images that have a non-commercial restriction. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims to only have authority to upload this photo for non-commercial purposes. But we don't host images that have a non-commercial restriction. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims to only have authority to upload this photo for non-commercial purposes. But we don't host images that have a non-commercial restriction. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
In this photo I was photographed unbeknownst to me and I do not want a photo of me online for a matter of privacy. 87.16.182.35 13:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It has been photographed in a public place and nobody seems remotely recognizable in the picture, so I think this request should be declined. Sorry. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
When uploading the file, the license has not been chosen accurately. Paritto (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, personal work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
La page de ce jeune réalisateur a été supprimée. 89.92.198.73 14:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal file . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Cut out from a still frame from [2], (around 2:18), which is a promotional video by ARK. No evidence for permission; worse, the description claims this is "own work". Keφr (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The freedom of Panorama only applies in France to "buildings that pass the threshold of originality". It's only the back of the building, showing only auditoriums and a 2 story wing of a side building, with no dinstictive architectural design . Originality ? None. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You just happen to have a strange understanding of the concept of originality. Oh, and you either misunderstand the notion of FOP or (more probably) made a typo in your sentence. --Eusebius (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Call it strange if you want, but you still have to explain why these buildings "pass the threshold of originality". So far, you didn't. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You just happen to have a strange understanding of the concept of originality. Oh, and you either misunderstand the notion of FOP or (more probably) made a typo in your sentence. --Eusebius (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Sure this building "pass the threshold of originality", and the photo shows that. ----MGuf (d) 09:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France. Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The freedom of Panorama only applies in France to "buildings that pass the threshold of originality". It's only the back of the building, showing only auditoriums and a 2 story wing of a side building, with no dinstictive architectural design . Originality ? None. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You just happen to have a strange understanding of the concept of originality. --Eusebius (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Call it strange if you want, but you still have to explain why these buildings "pass the threshold of originality". So far, you didn't. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You just happen to have a strange understanding of the concept of originality. --Eusebius (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Sure this building "pass the threshold of originality", and the photo shows that. ----MGuf (d) 09:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Existe un archivo de mejor calidad (formato .svg) en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_Chile GPOChile (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete pre-existing raster files when an svg is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya existe el archivo, y es de mayor calidad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile_IAA-1.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep See above. Please do not nominate this file again without a different reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Existe un archivo de mejor calidad en http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_Chile GPOChile (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete preexisting raster files when an svg is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ya existe el archivo, y es de mayor calidad http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peaje_autopista.svg GPOChile (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep See above -- we do not delete preexisting raster files when a new SVG is created. Please do not open this DR again without a different reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, watermarked. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Logo beyond threshold of orignality Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Book cover -Non-free at English Wikipedia - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- As uploader, I think it should be deleted as I have upload this as a Book cover -Non-free at English Wikipedia. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Threshold of originality concern - Bulgaria Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It only contains nuber "7" + TV in it. so it spots a PD-text logo.--The TV Boy 08:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the previous nomination, this has been overwritten by a substantially more complex image. This is no longer just a simple letter, but it also has a colour effect and a 3D effect. I think that we need to delete the current version of the file. Stefan4 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I agree that it deserves a new discussion. In the USA, it is just two letters and a number, clearly PD-text, but it would probably fall under the UK's typography rule if it were sourced there. I have no idea what the rule is in Bulgaria, and I doubt that any of us do, so we may have have to delete it on COM:PRP grounds. Too bad -- it's much better looking than the old logo. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- In Bulgaria the logos of the national TV channels are provided with free license, but if you insist so I've uploaded a new more simplified version without the 3D efect.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There are now four different images in the history, so apart from deleting some revisions, this need to be split up. I would say that the first, second and fourth uploads are fine whereas the third and fifth uploads are unclear due to colour effects on both of them and a 3D effect on one of them. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Considered a non-ree logo at English Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
By mistake, wanted to make a category Kürschner (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
unnecessary photo MrSpectre (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason to delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 17:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_-_14.04.2010.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_14.04.2010.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
_-_14.04.2010.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_-_14.04.2010.jpg){kind=link}
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Italy. JuTa 17:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP#Italy, Silvio Benedetto (living people) Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- And for Copyright violation these 2D works
- File:Dante22.jpg
- File:Deposizione con Cristo del Mantegna di Silvio Benedetto.JPG
- File:Nel mio studio-opera di Silvio Benedetto 1965.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional product image INeverCry 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 18:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably infringement of copyright; pic was obviously taken from "http://www.radio.cz/de/rubrik/geschichte/10-todestag-von-alexander-dubcek"; can't date from 31 July 2012 as Dubcek died in 1992 84.153.186.138 18:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused logo - single upload of user INeverCry 18:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - tiny low quality unused duplicate of File:ASAM 1.jpg INeverCry 18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 18:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
usurpation d'identité Morgane Gudin (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo INeverCry 19:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - blurry INeverCry 19:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 19:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 19:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 19:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader is not the copyright holder. The permission of the copyright holder (Ayuntamiento de Huescar) does not exist in OTRS. 2.136.166.73 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 23:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Obvious scaned image. User have not media to obtain this class of pics. The uploader has upload several copy right violation 2.136.166.73 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be original and promotional 2.136.166.73 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football competition. Rapsar (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Too small to be original 2.136.166.73 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football competition. Rapsar (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The file was uploaded for a non-notable football team. The page was deleted from English Wikipedia (see here). Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
May fail COM:PEOPLE: no evidence of consent to publication by subjects Rd232 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This logo was used for spam on es-wp, see here and is otherwise unused. This is unlikely to be "own work" as claimed, we have no permission, a source is not given. AFBorchert (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this is PD (Romanian government works are not PD). Per {{PD-RO-photo}} it needs to have been published before 1991. Rd232 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Same for File:Cucuteni Gov PD.jpg, File:Koson coins.jpg from same source. Rd232 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope INeverCry 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
damaged file INeverCry 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional image INeverCry 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
promotional content Vera (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: spam. Érico Wouters msg 00:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
coat of arms without references, created by the user as a personal proposal BrCaLeTo (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
coat of arms without references, created by the user as a personal proposal BrCaLeTo (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
Nicht relevanter Bandspam, Artikel wurde in de:WP gelöscht.Biberbaer (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biberbaer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
error of creation Hsarrazin (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logo - single upload of user INeverCry 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(propuestado).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
coat of arms without references, created by the user as a personal proposal BrCaLeTo (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
_(propuestado).svg){kind=link}
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 20:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 21:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image/logo INeverCry 21:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Not in use. From user with 2 edits. From deleted article. Out of SCOPE. - Shakko (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not in use. From user with 2 edits. From deleted article. Some modern copy of protekted Picasso. Out of SCOPE. - Shakko (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Self-portrait from user with 1 edit. Not in use. Out of SCOPE. Shakko (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Self-portrait from user with 1 edit. Not in use. Out of SCOPE. Shakko (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
do not upload such self-created flags on Commons, private artwork is out of scope Antemister (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- May you please tell me where this rule is written? Because Wikimedia is full of self-proposed flags. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:SCOPE, Chapter Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose contains the phrase "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use." (is out of scope. That applys to any of those self-created flags here.--Antemister (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Well if that is the case, than by all means delete this flag. I will also add that I was intending to delete this flag because I no longer see it as usable towards what I wished to see. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:SCOPE, Chapter Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose contains the phrase "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use." (is out of scope. That applys to any of those self-created flags here.--Antemister (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Self-portrait from user with 1 edit. Not in use, out of SCOPE. Shakko (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not clear why this should be PD. Rd232 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted anime screenshot. Vantey (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Presumably cropped from somewhere like http://kirkthompson.pro/index.php/Bio/Timeline# where it has skiboardsonline.com in photo Rd232 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal photo made in the 1930s or later, unlikely PD, unlikely own work by the uploader, no infos on author / permission available. A.Savin 22:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
fishdisease.net didn't create works, it accepted submissions or took pictures off the web. This one says "(C) WCS". Rd232 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The subject died in 1936. That is not old enough to assume that the photographer died before 1942 and there is no source, author, or other information. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyvio of the PDF linked in the "Source" field. Licensing as PD-USGov is patently false (unless there's some really good explanation I'm missing), as the institution this file relates to has no connection with the U.S. federal government. Deor (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Presumably nonfree logo. The Country Doctor Museum is not an institution connected with the U.S. federal government, so it's difficult to see how the licensing claim of PD-USGov is valid. Deor (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carmen*Jordi (talk · contribs)
editText contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stari most, Maribor
editNo evidence that the designer of this bridge from 1913 would have died before 1945. No Commons-suitable FOP in Slovenia.
- File:Maribor (103).jpg
- File:Maribor (95).jpg
- File:Maribor bridge over Drava.jpg
- File:MB Glavni most.JPG
- File:Stari most - Maribor - 01.jpg
- File:Stari most - Maribor - 02.jpg
- File:Stari Most - Maribor.jpg
- File:Stari most v Mariboru.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- But who's the designer? There's no evidence that he died after 1945 either. --Kadellar (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no information about him, although I've tried to find it. Anyway, the burden of proof is on the uploader and 1913 is unfortunately too late to be able to say that he was surely or almost surely deceased until 1945. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- And could Maribor's town hall know something about the designer? --Kadellar (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've sent a letter to the regional museum but have received no reply until now. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. --Kadellar (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've sent a letter to the regional museum but have received no reply until now. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- And could Maribor's town hall know something about the designer? --Kadellar (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no information about him, although I've tried to find it. Anyway, the burden of proof is on the uploader and 1913 is unfortunately too late to be able to say that he was surely or almost surely deceased until 1945. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Later found and deleted:
.jpg){kind=link}
--Eleassar (t/p) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable works, no Commons-suitable FOP in Slovenia.
- File:Brezno Podvelka Brücke.jpg
- File:Mesto Ptuj 2.jpg
- File:Puhov most Ptuj 1.JPG
- File:Tito Bridge in Maribor at night.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 10:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- @Brezno Podvelka: What kind of copyrightable work is this? A simple Bridge on two pillars crossing a river has enough originality to be copyrighted - or is there some special construction existing which I didn't realize?--Josef Moser (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it has enough originality. See also the comment by the concluding administrator here. -Eleassar (t/p) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- ok, agreed. Obviously a slowenian speciality.--Josef Moser (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No, it is not a Slovene speciality, it is just another radical case of Eleassar's distorted view upon the ownership of human artefacts. Please vote against deletion of the whole category. --Hladnikm (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well: If the issue is that, i'm interested in the original wording (including translation into english, german or french) of slowenia's copyright law at which Eleassar's proposals are based. And the arguments why this wording corresponds to european copyright law. If this couldn't support exactly his proposals, the pictures should be kept.--Josef Moser (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The English version of the law is available here (Articles 5 and 55). --Eleassar (t/p) 18:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well: If the issue is that, i'm interested in the original wording (including translation into english, german or french) of slowenia's copyright law at which Eleassar's proposals are based. And the arguments why this wording corresponds to european copyright law. If this couldn't support exactly his proposals, the pictures should be kept.--Josef Moser (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- ok, agreed. Obviously a slowenian speciality.--Josef Moser (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think that it has enough originality. See also the comment by the concluding administrator here. -Eleassar (t/p) 21:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Why?: See Article 55: (1) Works permanently placed in parks, streets, squares, or other generally accessible premises may be used freely. --Josef Moser (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly: They are not used für economic gain in WP: "(2) Works mentioned in the foregoing paragraph may not be reproduced in a threedimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work, or used for economic gain." All of this ist not the case in WP, so they can be kept. I think that a possibility of using such a work shouldn't be mixed up with the real use: Otherwise selling kitchen knifes must be forbidden at once because there is the possibility of using them as a killing tool.--Josef Moser (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you are wrong. Both Wikipedia and Commons require that images be available for commercial use. Please remember that a textbook that is sold, any web site that has advertising of any sort, or any lecture for which the speaker is paid is a commercial use. There are actually very few non-commercial uses. Since Article 55 prohibits commercial use, we cannot use it as a reason to keep images here. See Commons:Licensing/Justifications for more discussion of this.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- ok, accepted. thanks.--Josef Moser (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Scans of Soviet photographic works made from 1940s to 1980s. Unlikely self-taken by the uploader. No infos on author/permission provided.
- File:Benenson zm 1957.jpg
- File:Benenson bunkin almaz 198x.jpg
- File:Puazo 5 developers.jpg
- File:Benenson zm 1947.jpg
- File:Benenson zm.jpg
A.Savin 10:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Several scans of covers and personality photographs from magazines. Lacking info on original author and permission.
- File:AlexeevNik.gif
- File:Leoni Pietro.jpg
- File:Scalfi Kozine.jpg
- File:Kozina.jpg
- File:Sh1.jpg
- File:Kornievskiy.jpg
- File:Kolupaev 2008.jpg
A.Savin 11:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine, see COM:FOP Ukraine.
Regasterios (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Works of Mikhail Lobanov (d:Q21104424), died in 1970. Not free.
Xunks (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Harrysmiles1d (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedied. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Bökelberg70er.jpg
- File:Sprengungtribüne.png
- File:Bökelberg 13.jpg
- File:Langer Oskar mit Stadthaus.png
- File:Stadthaus 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adeelyounas53 (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ellabjewelry (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional - unused text logos - only uploads of user with company name
INeverCry 17:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Delete – Clearly self-promotional. Obvious delete. Senator2029 17:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ssaiman174 (talk · contribs)
editText contributions, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
- File:Обращение 4.JPG
- File:Обращение 3.JPG
- File:Печать1.JPG
- File:Свидетельство1.JPG
- File:Свидетельство2.JPG
- File:Обращение1.JPG
- File:Обращение.JPG
- File:Печать.JPG
Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Montaje AndagoyaOrigin.jpg
- File:Andagoya city Aereo imagen.jpeg
- File:Rio Condoto.jpg
- File:Puente Andagoya.jpg
- File:Rio San Juan Andagoya.jpg
- File:Parque dia Andagoya.jpg
- File:Parque de noche Andagoya.jpg
- File:Rio San Juan Torre.jpg
- File:Parque central Andagoya.jpg
- File:Escudo Andagoya.jpg
- File:Ceibo andagoya.jpg
- File:Alcaldia Andagoya.jpg
INeverCry 17:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
some out of scope personal art works - some photos of a modern sculpture with FoP issues - some promotional images - some out of scope personal/promotional graphs and charts - some derivative works - 3 images with watermark of NC license - etc
- File:Midia foto4 openscout.jpg
- File:Midia foto3 openscout.jpg
- File:Midia foto1 openscout.jpg
- File:Midia foto2 openscout.jpg
- File:Aprendendo juntos com diferentes caminhos abertos por meio de redes sociais...png
- File:Aprendendo juntos com diferentes caminhos abertos por meio de redes sociais.jpg
- File:Aprendendo juntos em diferentes caminhos abertos por meio de redes sociais.png
- File:OSFSFmap.jpg
- File:OSFSF.jpg
- File:MAPA-UNESCO.jpg
- File:Aprendendo juntos em diferentes caminhos abertos por meio de redes sociais.jpg
- File:NODEXL.jpg
- File:REA FLUXO.jpg
- File:Colearn formacao by Nely.jpg
- File:Coaprendendo juntos em Rede com REA.JPG
- File:Open Learning together.JPG
- File:OER Flow design.jpg
- File:Quebra-cabeca.jpg
- File:Colearn - learning together.jpg
- File:Coletividades Aprendendo Juntos.jpg
- File:Colearn Social Media.jpg
- File:Colearn Collage.jpg
- File:Colearn.png
- File:Mycollage Colearn.jpg
- File:Special Effects Learning Together.jpg
- File:Mycollage.jpg
- File:Photocollage.jpg
- File:Learning Together - garden.jpg
- File:Learning Together - side by side.jpg
- File:Learning Together - window.jpg
- File:Learning Together - building.jpg
- File:Learning Together - blue sky.jpg
- File:Autografo5.jpg
- File:From Tree to Networks.jpg
- File:Clouds - Social Networks.jpg
- File:Learning Together.jpg
- File:Recursos Educacionais Abertos.jpg
- File:A woman sewing nets and notes.jpg
- File:Coletividades processo.jpg
- File:Coletividade.jpg
- File:Coletividade colearn.jpg
INeverCry 17:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lehongphong86 (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Day nha a22.jpg
- File:Day nha a2.jpg
- File:Quang cảnh trường.jpg
- File:Cổng trường THPT Nam Đàn 2.jpg
- File:Đình Trung Cần.jpg
INeverCry 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope unused promotional logo and possible copyvio tiny thumb image w/ no EXIF
INeverCry 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afonso Taborda (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional images
- File:Dj Afonso Taborda recuerdos.jpg
- File:Afonso Taborda.jpg
- File:Dj Afonso Taborda Bagé.jpg
- File:Dj Afonso Taborda.jpg
INeverCry 17:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images from a private realty company
- File:Elephants and egg.jpg
- File:Jonathan C. Cifuentes.jpg
- File:Leslie C. French.jpg
- File:Elephants circle w text.jpg
INeverCry 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvios - complex logos - videogame screenshots - out of scope - unused personal logos and an unused text logo
- File:HyperGZZ Logo0.png
- File:Mother Board Slots.jpg
- File:ErroQTReg.PNG
- File:DDDEDDDD.PNG
- File:Ejay424.png
- File:BCSpammer.png
- File:BCEntry.jpg
- File:Bashcraft unfinished banner.png
- File:Mobs++ Warning.PNG
- File:RG RS.png
- File:RPS RS.png
- File:Tttrs.png
- File:Connect 4 RS.png
- File:CDDDD.png
- File:Nexus Ejay mod.png
- File:Ejay shock LOGO Trimed more.png
- File:Ejay424 logo Shock 2 (trimed).png
- File:Ejay424 logo Shock 2.png
- File:Ejay424 logo.png
- File:HeekiDove.png
- File:FreeStyle no back small.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
INeverCry 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images - also possible copyvio for File:More to Live For.jpg which might be a screenshot from a video
- File:Wikipedia LHS.png
- File:Love Hope Strength Climb.jpg
- File:Doodson.jpg
- File:More to Live For.jpg
- File:James Profile.jpg
INeverCry 18:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Liciniolopez (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional - unused text logos of private travel company
INeverCry 18:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saint-Étienne42 (talk · contribs)
editout of scope -personal artworks - unused
- File:Cartes postales usa tv 1.jpg
- File:N18 Melle saint-etienne 2.jpg
- File:Saint-Étienne Cartes postales 2.jpg
- File:Saint-Étienne Cartes postales 1.jpg
INeverCry 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jack-ricky (talk · contribs)
editout of scope/possible copyvios - watermarked small images of non-notable people
INeverCry 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Koullaunivarsitynic (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - 2 of these have website watermarks and the animated gif is watermarked
- File:Molino de bolas.gif
- File:Chancadora de impacto.jpg
- File:Chancadora de cono hidráulica.jpg
- File:Trituradora de mandíbulas.jpg
- File:Molino vertical.jpg
- File:国外客户合影.jpg
INeverCry 18:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marydoc1023 (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 18:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
usurpation d'identité Morgane Gudin (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MirrorCore (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 19:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional text logos - one links to a declined AFC
INeverCry 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sachin saranga (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional - unused text logos
INeverCry 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This copyrighted football crest contains a lot more than just text and simple geometric shapes. Ytoyoda (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation Malpass93 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo of a football club. Rapsar (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Quentinocama (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - also 1 copyvio logo
- File:SealMSU.png
- File:MSUSTP.jpg
- File:MSU Lib.jpg
- File:MCTC.jpg
- File:Brooklyn Park MSU.jpg
- File:Midway Campus MSU.jpg
INeverCry 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tommy Hunter 11 (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - the gif also contains a satelite image
- File:David FarragutHS2010.jpg
- File:Thomas Kelly High School , Chicago.jpg
- File:ForemanHighSchoolNovember2011.jpg
- File:Hubbard HSChicago.jpg
- File:Simeon Career Academy , Chicago , Illinois.jpg
- File:Hubbard High School , Chicago.gif
INeverCry 19:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adlibarrett (talk · contribs)
editcopyvio logos - possible copyvio small size/no EXIF images - BnW image with no EXIF - 1 larger image with no EXIF - own work claims doubtful
- File:Universiti Teknologi Petronas.png
- File:The Malay College.png
- File:Seratas.png
- File:Seratas2xn5.png
- File:Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.png
- File:Smsah.png
- File:Smsah.jpg
- File:The Malay College emblem.png
- File:Mckk logo.jpg
- File:Sekolah dato abdul razak logo.jpg
- File:Star vs sdar in star field.jpg
- File:Sekolah tuanku abdul rahman fields.jpg
- File:Sekolah tuanku abdul rahman, ipoh..jpg
- File:Sekolah tun fatimah logo.jpg
- File:Lencana Sekolah Sultan Alam Shah putrajaya.png
- File:Staroba logo.jpg
- File:View over Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman indicating the Academic Block, Six Hostel Blocks, Three Fields and the Dining Hall..jpg
- File:Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman; the scene overlooking the Main Hall and Academic Block..jpg
INeverCry 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Szabo.sorin (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional images
- File:Târgul de Carte de la Salonic 2008.jpg
- File:Zilele Revistei Familia 2011.jpg
- File:Târgul de carte - Frankfurt 2011.jpg
- File:Ioan Matiuţ.jpg
INeverCry 19:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
png to svg ( i 'll upload an svg version)(i would delete it to clean up commons) Enfwm (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete pre-existing raster versions after an svg is created. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CPEBellota (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional - unused text logos - uploads of user w/ same company name
INeverCry 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Primogenia (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 20:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 00:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Editor.castlepollard.ie (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Lough Lene in the Snow.jpg
- File:Mullaghwalk.jpg
- File:BrattyRd3.jpg
- File:Gartlandstown2.jpg
- File:Anchorite.jpg
INeverCry 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - promotional images
INeverCry 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Pan Pacific Nirwana Bali Resort Sunset.jpg
- File:Pan Pacific Nirwana Bali Resort.jpg
- File:Pan Pacific Nirwana Bali Resort Golf.jpg
- File:Pan Pacific Nirwana Bali Resort Tanah Lot.jpg
INeverCry 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
- File:Petter Dass-museet inngangsparti.jpg
- File:Petter Dass-museet utstilling.jpg
- File:Petter Dasss-museet smuget.jpg
- File:Petter Dass-museet panoramavindu.jpg
- File:Petter Dass-museet.jpg
INeverCry 20:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Unclejellybean1 (talk · contribs)
editpossible copyvio - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful
INeverCry 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvios - images scanned from books or taken from websites - dates from 1918 to 1970s - unknown authors - also a few modern book covers
- File:OleksandrRevishyn.jpg
- File:MykolaUrbanovych.jpg
- File:StepanTsymbala.jpg
- File:OsipMaslovsky.jpg
- File:VolodymyrKushir.jpg
- File:OsypBobynskyi.jpg
- File:PetroMokosiy.jpg
- File:LukaLutsiv.jpg
- File:LevShankovsky.jpg
- File:YuriSheparovych.jpg
- File:RomanSheparovych.jpg
- File:IvanTyktor.jpg
- File:PetroFigush.jpg
- File:DmytroPetrunyak.jpg
- File:Dmytro Mykytyuk.jpg
- File:OleksandrKuzminski.jpg
- File:Mykola Kravets.jpg
- File:LubomyrOgonovskyi.jpg
- File:IvanKozak.jpg
- File:18th Brigade UGA.jpg
- File:Alfred Shamanek.jpg
- File:OsipMykytka.jpg
- File:YulianSheparovych.jpg
- File:LevSheparovych.jpg
- File:IlkoTsiokan.jpg
- File:Volodymyr Bemko.jpg
- File:YaroslavVoyevidka.jpg
- File:9 Belz Brigade UGA.jpg
- File:3rd Corps UGA.jpg
- File:RomanSushko.jpg
- File:OmelyanovychPavlenkoM.jpg
- File:Oleksandr Vyslotskyi.jpg
- File:IvanVyslotskyi2.jpg
- File:IvanVyslotskyi.jpg
- File:6ta Div UNR.jpg
- File:PetroShokh.jpg
- File:PantzerAutoUNR.jpg
- File:Armored Train - Vilna Ukraina.jpg
- File:Armored Train - Strilets.jpg
- File:Artillery unit UNR.jpg
- File:BulbenkoFedir.jpg
- File:Vira Babenko.jpg
- File:SerhiyChornyi.jpg
- File:ChekhivskyiMykola.jpg
- File:LeonidPerfetski.jpg
- File:SemenHryhoryak.jpg
- File:YukhymNeshchadymenko.jpg
- File:NastyaHudymovych.jpg
- File:VicDyachenko.jpg
- File:PetroPiervukhin.jpg
- File:PetroBabak.jpg
- File:IvanPiguliyak.jpg
- File:OmelkoKantimir.jpg
- File:HnatStefanivCross.jpg
- File:TysarevskyiYuriCross.jpg
- File:BorisShevchenkoCross.jpg
- File:4thDivisionUNR.jpg
- File:PashchevskyiPavlo.jpg
- File:IvanPalivoda.jpg
- File:MykShramenko.jpg
- File:DmitroZhupinas.jpg
- File:VasylBibik.jpg
- File:MariyaVolosevych.jpg
- File:KrasovskyiMykola.jpg
- File:ObidzinskiNazar.jpg
- File:LubymetsMykola.jpg
- File:LastivchenkoYuri.jpg
- File:LushnenkoOleksa.jpg
- File:SkrypkaSemen.jpg
- File:OksyukVasyl.jpg
- File:KalynovychIvan.jpg
- File:FomichevskyiHrygoriy.jpg
- File:FedorivDmytro.jpg
- File:NyziencoOleksa.jpg
- File:HerasimenkoVolodimir.jpg
- File:HrudynaHrygoriy.jpg
- File:HubaNechypir.jpg
- File:ChervoniHaidamaky.jpg
- File:SyrotenkoG.jpg
- File:SukhenkoVasyl.jpg
- File:LypnytskyiYulian.jpg
- File:LykhodkoIvan.jpg
- File:7ma Brigada UGA.jpg
- File:Sik1111.jpg
- File:KedrovskyiBook.jpg
- File:OtamanMelnyk.jpg
- File:UkrainianPOW-Liberets.jpg
- File:V.Kossar.jpg
- File:General-Kurmanovych.jpg
- File:MykhailoSharyke.jpg
- File:Shtab-3DivisiaUNR.jpg
- File:MyronTarnavskyi-pokhorony.jpg
- File:5th Brygada UGA.jpg
- File:HrestUNR-Otmarstain.jpg
- File:UdovychenkoBook.jpg
- File:6ta Divisia UNR.jpg
- File:RusanovArkadiy.jpg
- File:RudnyevLeonid.jpg
- File:RybytskyiArkadiy.jpg
- File:PorokhivskiHnat.jpg
- File:MandzenkoKostyantyn.jpg
- File:RosinevychMykola.jpg
- File:MedzvetskyiMykola.jpg
- File:YavorskyiOleksa.jpg
- File:MazurenkoMarko.jpg
- File:YanushevskyiG.jpg
- File:ShvydunMytrofan.jpg
- File:StefanyshynVolodymyr.jpg
- File:SmorodskyiPetro.jpg
- File:PorokhivshchikovOleksandr.jpg
- File:Sikevych.jpg
- File:KapustyanskyiBook.jpg
- File:StanimirOsyp.jpg
- File:DumynOsyp.jpg
- File:PihulyakIvan.jpg
- File:Syniozhupannyky.jpg
- File:ButkevychLeonid.jpg
- File:RyabokinYakive.jpg
- File:BenzykMykhailo.jpg
- File:OparenkoPetro.jpeg
- File:RomanovskyiGenrikh.jpg
- File:HolubSemen.jpeg
- File:MoshynskyiYevgen.jpg
- File:LysohorStepan.jpg
- File:LypovetskyiIvan.jpg
- File:KucheraAugust.jpg
- File:KurakhMykhailo.jpg
- File:KulykivskyiMykola.jpg
- File:KuzminOleksandr.jpg
- File:TsurkanovKostyantyn.jpg
- File:TsivchynskyiVolodymyr.jpg
- File:TseplitIvan.jpg
- File:KushchynskyiAntin.jpg
- File:HanzhaPetro.jpg
- File:PankivskyiFedir.jpg
- File:PrysyazhnyukVasyl.jpg
- File:PuchkovskyiOleksandr.jpg
- File:PetrusYakiv.jpg
- File:PylypenkoMykola.jpg
- File:KhrystychYakym.jpg
- File:Sukhoruchko-Khoslovskyi.jpg
- File:YanovMykola.jpg
- File:YelchaninovMykola.jpg
- File:YaroshevskyiMykhailo.jpg
- File:YankinSerhiy.jpg
- File:DerkachMykhailo.jpg
- File:DainOleksandr.jpg
- File:ZarytskyiVolodymyr.jpg
- File:ZakrevskyiYakiv.jpg
- File:ZahorodniyYuri.jpg
- File:ZabaryloPavlo.jpg
- File:TysarevskyiYuri.jpg
- File:TarnopilskyiMykola.jpg
- File:TsapkoIvan.jpg
- File:GadzinskyiMatviy.jpg
- File:BorysFrants.jpg
- File:UdovychenkoMykola.jpg
- File:TurunkulOleksandr.jpg
- File:RidchenkoVolodymyr.jpg
- File:ShramenkoMykola.jpg
- File:ShuraBuraIvan.jpg
- File:ShankrukShandrukevychOleksandr.jpg
- File:SipkoMykola.jpg
- File:SylenkoKravetsPorfyri.jpg
- File:SamiylenkoStepan.jpg
- File:SydorenkoSerhiy.jpg
- File:SavoskoIvan.jpg
- File:StasenkoIvan.jpg
- File:SosidkoHrygoriy.jpg
- File:SikorskyiPetro.jpg
- File:ShevchenkoVolodymyr.jpg
- File:VyazemtsivMykola.jpg
- File:VolosevychOleksandr.jpg
- File:MoyseyenkoVarfolomiy.jpg
- File:MazukevychVolodymyr.jpg
- File:MonkevychBoris.jpg
- File:MahalasSemen.jpg
- File:MakushenkoOleksa.jpg
- File:MandzenkoYosip.jpg
- File:MaletsVictor.jpg
- File:NakonechnyiOleksandr.jpg
- File:PhilipovychVictor.jpg
- File:FedchenkoMykola.jpg
- File:ZhupinasDmytro.jpg
- File:NosachenkoAndriy.jpg
- File:NetrebaTadei.jpg
- File:NedzvedskiOleksandr.jpg
- File:NedaikashaVasyl.jpg
- File:NaumenkoYuri.jpg
- File:NahnybidaIvan.jpg
- File:NahnybidaSerhiy.jpg
- File:2nd Division Army UNR.jpg
- File:VasilevChechel.jpg
- File:BronskyiVyacheslav.jpg
- File:BilodubSava.jpg
- File:DobrylovskyiYuri.jpg
- File:DobryankyiAgaton.jpg
- File:DubovyiIvan.jpg
- File:YavorskyiVasil.jpg
- File:GnoyovyiIvan.jpg
- File:HaydaiProkip.jpg
- File:VerzhbytskyiPavlo.jpg
- File:FylonovychVasyl.jpg
- File:SovachivVasyl.jpg
- File:SavchenkoVolodymyr.jpg
- File:KozmaOleksandr.jpg
- File:ValiskyiArkadi.jpg
- File:OmelusykMykola.jpg
- File:YanivTriphon.jpg
- File:YaskevychSava.jpg
- File:BiletskyiYevhen.jpg
- File:SeletskyiFedir.jpg
- File:VoronivOleksa.jpg
- File:SmovskyiKosti.jpg
- File:Prokopovych Vyacheslav.jpg
- File:KhaburskyiStepan.jpg
- File:PasternakYaroslav.jpg
- File:NikitinEvhen.jpg
- File:KhodorovychMykola.jpg
- File:OvcharenkoLeontiy.jpg
- File:Tytar.jpg
- File:Lorchenko.jpg
- File:OkremaKinnaDyviziyaUNR.jpg
- File:LutskMohyla.jpg
- File:ZhukovskyiOlexander.jpg
- File:HnatPorokhivsky.jpg
- File:Sumarokiv.jpg
- File:PrykhodaVasyli.jpg
- File:SeredaMykhailo.jpg
- File:DugelnyiGryts.jpg
- File:MazakYukhym.jpg
- File:Zolotov.jpg
- File:Vyshnivskyi.jpg
- File:Божинський-Божко Микола Васильович.jpg
- File:MykhailoSharyk.jpg
- File:Oleksa Simyantsiv.jpg
- File:Ivan Perlyk1.jpg
- File:Yevtymovych.jpg
- File:Biskupskyi.jpg
- File:Yelchaninov.jpg
- File:Yanchevskyi.jpg
- File:Puzytskyi.jpg
- File:ZelinskiVictor.jpg
- File:Zahrodskyi.jpg
- File:VoloshynBerchak.jpg
- File:Trutenko.jpg
- File:Syvoshapka.jpg
- File:Kantemir.jpg
- File:Sirozhupannyky2.jpg
- File:Sirozhupannyky1.jpg
- File:PanzernykStrilets.jpg
- File:InternedUNRCzech.jpg
- File:DruhyiZymovyiPohid.jpg
- File:InternovaniUNR-Czech.jpg
INeverCry 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios. Érico Wouters msg 01:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No indication these historical photographs have been released under a Creative Commons license. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Nechaj 1.jpg
- File:Sich-Viden.jpg
- File:Vasyl Nedaikasha.jpg
- File:Yakiv Vodyanyi.jpg
- File:Syrnyk.jpg
- File:Ferlej.jpg
- File:Stechyshyn.jpg
- File:GreyUNR.jpg
- File:TryzubGazeta.jpg
- File:Zolot 2.jpg
- File:Chensto.jpg
- File:Novyckyj.jpg
- File:Nikit.jpg
- File:Sahaidakivskyj.jpg
- File:Zhabche.jpg
- File:Cholm Coop.jpg
- File:Chyrskyi.jpg
- File:Drahomanov University Praha 1.jpg
- File:Le Choeur National Ukranien - 1.jpg
- File:2-nd Division.jpg
- File:Kurs Bila.JPG
- File:Kurs Kholm.JPG
- File:Bila Shkola.JPG
- File:Proboyem.JPG
- File:Kholm - Gimnaziya 2.JPG
- File:Volodava - 5.JPG
- File:Volodava - 4.JPG
- File:Volodava - 3.JPG
- File:Volodava - 2.JPG
- File:Volodava - 1.JPG
- File:Kholm - Gimnaziya.JPG
- File:Tymish Olesyuk - 1.JPG
Sealle (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Source says 2014. Please provide evidence it has been published more than 70 years ago.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Satish 'Sunny' Thakur (talk · contribs)
editout of scope - unused personal images
- File:Boom BoOm Click.jpg
- File:Save Wild Save Nature its Important.jpg
- File:Team Bring It India.....jpg
INeverCry 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The logos are copyright images Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: At this size, anything with a copyright is only a few pixels and is de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Source file File:History of laser intensity.jpg was deleted in 2009 for not having a source. Rd232 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:History of laser intensity catala.JPG also affected. Rd232 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that would be eligible for copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's an argument. But equally, if we're saying it's simply data, then data without a source is a COM:SCOPE issue. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anything here that would be eligible for copyright protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see a copyright problem. I agree that scope could be an issue, but it is widely used, so we can't delete for scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This file is blocked in fa.wikipedia for beeing a sockpuppet of Category:Sockpuppets of Mazandiran. This user "contributed" nothing but copyright violations and judging by the EXIF of all this imports from fa.wp (17 different cameras) we now have his copyvios again on the project.
- File:A suspension bridge in Babolsar.JPG
- File:Alasht observatory.jpg
- File:Alimālāt Lake.jpg
- File:Beach of Fereydunkenar.JPG
- File:Chelaw Village.jpg
- File:Deriyok Waterfall.jpg
- File:Dolat-Abad Garden.jpg
- File:Fishing in beach of Nowshahr.jpg
- File:Fooladin Zob-e Amol.jpg
- File:Ghazin bridge.jpg
- File:Kaboodwall Waterfall.jpg
- File:Lahijan at sunset.jpg
- File:Malik-Bahman Castle.jpg
- File:Marco Castle.jpg
- File:Nature of Tonekabon County.jpg
- File:North face of Damavand.jpg
- File:Shahpur bridge.jpg
- File:Soltaniyeh at night.jpg
- File:Tomb of Jamshidkia-Soltan-Royan.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. There is a law that every pictures of sockpoints must delete?Rahiane sHOMAL (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The user has shown in the past that he is not able to upload self-created photos. Conclusion: he not has any self-created photos to upload. Its not a law, its logic. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I knew this is not a right. this is not fair enough to delete all photos of a user for another Offenses. The two are separate. every body may have some photo cameras. for example I have 2.
- you are a respectable sysop but our every logics are different. In another case of my uploads, you detect stolen files from www.panoramio.com and I accepted and respected. but this is not like it. This is not true we Sanction all efforts of it.
- The user has shown in the past that he is not able to upload self-created photos. Conclusion: he not has any self-created photos to upload. Its not a law, its logic. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please give a chance to his photos. If you see other version of these pictures in any website, therefore delete all of them. but now, let it stay. this is Assume good faith of wikipedia. thank you.Rahiane sHOMAL (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:Fooladin Zob-e Amol.jpg for example is also stolen from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40333873. Same for the other uploads. Just search for evidence that the uploader Mirasm is honest, and you will quickly see that he is not. File:Tomb of Jamshidkia-Soltan-Royan.jpg from [3], File:Soltaniyeh at night.jpg from [4], and so on. --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I satisfied. thank you.Rahiane sHOMAL (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:Fooladin Zob-e Amol.jpg for example is also stolen from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40333873. Same for the other uploads. Just search for evidence that the uploader Mirasm is honest, and you will quickly see that he is not. File:Tomb of Jamshidkia-Soltan-Royan.jpg from [3], File:Soltaniyeh at night.jpg from [4], and so on. --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
For fa:User:Navid22 uploads we have a lot of different cameras. Not own work.
- File:Ardabil airport.jpg (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/38468564)
- File:Chamran hotel shiraz.jpg (stolen from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40434589 but cc-by, if the license allows this we can reupload it in compliance with the licence once this case is closed)
- File:Fasa.jpg (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/15633861)
- File:Gorgan Airport.jpg (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3775125)
- File:Imam Airport (3).jpg (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18720532)
- File:Imam khomeini airport.jpg (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3134147)
- File:Isfahan Airport.jpg
- File:Mehrabad airport 2.jpg
- File:Nowshahr Airport.jpg
- File:Portal of IAU of Garmsar.jpg
- File:Sari Airport.jpg
- File:Shiraz Airport-1929.jpg
- File:Tehran Railway Station in Morning.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin H. (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not out of copyright. de:Friedrich Sprater died 1952. 92.225.227.106 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sprater did not make the map. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Previous DR was closed keep on unsourced assertion that Sprater (d. 1952) is not the map creator. We need to know who is, and whether the map was published early enough that URAA doesn't apply. Rd232 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ásmundur Sveinsson
editPer COM:FOP#Iceland.
- File:Egill Skallagrimsson03.jpg
- File:Egill Skallagrimsson04.jpg
File:Rottneros Asmundur Sveinsson Moder jord.JPG- File:Sämund frode.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:Rottneros Asmundur Sveinsson Moder jord.JPG is located in Sweden not Iceland. --JuTa 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, sorry, I missed that. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ásmundur Sveinsson
editÁsmundur Sveinsson died in 1982, and there is no freedom of panorama in Iceland. Unfortunately, this means these images are subject to copyright restrictions and not acceptable for Commons.
- File:Saemundur frodi killing a diabolical seal full statue.jpg
- File:Sonatorrek.jpg
- File:Vatnsberinn - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ásmundur Sveinsson - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Ásmundur Sveinsson - panoramio.jpg
- File:Þorbjarnardóttirandson.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Themightyquill (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in Iceland does not cover sculpturs and the copyright doesn't expire until 70 years following the death of the artist, which was in 1982. --Fingalo (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is an incidental inclusion. -Nard the Bard 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per User Nard the Bard. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard Beep21 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A new request had been opened (not by me) --JuTa (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC):
- Quote (out of the image): Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Architect. Ásmundur has designed the house self. He died in 1982. Fingalo (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. See previous DR above. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 12:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Previously nominated twice. The first time it was kept because the nominator only mentioned the statues, which are de minimis. The second time, it was nominated for deletion because the image contains a building, which is not de minimis, but the nomination was speedily kept because the sculptures are de minimis, without considering the claims in the nomination. The building is still not de minimis and the photo still violates the copyright of the architect. The building is the whole purpose of the image, so it is impossibly de minimis. Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Javiera Riquelme Valdevenito (talk · contribs)
editOut of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal photo, unused, no encyclopedic value. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Hi Magog. There is no surprise that this photograph is not in use on any of the Wikimedia projects yet, considering this DR was raised only just over 1 hour after it was uploaded, however usage on Wikimedia projects is not a deletion criteria. Encyclopaedic value is also not a criteria as this is not an encyclopedia, though if you mean potential educational value, this does fall under scope as a criteria I can address. If you take a look through Category:Transvestites you will find around 30 photographs of European people who appear to be men dressed as women (it is unclear if some might be misclassified when they might be transexuals), and of those only this photograph is of a happy group of transvestites who are dressed more seriously than if this were just one-off party drag. Consequently if a member of the public were looking for images of happy and confident groups of transvestites to illustrate a presentation or a publication, there is, currently, only this image that I can find in the most obvious category that would fit such an educational use. I have made many, many, contributions to Wikimedia Commons of which a fraction are related to LGBT topics and these seem to get disproportionate attention, which makes me believe that such images are probably of far greater value than, say, my photograph of a 4,000 year old inscribed cartouche in a rarely seen Greek museum collection. I fully understand and sympathise if anyone has concerns for the privacy of individuals in photographs such as this in line with the guidelines Photographs of identifiable people, but as far as I can tell, by carefully reviewing Super Rabbit One's Flickrstream, this is genuine and they are entirely comfortable with being public and proud about their identity; a position that also deserves our respect. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I had assumed that there were many images of groups of transvestites on Commons. The reason I nominated the image is that I was reviewing the daily gallery at User:Mattbuck/Sexuality, and noticed an image that looked to be of approximate educational value as a {{Userpageimage}}. When I said "encyclopedic", I misspoke: I meant to say educational. I apologize; it didn't even occur to me that there was not even a single image of a group of transvestites which could easily be found on Commons. Anyway, my observations of sexually themed images is that there is a two-fold dynamic going on: people are more likely to nominate them for deletion out of an aversion to public sexuality (which is mostly illegitimate), but people are also more likely to upload sexual images of little educational value for reasons that are prurient or based on personal fetishes (which is also mostly illegitimate). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I appreciate it. With deletion requests about any potentially controversial image subject where there is no external request for removal by a model, performer or photographer, I think it wise to judge the image or media file alone on its own merits as to how it meets Commons policies on copyright and personal rights/dignity. This image is not sexual in content, though it is of obvious use as an educational resource for gender identity; for these reasons I doubt it will be high up on Mattbuck's catalogue of challenging sexuality related images. I sincerely hope that controversies of the moment, collections and analysis on user pages, and potentially unwelcome prurient public interest in sexual content of Wikimedia Commons, does not bleed over to damage the use of this project as an asset for anyone looking for media on genuine LGBT and gender related education topics. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I had assumed that there were many images of groups of transvestites on Commons. The reason I nominated the image is that I was reviewing the daily gallery at User:Mattbuck/Sexuality, and noticed an image that looked to be of approximate educational value as a {{Userpageimage}}. When I said "encyclopedic", I misspoke: I meant to say educational. I apologize; it didn't even occur to me that there was not even a single image of a group of transvestites which could easily be found on Commons. Anyway, my observations of sexually themed images is that there is a two-fold dynamic going on: people are more likely to nominate them for deletion out of an aversion to public sexuality (which is mostly illegitimate), but people are also more likely to upload sexual images of little educational value for reasons that are prurient or based on personal fetishes (which is also mostly illegitimate). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You may be right about their all being comfortable about being publicly published, but the file on its own merits does not have evidence of this. And since there are three subjects, that almost triples the likelihood that someone may wish to remain private. As it stands, this is a Delete, but I expect you can save this one by asking (as you've tried previously). --99of9 (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- If I get a reply to my other Flickrmail earlier today to Super Rabbit One (Rabbit), I will write and ask about this file; I would rather not send a series of requests unnecessarily. I think the circumstances are relevant here to consider how to read tacit consent, which is sufficient to meet the legal requirements of consent. This photograph was taken on Rabbit's own "Digimax A402" camera per the EXIF data and this can be seen used on several other photographs taken at different times. This means that the photograph was doubtless taken on a timer, so we can judge consent in place from both photographer and the principle subject who is also the Flickrstream owner. We can see that Rabbit has a strong long running internet presence, with a public website of photographs in addition to the public Flickrstream running since 2005—a fact that Rabbit's friends in this photograph must be aware of. Most trans-people are highly aware of respecting privacy, particularly within the trans social network (which these days is highly reliant on internet forums and websites); there is no doubt that Rabbit and their friends would be sensitive to these issues. For the vast majority of photographs on Commons of groups of people at parties, consent is taken as read, unless the subject may be ridiculed or demeaned in line with Photographs of identifiable people which may give us pause for thought and concern for the dignity of the subject. Considering a central theme of Rabbit's photographs on Flickr is a public demonstration of confident and happy trans-people going about their lives, I believe it an over-interpretation of our personal rights guidelines (which aim to provide for the dignity of the subjects rather than interpret law) and I find it very hard to see sufficient issue here to argue for deletion unless Rabbit objects, at which point I certainly would be minded to respect their wishes; but would advise them to take the precaution of ensuring a different licence on Flickr.
- I am also aware of the Commons context, that there is a long history of sexual images being uploaded without a clear consent and frequently without an appropriate or verifiable copyright release. At the same time, I am worried that positive and non-sexual images of trans-people are rare on Commons, possibly due to this volume of doubtful sexual images of apparent exhibitionist transvestites with definite problems of dignity and consent. I hope that the Commons community can draw a fair distinction between positive images of gender identity, with educational value, from more difficult sexual images, rather than allowing difficulties in one area to taint an entire group of topics. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think "Rabbit" has consented to publication, since they uploaded it themself. But I think your assumption about their friends is too weak to count as evidence. Your wordy arguments about the positiveness/usefulness of this photo are irrelevant to the evidence of consent issue. It's not always about ridicule/demeaning either - some people just don't want private photos of themselves used widely (even commercially!) on the internet. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, if Rabbit does not get back to me by Flickrmail within 7 days of this DR being raised, then I agree that consent from the other models is an issue for Commons and we probably should remove this image; it could always be undeleted later if consent does get verified. However, in other cases of self-photos when the photograph is released by the photographer on a suitable Creative Commons licence, then the most we could possibly be expected to do to be seen as respectful for the dignity of the subject, would be to point out to the photographer that Commons is hosting their photo, and if they wish to object (and hopefully change their chosen licence on the source website), then we can respect their wishes under a friendly interpretation of Photographs of identifiable people. Sorry if being wordy is annoying, I'll try to spend a bit more time trimming down. Cheers Fæ (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think "Rabbit" has consented to publication, since they uploaded it themself. But I think your assumption about their friends is too weak to count as evidence. Your wordy arguments about the positiveness/usefulness of this photo are irrelevant to the evidence of consent issue. It's not always about ridicule/demeaning either - some people just don't want private photos of themselves used widely (even commercially!) on the internet. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep in scope image. Multichill (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No reaction of photografer within 7 days, consent needed with regards to private picture Neozoon (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Couple outside my window
edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Photographs taken through a window apparently without the knowledge of the couple (according to the description). It is not clear if this is a public or private place, but I think it is safe to assume that this couple did not intend that they be photographed and end up on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I find it hard to subscribe to the idea that these two were engaging in their "activity" with the assumption of privacy. Additionally, the female is not identifiable as she is covering her face and the male is borderline identifiable. The description does not list names, nor does it list the location this photograph was taken. Tiptoety talk 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is clearly in a public place (one can see the road on the right). If the description is correct, and it is obviously taken in the UK, there is no expectation of privacy nor permission necessary to publish -- the photographer is here on Commons as User:AnemoneProjectors, and is active, so let's see what his take is on this. The photos can be used for exhibitionism, so there is scope here. russavia (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it is a public place they are not easily indetifiable and nothing particuarly revealing is shown.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -In the photographer's words "sneak a couple of pictures": what does that mean to you? This couple are "outside my window", so they do not know they are observed, let alone being photographed. Clearly this is in the open air, but it is not at all clear how public the space is: what lies outside of the frame of the picture? Lots of courtship and other sexual activity takes place in the open air, in public space, yet is private.
I'm not sure the photographer hasn't documented his own (criminal?) peeping-tom activities.In any case the views of the couple, plus possible information from the associated blog, do not leave them completely anonymous. --Simonxag (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)- Using "peeping-tom" is a bit of a stretch. If the photographer took the photos from outside looking into a house or someones back yard, then yes, the peeping tom moniker would fit. But you have here, two people on the lawn outside the guys house, lying right next to the road (it is visible), so they are also in full view of any and all passing traffic. The photographer also notes that this is something that occurred on a regular basis; the guy even masturbating in his pants in full view of all and sundry who might be around. There is no expectation of privacy. The photographer also notes that the girl returned to the same spot with another guy some weeks later. I think what we have here is a clear-cut case of en:Exhibitionism. Additionally, the photographer has done nothing illegal in taking these photos; I believe UK law is pretty clear on this matter? russavia (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment COM:IDENT states in part: "Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to Commons even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope". It then goes on to list as unacceptable images "that are unfairly obtained" and images " that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life". While the couple may not have been bothered by passers-by, it is unlikely that they intended for their activities to be photographed and displayed on the internet. The fact that these were taken without their knowledge is enough reason to delete them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Reasonable expectation of privacy: at least to the extent that you would not expect to have pictures of you taken by a voyeur, and then have said pictures put up for commercial reuse on the image archive of the world's no. 5 website. Grossly invasive. Andreas JN466 21:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doing such a thing, in say sand dunes at a beach, would likely give you some expectation of privacy, as you have taken steps to be in a "private" (or semi-private place). Doing such things outside someones house, not just once, but on repeated, and only a metre from what I assume is a road, shatters all expectation of privacy. There is no legal, nor even a moral, obligation for the image to be deleted under COM:IDENT; which is what this nomination is centred around. It is also a bit of a stretch to even describe the photographer as a voyeur -- taking a photo of a chick on the train showing her knicker could reasonably be described as such a thing. Watching and documenting something that is happening on the lawn right outside your house (on a public street) is no such thing. russavia (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- From your arguments and reading what the author has said on FlickR, I accept that this was indeed in a very public space and I've stricken the peeping-tom speculation which I accept was wrong. But I still think there may have been some expectation of privacy. And the pictures were sneaked from behind a window not taken in the open. --Simonxag (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if he'd walked up to them and taken the pictures in plain view, I expect he would have gotten a knuckle sandwich. I guess that's the best test of whether there is at least some expectation of privacy in these sorts of situations. Alternatively, one can say, Look, I've just taken a bunch of pics of you two snogging and making out. Do you mind if I upload them to the Internet, and make them available to the world for commercial reuse? You'd rather I didn't? Aww, that's a shame ... Andreas JN466 12:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no such requirement under UK law to have to ask permission of subjects photographed in a public place to have the photos issued under a free licence which allows for commercial use. There may be personality rights, but that is dealt with on this project with appropriate templates. russavia (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if he'd walked up to them and taken the pictures in plain view, I expect he would have gotten a knuckle sandwich. I guess that's the best test of whether there is at least some expectation of privacy in these sorts of situations. Alternatively, one can say, Look, I've just taken a bunch of pics of you two snogging and making out. Do you mind if I upload them to the Internet, and make them available to the world for commercial reuse? You'd rather I didn't? Aww, that's a shame ... Andreas JN466 12:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- You do manage to say a lot of things that come across as completely ludicrous. Read the image author's description: "First time I saw them, I caught him masturbating (inside his jeans), and other times they usually have their hands down each other's pants or up their tops. On this occasion it seems he was admiring her breasts. Taken on 9 August 2010 for the benefit of everyone on Twitter." And you are telling me this is not voyeurism, but an educational effort? It's risible. This sort of media is crap, Russavia. Utter crap, like so much stuff that is kept on Commons. Andreas JN466 11:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is the comments on Flickr that demonstrate that they don't have an expectation of privacy, and hence the file should not be deleted under COM:IDENT. If this was a once off thing, then one could say they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the fact they both (either on their own or together) regularly frequented this very public place, and engaged in public masturbation, mutual groping, and other such things, in full view of anyone and everyone who happened to be in the area at the time, shatters any reasonable expectation to privacy they may have had. Our guideline on such things is very clear. Having said that, there may be a scope issue, but as this DR is entirely centred around COM:IDENT, I wonder if the nominator would like to withdraw this particular nomination, and renominate with a more valid rationale. russavia (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- If there are additional concerns, they can be discussed here. I see no reason to withdraw the nomination. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bizarro world again. Honestly, what do you think those two would have said if they had been told they were being photographed, and that the results were going to end up on the world's number 5 website? Are you 100% certain they would have said, "Fine by us", and carried on? Because per the precautionary principle, we should err on the side of the likely privacy concern. Andreas JN466 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, what is bizarre is that it has been demonstrated how there would be no expectation of privacy, but you keep saying that there would be, and you are yet to provide why, when given all the evidence, they would have this expectation. russavia (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's really very easy, Russavia. Next time you see a couple making out like this on a public green, walk up to them, take pictures of them, and tell them you'll be uploading those to Wikimedia for commercial reuse by the world, and that you're sure they won't mind. Let me know how things go! Andreas JN466 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say that the "no expectation of privacy" comes from 2 sources - the couple's recklessness and their criminality. I don't think their recklessness is quite that complete: they may have behaved differently if they were being openly watched and even people having sex in front of "doggers" wouldn't expect to be put on the internet. As for their criminality, I wouldn't want to respect the privacy of a couple of thieves surreptitiously caught on camera, but this is victimless; lots of societies criminalize consensual sex acts, would you say that a gay couple who are breaking the law in their country have no right to privacy on the Commons? --Simonxag (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, what is bizarre is that it has been demonstrated how there would be no expectation of privacy, but you keep saying that there would be, and you are yet to provide why, when given all the evidence, they would have this expectation. russavia (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is the comments on Flickr that demonstrate that they don't have an expectation of privacy, and hence the file should not be deleted under COM:IDENT. If this was a once off thing, then one could say they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But the fact they both (either on their own or together) regularly frequented this very public place, and engaged in public masturbation, mutual groping, and other such things, in full view of anyone and everyone who happened to be in the area at the time, shatters any reasonable expectation to privacy they may have had. Our guideline on such things is very clear. Having said that, there may be a scope issue, but as this DR is entirely centred around COM:IDENT, I wonder if the nominator would like to withdraw this particular nomination, and renominate with a more valid rationale. russavia (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- From your arguments and reading what the author has said on FlickR, I accept that this was indeed in a very public space and I've stricken the peeping-tom speculation which I accept was wrong. But I still think there may have been some expectation of privacy. And the pictures were sneaked from behind a window not taken in the open. --Simonxag (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I'm concerned I did nothing wrong taking these photos, but I never expected them to be transferred by anybody from Flickr as I never expected them to be within the project scope. However, I'll leave it to others to decide. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Anything on Flickr that isn't nailed down seems to be in scope this week. Thanks for commenting here, AnemoneProjectors. I think it will help. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Hard to see how this has an educational value, it is also a lacklustre image. Also has COM:PEOPLE issues regardless of the country it was taken in.--Ianmacm (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain the COM:IDENT issues in relation to the guidelines as they stand at this minute; that being guidelines which have consensus amongst the community. russavia (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a question of interpretation, even though this is in a public place there is no obvious need to have a photo of it on Commons. Easily fails COM:SCOPE in my view, but the privacy angle could be debated. A bigger worry is that this is part of a Flickr trawling exercise which has transferred many images of dubious value to Commons. This is why it has been suggested to restrict inexperienced users to five Flickr uploads per week. There really is not the time to get bogged down in deletion debates over mediocre or controversial images that have been found on Flickr and transferred by a bot process.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Restricting inexperienced users will have no effect if others are acting as their proxies in bulk uploads. The user who prompted the RfC, MaybeMaybeMaybe, has apparently asked Fæ to do bulk uploads for them and Russavia has given it his blessing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The others then become responsible for what they are uploading, so I think it should help. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Restricting inexperienced users will have no effect if others are acting as their proxies in bulk uploads. The user who prompted the RfC, MaybeMaybeMaybe, has apparently asked Fæ to do bulk uploads for them and Russavia has given it his blessing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No realistic educational use, so out of scope. I don't see a violation of COM:PEOPLE here though. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Specially File:Couple outside my window (4904452799).jpg. There's probably no issue in keeping File:Couple outside my window (4905041136).jpg (less 'private' activity, faces not clearly shown) but I don't think we would have use for that image, so I'd delete it as well. Platonides (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Keep per Russavia, mostly. No conceivable expectation of privacy. I think it's a nice and candid couple of pictures that can be used when illustrating love, physical intimacy and related concepts -as such it's in scope. There's much less in-scope stuff that is uncontroversially kept. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Noisy, blown-out images that add nothing distinctive to the collection, with negligible educational value. Agnostic on the privacy question. Rrburke (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I can clearly see how this image can be useful as in the category like love or mating - 88.88.242.57 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Both people in this image look to be under age. I see no permissions for personal rights and feel the upload has no encycolpedic value. It may well be in a public location but again we don't really know this. As the description says outside his window, that could well mean in another backyard. Besides the personal rights issue, possible underage figures and lack or reasonable use this seems to be something to seriously worry about that Wikimedia foundation hosts images like this. Not just what it depicts but how the image was taken and why. This is not a social network and this image simply has no value for commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing in the image suggests, IMO, that these people are underage. Nothing in the description does either. Nobody on FlickR or (until this point), here, has made any such suggestion. In fact one contributor has speculated that the photographer would have been assaulted by the man had he taken the picture openly, with the underlying assumption that the male subject of the photo is a big strong man. Nevertheless the claim would be a serious matter if true:- have you any evidence to back this up? --Simonxag (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is illegal in the United States, in accordance with the w:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Shii (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That act only covers material which is sexually explicit, which this is not. russavia (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete In agreement with Shii's reasoning and due to the fact it serves no real purpose to mitigate that concern Fishmech (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This photograph is not sexually explicit material and is therefore legal in the United States, in accordance with the w:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Additionally, this could be useful in articles covering human sexuality. Mrcatzilla (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have rewritten the description of both images to reflect the actual scene. russavia (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This photograph is legal and anyone who sees sexuality in it should reconsider their own selves...word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.168.97.47 (talk • contribs)
- Keep, essentially agree with rationales by Tiptoety (talk · contribs) and by Russavia (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP IT - nothing wrong is happening here. It is no worse than seeing someone in a swimsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.33.47 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-05 00:53 (UTC) (UTC)
- Comment I believe the couple are of age, I've seen the man around (when out shopping) and he certainly looks well over 18. They are most certainly not under 16 (the age of consent in the UK). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- And I believe the couple to be underage. Since you see this person so much.....tell him what you did and ask him to verify age with OTRS, since niether of us can prove age or public display, we should err on the side of caution in this case. This is really just way past creepy and I have some real problems with the way this is being handled, but that is for me to decide if I am contributing to the right place. I am seriously disturbed that you upload all these images of naked people and they are not even used anywhere but I have perfectly fine images deleted from commons because they are not used on Wikipedia? Wow....this site is really creeping me out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- We do not delete stuff because it's unused on Wikipedia, unless we consider the images to be personal images (ie photos of yourself, for your userpage). Regarding the images you say you had deleted because they were not in use, I have checked your deleted contribs, and they fall into the following categories:
- Image from a website, but no proof of licence;
- Clear copyvios
- No licence given
- Duplicates of other Commons media
- None of your uploads were deleted for being orphaned. The closest that anything comes to that is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zombie Hut001.jpg, and that file was deleted as lacking proof of licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- We do not delete stuff because it's unused on Wikipedia, unless we consider the images to be personal images (ie photos of yourself, for your userpage). Regarding the images you say you had deleted because they were not in use, I have checked your deleted contribs, and they fall into the following categories:
- And I believe the couple to be underage. Since you see this person so much.....tell him what you did and ask him to verify age with OTRS, since niether of us can prove age or public display, we should err on the side of caution in this case. This is really just way past creepy and I have some real problems with the way this is being handled, but that is for me to decide if I am contributing to the right place. I am seriously disturbed that you upload all these images of naked people and they are not even used anywhere but I have perfectly fine images deleted from commons because they are not used on Wikipedia? Wow....this site is really creeping me out.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The couple might be underage, the situation is quite intimate, they have not agreed to having that photo taken, and they are clearly not posing for the camera. Therefore, it is quite probable that they would not like this photo being on Wikimedia Commons. While the photo might actually be of use to someone, I can not see any topic where this photo would convey important information. I think that their right to privacy beats the potential usefulness of the photo. Raphman (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Let's show some basic human decency, shall we? The question shouldn't be "Do we have to delete the pictures for legal reasons?", it should be "Do we need the pictures"? Well, no, we sure as hell don't. Why do people cling to entirely random and pointless pictures like these like they are some kind of holy grail that needs to be kept at all costs? --Conti|✉ 02:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Conti has hit the nail on the head here. It has reached the stage where there is little point in having deletion debates on Commons, since some users will invariably vote "keep" for the most absurdly mediocre and out of scope images. Check out Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Topless men with long hair for another example of this phenomenon in action.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's very hard to not have a knee-jerk reaction to any sex-related deletion when images that are rare illustrative examples or even actually in use are routinely nominated on SCOPE and COM:PORN; when kept images are simply renominated after a wait with no new evidence; when unsubstantiated accusations against certain editors are repeated and mutually quoted to create pseudo-facts about them; and when a prominent talk page on the Wikipedia is used as
a hate-sitean attack site, complete with sexuality images used Encyclopedia-Dramatica style as shock images, to attack and intimidate certain anti-censorship Commons admins. I'm on the delete side of this debate, but I don't doubt the usefulness of 2 photos that are unique in showing a particular phenomenon, and I also think that "privacy" has gone (particularly in German law) from "basic human decency" to something oppressive and censorious. --Simonxag (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)- Simon, I strongly suspect some of the hyperbole you've left here may relate to me. Would you mind striking your obviously inflammatory comment about "used as a hate-site", implying as it does actual criminal violations in many jurisdictions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have not named anyone and I do not think I have exaggerated. --Simonxag (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Simonxag, stop playing games. Whether or not you have named me, it is clear that other users will assume that I am the editor to whom you refer. Please strike the "hate-site" comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, but note that I have not named and am not naming anyone, but have only referred to objectionable activities. --Simonxag (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Simonxag, stop playing games. Whether or not you have named me, it is clear that other users will assume that I am the editor to whom you refer. Please strike the "hate-site" comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- The knee-jerk reaction goes both ways, unfortunately. There are some people here who seem to scan deletion discussions for sexuality related pictures, and use whatever argument they can come up with to vote keep, or dismiss deletion arguments solely based on who made them. I really don't think this is about censorship or "keeping commons clean" for anyone. It's about addressing a problem that seems very obvious to some, and not so obvious to others. --Conti|✉ 22:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the knee-jerk reaction seems to go both ways. But no, the perception of the problem goes both ways too. People on both sides see a serious problem, and often seem to see that problem as the only important one. It's not surprising when that comes out in their comments, but if these start to get personal, things can easily escalate. I'd suggest that unless we can see both sides here, of both the problem and the inflammatory rhetoric, and can convey that respectfully, then any comments we make on user conduct are likely to make things worse not better. --Avenue (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's very hard to not have a knee-jerk reaction to any sex-related deletion when images that are rare illustrative examples or even actually in use are routinely nominated on SCOPE and COM:PORN; when kept images are simply renominated after a wait with no new evidence; when unsubstantiated accusations against certain editors are repeated and mutually quoted to create pseudo-facts about them; and when a prominent talk page on the Wikipedia is used as
- Delete No possible use for, let's face it, a blatantly voyeuristic pair of images. The licence is also no good for Commons, as it's CC-BY-NC. Prioryman (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- When they were uploaded, they were freely licensed, as can be seen because the bot will not upload anything which isn't. Free licences are irrevocable. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- And AnemoneProjectors, has contributed here so I don't believe that is an issue. However, I wonder if the change of license is a reflection of their change of attitude to these images resulting from this discussion? --Simonxag (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I decided I would change the licences on Flickr if they were deleted from here, to avoid them being re-uploaded, but I then decided to change them early. Probably wrong of me to do that, but of course, this has nothing to do with this debate. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- AP, would you prefer to have the images deleted? If so, I'll delete on grounds of uploader request, even if you were not technically the uploader. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I still think I should leave it for others to decide, because I'm not bothered either way. I think I just felt they would be deleted. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, I have seen several instances here where uploaders have requested deletion of images and been told it was not possible. Yet here you are offering to delete images "on grounds of uploader request" for someone who is not the uploader. Please don't mistake my comment - I support this action, but I think it needs to be extended to all uploaders, not just those who are connected to Commons or who find themselves in the midst of a high-profile discussion. Matt, can uploaders with deletion requests count on your support in the future? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's conditional support to these things. Depends on quite when it was uploaded, whether the free release was intentional, and whether it's in use or easily replaceable. Something which was uploaded 2 years ago and is suddenly claimed as speedy user request, I'll decline that speedy and take it to DR, and support or not is conditional on factors previously stated. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mattbuck, I have seen several instances here where uploaders have requested deletion of images and been told it was not possible. Yet here you are offering to delete images "on grounds of uploader request" for someone who is not the uploader. Please don't mistake my comment - I support this action, but I think it needs to be extended to all uploaders, not just those who are connected to Commons or who find themselves in the midst of a high-profile discussion. Matt, can uploaders with deletion requests count on your support in the future? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader has no right to have an image deleted. but we normally accept such requests if they are made shortly after an upload on the grounds that the upload was an error and we also accept such requests from uploader or author where they can provide a good reason. In particular, we usually try to protect our contributors. (I remember an excellent photo of a Dutch guy posing as Black Peter, which was deleted, without any legal requirement, because its use on the Wikipedias was causing problems for the model.) AnemoneProjectors is the author of the pictures who uploaded them to FlickR from which they were transferred here. I suspect they may have been taken aback at the vehemence of some the debate, Mattbuck is sticking firmly to the (possibly unwritten but) well established Commons policy of being reasonable. --Simonxag (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds nice, but Commons has no history of being reasonable when it comes to these types of requests. It has a history of being unreasonable and sometimes openly hostile to people who ask for their images to be removed from Commons. These types of policies are often subject to abuse (applied or not applied based on feelings about the requester). I am not against having a policy that allows discussion and discretionary deletion, provided that the basic case is automatic. Any image which depicts a living person should be removed at the request of the uploader, no questions asked. Other images can be discussed. I have made this suggestion here previously, but the discussion went nowhere. It may be time for me to take another run at it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's very much a minority view of "reasonable". --Simonxag (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I still think I should leave it for others to decide, because I'm not bothered either way. I think I just felt they would be deleted. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- AP, would you prefer to have the images deleted? If so, I'll delete on grounds of uploader request, even if you were not technically the uploader. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I decided I would change the licences on Flickr if they were deleted from here, to avoid them being re-uploaded, but I then decided to change them early. Probably wrong of me to do that, but of course, this has nothing to do with this debate. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- And AnemoneProjectors, has contributed here so I don't believe that is an issue. However, I wonder if the change of license is a reflection of their change of attitude to these images resulting from this discussion? --Simonxag (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Photograph taken in a public place, breaches no law, rule, policy or guideline. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is in the BBC news today, and it highlights a similar issue. The fact that a photograph exists does not necessarily mean that it should be published in places other than the one that was originally intended.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that too, and when I saw I immediately thought it is irrelevant to us on Commons, and I asked myself how long it would be before someone used it to try and sway discussions here on Commons. russavia (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- How is it irrelevant to us? Nude/seminude images hosted on Commons (most often taken from Flickr or unknown sources) are reuploaded to porn sites all the time.. --Conti|✉ 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not completely irrelevant, but I don't think we are ultimately responsible for others' misdeeds, any more than the first woman mentioned in that article is to blame for the porn site misappropriating photos of her that she had put on her own website. While we should do what we can to discourage misuse, we shouldn't let fear of misuse prevent us from pursuing our mission (to host freely licensed/PD media content for educational use and re-use) either. --Avenue (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Conti observes, Commons images showing nudity frequently appear on porn sites and image sharing forums. In looking for the source of copyright violations here, I have seen just how prevalent this can be. Anyone who has an image of a former lover, taken in private circumstances for personal use only, can upload it here and expect that it will quickly make its way to other sites. Commons is part of the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not completely irrelevant, but I don't think we are ultimately responsible for others' misdeeds, any more than the first woman mentioned in that article is to blame for the porn site misappropriating photos of her that she had put on her own website. While we should do what we can to discourage misuse, we shouldn't let fear of misuse prevent us from pursuing our mission (to host freely licensed/PD media content for educational use and re-use) either. --Avenue (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- How is it irrelevant to us? Nude/seminude images hosted on Commons (most often taken from Flickr or unknown sources) are reuploaded to porn sites all the time.. --Conti|✉ 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that too, and when I saw I immediately thought it is irrelevant to us on Commons, and I asked myself how long it would be before someone used it to try and sway discussions here on Commons. russavia (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that the average Flickr user may not be aware that an overzealous person may upload their images to Commons even though this was not originally intended. This is discussed in more detail at Commons:Requests for comment/images of identifiable people.--Ianmacm (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is also a proposal at Commons:Village_pump#Flickr_notifications_for_batch_uploads to notify Flickr users when we take one of their photos, which would be a good first step towards a solution to the problem at hand. --Conti|✉ 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, out of project scope, no conceivable educational use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - not cool on an entire number of levels. First, COM:SCOPE, secondly, it's just voyeuristic garbage, thirdly there's the matter of subject consent, the arguably public/private space and reasonable expectations of privacy - Alison ❤ 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Given the photographer's other files, this is almost certainly taken in the UK, and therefore fails Commons:PEOPLE#Country-specific_consent_requirements. To reiterate to the many people not familiar with the issue (as the discussion above shows): the idea that no subject consent is required for publication of photos taken in a public place is a US one. In many other countries, it is not the case. Rd232 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The SVG that exists should be corrected if there is a problem, not replaced by a scaled down PNG. Fry1989 eh? 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- well if you guys wanna delete this file is ok..but first you should correct the svg version of CoA with the right red color as law 8926 appendix 1 [5]
- Red
- C - 0%
- M - 100%
- Y - 100%
- K - 0%
- Ilbiochimico (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
