Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
_-_sculpture.jpg){kind=link}
_outline.jpg){kind=link}
Blank Category --Waihorace (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This is NOT Minnie Riperton. This is singer Maxine Nightinale. The name for the image is wrong, actually the source names it false. Check the offical page of Maxine Nightingale: http://www.maxinenightingale.biz/ And 25 Fotos of Minnie Riperton: http://www.last.fm/music/Minnie+Riperton --LarkCGN (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are right. Excuse me for this. But instead of deleting this file. I'll do a renaming request. Clausule (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. File renamed: File:Maxine Nightingale 2.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot image from a broadcast. The recently banned uploader has a history of uploading copyrighted content to wikipedia. JoeJohnson2 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete I noticed that the Metadata looked ok when I moved the file from en-wiki but now that you say it it does look like a photo of a screen. And looking at the user talk it find your nomination right. --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)- Delete Per nominator. Clearly appears to be a photo from the broadcast. Enigmaman (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's actually a photo of an AP photo: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/2010/07/09/2010-07-09_miami_heat_fans_welcome_lebron_james_dwyane_wade_chris_bosh_to_americanairlines_.html. I've marked it for speedy deletion. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: Obvious copyvio, AP image: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/2010/07/09/2010-07-09_miami_heat_fans_welcome_lebron_james_dwyane_wade_chris_bosh_to_americanairlines_.html
I'd say out of scope. Description even says promotional. --DieBuche (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Foto is both out of scope and promotional. --Korman (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. –BruTe Talk 08:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Is "Uncle Wiesław" really notable enough? --DieBuche (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –BruTe Talk 08:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not evident that realistically useful for an educational purpose (we don't have a notability test per se). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thumbnail with no foreseable use, may have been used in the past in Wikimedia logo mosaic but now unused Santosga (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image- out of scope - the description is a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - no description, no exif data - out of scope, maybe copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –BruTe Talk 08:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –BruTe Talk 08:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope. –BruTe Talk 08:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. Laod (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly promotional photo but I doubt uploader is the copyright owner of this image. See also other version File:Jerry.png. Laod (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Portrait of a living person (a Turkish actor) that seems like a screenshot rather than an "own work". Copyright violation is very likely. --yabancım 18:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete quality is not good, I think screen recording. Suspicious files can be deleted --Taysin (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Most probably a TV screenshot. İyivikiler... ho? ni! 11:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with above...--Sabri76 12:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of unknown spanish band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See filetalk and see Commons:Deletion requests/Stories from the Arabian nights. Also File:Arabian nights aladin intro.png. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, not PD in the country of origin. –Tryphon☂ 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for sculptures and COM:PD#Norway says 70 years pma. Subject of the sculpture died less than 70 years ago. Wknight94 talk 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for scultpures and COM:PD#Norway says 70 years pma. Description says it was erected in 1976. Wknight94 talk 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for scultpures and COM:PD#Norway says 70 years pma. Subject of the sculpture died less than 70 years ago. Wknight94 talk 01:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Go ahead and delete. I'll try another version where the bust is not as clearly the centrepiece. - Mr. Hill (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Flickr user isnt the author so I dont see that the cc license is valid. Additionally the file did not qualify for PD under COM:L#Canada. Given the name and the publication date it is a simple scan from this publication with pictorial work by Van der Aa, Hans, (1913-). --Martin H. (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a scan from a magazine or book; seems unlikely to be from a uploader's private photo collection. The uploader has only made few edits on Commons and Wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 06:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Life_%28Meher_Baba%29.jpg IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep The photograph came into public domain on January 1, 2010. That is why there was an unlicensed copy on Wikipedia, as it was not public domain yet when it was first uploaded there in 2009. Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality pic from mass upload, no educational value Jklamo (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support I uploaded the pics in a mass uploaded and some images are of little value. Delete the following pics as well:
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_Breakfast_at_Desert_Safary.jpg
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_Mr._Ali_and_Mohammed_Elsers_(owner_of_the_Desert_Safary_Hotel).jpg
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_My_friendly_driver_Farek.jpg
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_New_generation_Egyptian.jpg
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_In_Sh'allah.jpg
- File:Flickr_-_dlisbona_-_Women_in_black.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- All these images are of little value and of low quality, please delete them.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Scan from a book or newspaper; most probably not own work --A.J. (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –BruTe Talk 10:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope on commons. –BruTe Talk 10:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt User:Bmwbond17 (talk) is the copyright owner of this image. See http://www.brettcarter2010.com/about Laod (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt User:Bmwbond17 (talk) is the copyright owner of this image. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/21274751@N00/102695703 Laod (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. On Flickr with all rights reserved by Anderson University. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt User:Bmwbond17 (talk) is the copyright owner of this image. See http://www.gaither.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/gloria-piano.jpg from http://www.gaither.com/artists/gloria-gaither/ Laod (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia. Subject died in 1991. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Мне кажется, что мемориальные доски - это особый объект, не подпадающий под действие закона о свободе панорамы, независимо от года их создания (например, как почтовые марки). Но, поскольку я не считаю себя специалистом в юридических вопросах, предлагаю подождать мнения более профессиональных коллег. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I don't know whether there is any special Russian law on this subject, but, in general, memorials, gravestones, and the like are treated like any other artistic work. Also, of course, the photograph here will have its own copyright as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
very small human body icon, much better files with this subject can be found in Category:Human body symbols Santosga (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_(crop).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(crop).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Sid Vicious.JPG. Dennis Morris is British photographers (as well as subject) Why USA law applied? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
- Subject is irrelevant. According to the file description, the publisher is Warner Brothers, an American company, so this was apparently first published in the United States. If I'm correct in so saying, we need not worry about any other countries' copyright laws for Commons' purposes, since we only care whether a file is free (1) in the USA, where the servers are hosted, and (2) in whatever country the file was first published. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. These are both crops from videos. I doubt very much that the video was published by Warner Brothers without a copyright notice -- note that the notice need not appear on every frame of the video, so looking at these proves nothing. Therefore the PD notice in both files is wrong if they were first published in the USA and irrelevant if first published in the UK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_(crop).jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work. Small resolution. Missing EXIF. Other uploads by this uploader was also problematic. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for sculptures. Sculpture's subject only died in 1971 so definitely not in the public domain. Wknight94 talk 14:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Gunnar Jahn..JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Wknight94 talk 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for statues and artist died in 2002 so definitely not in COM:PD#Norway. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for statues and artist died recently so definitely not in COM:PD#Norway. Wknight94 talk 15:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for sculptures and artist died in 1983 so definitely not COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_-_sculpture.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_sculpture.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No COM:FOP#Norway for statues and uploader died 60 years ago, not 70, so it is not yet in COM:PD#Norway. Wknight94 talk 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
_-_sculpture.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_-_sculpture.jpg){kind=link}
Could not verify source or license. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway and it is dated 1982 so not COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for sculptures and was apparently completed in 1969 no not COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway and it is dated 1960 so not in COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for sculptures. Looks like this was done in 1991 so not nearly COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of not self-created poster Martin H. (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway for statues and apparently dated 1978 so not COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Norway and apparently done in 1997 so not in COM:PD#Norway Wknight94 talk 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
out of scope file with misleading categories and description Jarekt (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_outline.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_outline.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File created by me. I can't be sure, but I believe that I failed to use a public domain source when I created this map, so I think we should delete it to be safe. I find my later Image:Orleans County (New York) - Towns and Villages.svg to be superior anyway, and it's based on clearly PD sources. Powers (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
_-_Towns_and_Villages.svg){kind=link}
_outline.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as inferior to the later image. I don't see a copyright violation here, even if the source is not PD — it's a simple representation of the facts, which aren't copyrightable. Nevertheless, no reason to keep an inferior image, especially since the uploader is requesting it. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
_outline.jpg){kind=link}
no notability; copyright sign on the photo Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly promotional photo but I doubt uploader is the copyright owner of this image. See also cropped version File:A c432b426.jpg. Laod (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Tagged as PD-textlogo; however, the design on the left side is too complex. Moreover, this is out of scope; it was used only at en:User:Sikkim Manipal University DE page, which was deleted as spam, and it's not likely to be useful for any other purposes. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
author of the image changed his mind, as user has re-added the noncommercial license to the image. In addition, the author's name is featured on the Metadata and prefers that the name be private. --Zerorules677 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, a good image of a well-known person is plainly in scope. CC licenses are non-revokable, so there is no copyright issue with the noncommercial license at Flickr. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep our policy is that if it has been reviewed as being on the certain license the day it was uploaded this is formally legal for us to permanently keep even if the author changes the license soon after. the fatc is that this flickr user should have thought long and hard what license he applies to his images if he wabts to remain private.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The user e-mailed me this, because of the name in the metadata ---> "I know that this information is from the camera. So I at Flickr, the preview for the disabled have EXIF data. I would certainly not want my name on the Internet is private. Please remove the image from Wiki. I think there are a thousand other pictures of Brad Pitt. If you find no other, I send you like this again without the Exif data." Zerorules677 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per Nyttend and Blofeld. Also note that the claim that the author's name is in EXIF is bogus -- the name there is the same as at Flickr -- if he or she doesn't want his/her name on the Internet, he/she should start by changing it there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Used only for the deleted en:151 feva gang, and not likely to be useful otherwise, so out of scope. Also, this image appears to be a logo, so it's not likely to be the work of the uploader or to be free. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Used only for the deleted en:151 feva gang, and not likely to be useful otherwise, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Used only for the deleted en:151 feva gang, and not likely to be useful otherwise, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Used only for the deleted en:151 feva gang, and not likely to be useful otherwise, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia, possible copyvio, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Simple table with only some text, can be replaced with a wikitable. Not in scope of Commons Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright is claimed by AFP, the Argentine PD claim is not verified. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete proof for {{PD-AR-Photo}} is missing. --High Contrast (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep I have checked this image at the publication "La fotografía en la Historia Argentina" (in Spanish, "Photography in the History of Argentina", a production that shows photographs of key events from Argentine history), IV issue, ISBN 950-782-646-7. This precise photo is located at the 448 page, and the source is clearly stated to be the Clarín newspaper. Actually, I did not scan the photo, I took a copy from somewhere else in the internet, but that's intrascendent: the photo itself is there. Two sources that provide contradictory origins. Someone is clearly lying. Who should we trust? The printed publication, from the country where the photo was generated, wich has an academic or divulgative purpose, is printed by a major print house and had the material checked before publication? (the credits attribute photographic and documental investigation to Abel Alexander, and list the complete number of sources employed in the selection and publication of photographs) Or the foreign web site that's selling the image, claiming it to be of its property? I strongly believe in the first option. And if being a printed publication is a problem because you can't check it with your own eyes, I can easily scan it (everythin in the page, photo, description and credits), upload it somewhere else and show it. Belgrano (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep The information given at the referred website is completely wrong. The photo was not taken in 2008, but in 1978. The description is misleading since it suggests that this picture was taken in 2008. AFP cannot have a copyright of this picture from 2008 because it entered in the public domain before 2008. By the way, Mario Kempes was 54 years old in 2008. --Commonlingua (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Typos happen. Syntax errors, especially obvious ones like this, don't necessarily invalidate the copuyright claim. Perhaps I should have provided this link? Ytoyoda (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright claim is completely invalid because this picture was taken in 1978 in Argentina, and according to the Argentine law, this picture is in the public domain.--Commonlingua (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- But only if it was first published in Argentina, or the copyright is owned by an Argentine outlet (hence, the wording "registered" in Argentina). If the copyright claim by AFP is valid, then the Argentine law would not apply. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright claim is completely invalid because this picture was taken in 1978 in Argentina, and according to the Argentine law, this picture is in the public domain.--Commonlingua (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- And that's the case with Clarín. I've also checked the other pictures. Almost all of them say "2008 AFP". Probably AFP published these pictures on its online version in 2008 (30th anniversary). Someone must have uploaded them to gettyimages.com, without knowing that they were already in the public domain. --Commonlingua (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Correct license selected. Luispihormiguero (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. 99of9 (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2073 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I had tagged this with no-permission but uploader linked to something called Bentham Open. I think that just means it is open access, not free re-use, but wanted a second opinion. Wknight94 talk 03:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per http://www.bentham.org/open/tooenij/MSandI.htm (Copyright section at the very bottom) the articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution non-commercial license. Creators of reproduced material must give permission for reuse of their work in that journal, a standard permission form is linked on the website but in that form the copyright holder only agrees to the particular use in the journal, not to a broader Creative Commons license. Concluding: the journal articles are non-commercial and the images are unfree except the article writer is the creator of the image. In any case Creative Commons Attribution non-commercial isnt a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the article at the OOJ site (sorry, no permanent link), you will see that one of the authors is me (Gomez-Prieto P). My user name is my real name. I don't hide. I wrote the article and made the image myself. As well as many other unpublished images that have been tagged for deletion. They do not have copyright because they are unpublished. They are pictures I took of my birds in my cages. If you people don't trust me on that, I really don't know how I can prove it's mine. I would bring you the birds, but most of them are already dead. I really like the fact that Wikimedia is so strict on this matter, and I appreciate all the thorough work you do. But what can I do? Please help me! --Gomezprieto (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, if that is the case, then you can use the process at COM:OTRS to clear up confusion for this image and the rest. Wknight94 talk 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Now I see you have already been down the OTRS road, but the images were deleted anyway (by me, coincidentally). So I have asked what went wrong with the OTRS at "COM:OTRS/N#Otrs:2010021510029151 and User:Gomezprieto". Hopefully they can clear up the confusion from the first deletion before they are deleted a second time. Wknight94 talk 12:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, if that is the case, then you can use the process at COM:OTRS to clear up confusion for this image and the rest. Wknight94 talk 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the article at the OOJ site (sorry, no permanent link), you will see that one of the authors is me (Gomez-Prieto P). My user name is my real name. I don't hide. I wrote the article and made the image myself. As well as many other unpublished images that have been tagged for deletion. They do not have copyright because they are unpublished. They are pictures I took of my birds in my cages. If you people don't trust me on that, I really don't know how I can prove it's mine. I would bring you the birds, but most of them are already dead. I really like the fact that Wikimedia is so strict on this matter, and I appreciate all the thorough work you do. But what can I do? Please help me! --Gomezprieto (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I almost closed this as a keep, but we'll let the OTRS process run its course. If it fails for some reason, however, I would be very much inclined to take this user at his word -- that they are his photos of his birds -- and keep them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader can finally sort things out with OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, without suitable permission this can't be kept, allthough I believe the uploader. Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
File creates error message. Apparently to big. Duplicates are available. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. It's a lossless version, the jpeg "duplicates" are not. See also [1]. Trycatch (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you need to download a lossless version, why not go to the source, the Library of Congress? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Trycatch. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the author has been dead for 70 years, copyright claimed by the Hulton archive: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3226126/Hulton-Archive Ytoyoda (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep At the cited web site the photographer is "Keystone/Stringer", which suggests to me that he or she is unknown ("Stringer" = occasional supplier of news or photo material). If so, it's PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely the photographer who covered this moment at this event is unknown. He is likely mentioned somewhere. Neither the random source website nor getty, which is highly inaccurate with providing author information, is enough to determine whether it is unknown or not. --Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that the author died for more than 70 years. Kameraad Pjotr 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
EXIF says Photoshop CS4, so I think this "illustration" was created using a photo and then CS4's filtering. Therefore I smell copyvio. Drive-by contributor. However, I would like to point out that it IS in scope, as en.wp has an article on armpit fetishism. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Wax figures in the United States
[edit]No COM:FOP in the United States so wax figures in the United States are presumably copyrighted. --Wknight94 talk 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- File:Mme Tussauds Hollywood.jpg
- File:Malcolm X Tussauds.jpg
- File:Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner examine wax figure.jpg
- File:Kim Kardashian surrounded by photos.jpg
- File:Kim Kardashian with wax double.jpg
- Delete Nuts. Forgot about that lil' wrinkle in the law. I've fired an email off to the Madame Toussards organization via their website in hopes of getting them to clear the images for use. In the interim, I'd say (with heavy heart) delete. Tabercil (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader of the first picture. I'm not sure about the other files and I'm no expert in US law, but I was under the impression that copyrighted objects are permitted as long as they are part of a larger composition. See for example File:Logo BP Delft.jpg, where the copy-righted logo of our oil-spilling friends is clearly the subject of the picture, as part of a larger composition. The composition in the Hollywood picture is my own work, and though the wax figure is a central part of the composition, it's not even the sole subject (as is the case with the BP logo). The composition matters: it's intended to show people making fun with a wax figure, not a wax figure. Best regards, Woudloper (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd prefer, we can split one out to its own DR if you think it is different than the rest. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I presume there is possibly an exception for pictures of works of art when the art is only part of a composition. I think so because of my experience with logos. The same exception can be valid for the other pictures too, except for the second one. My own picture (the first) is the only one taken in public space (the others are inside a museum I think). If my pressumption is wrong, all pictures should be deleted. Woudloper (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd prefer, we can split one out to its own DR if you think it is different than the rest. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment I don't know about madame toussauds, but I know that the Wax Museum in San Francisco has big signs in front of it that say "you are allowed to take pictures here". So maybe asking for permission make things clear. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- They're not above having people take the photos - I mean, there's a Flickr group dedicated to the London branch of it. See here. What we need is a touch of clarification that we can host those specific images. Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right - host them and allow free downstream use, including for commercial purposes, and derivatives. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Crop the real Kim (whoever she is). She is not copyrighted (I hope at least) and may be of some use. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did that already as soon as the DR went up. See File:Kim Kardashian at Madame Tussards.jpg. The pic of Kim surrounded by photographers can't really be cropped out without really loosing something, and the one of Kim and Kris was uploaded only so I could put up as sourced File:Kris Jenner.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I've heard from the photographer of the three Kim photos, and she's going to get in touch with the folks at Madame Tussard's to see if she can get clearance. She should be able to get in touch with the appropriate folks a lot faster than I can, as she works for the Rubenstein PR firm... and I'd bet that Tussard's is a client of theirs. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, the photographer's heard back from the folks at Madame Tussard's, and they're are not only willing to consent to the use of these image under the stated license, but they're willing to agree to a more open-ended one. So any suggestions for wording?? Tabercil (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wording for what? You could forward your communication to COM:OTRS and then this whole DR is done. Wknight94 talk 00:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have it from the Madame Tussard's folks yet, nor have I yet been in direct communication with them. So far it's me with the photographer, and the people at Rubenstein (where she works) talking to Madame Tussards. From the last email I got: "So the client is wondering if I could draft something that they can just sign off on. I figure you know better than I do what the statement needs to say. Would you be able to write a quick paragraph or let me know what I should write in the statement so that all of your needs are met? I was told that the client is fine with the open-ended permission." First time I've been in a situation in a long time where I'm going for more than just one or two pics... Tabercil (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I see. How about COM:ET? That also has links to similar templates on en.wp. Wknight94 talk 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the U.S. for sculptures. Kameraad Pjotr 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Marked as nd/nc at source, not compatible with Commons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cacho/536326920/ Ytoyoda (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, but not speedily; seeing that our image is tagged with a license that's available at Flickr, I suspect that this is a case of the Commons uploader forgetting to use Flickrreview and the Flickr uploader changing the license. I can't prove that, of course, but let's not delete this image until the discussion has run its course. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unfree Flickr license. Kameraad Pjotr 18:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted in the US. No rule of shorter term. Kragenfaultier (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The file was undeleted per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-08#The German "Walking Eye". This does not have anything to do with duration of copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. ACK. Polarlys (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Not PD in the US. The US copyright does not require more originality for applied arts. 89.0.176.87 07:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, see above. It was never copyrighted in the first place, so "shorter term" does not apply (if I understand the rationale correctly) --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- There isn't and was never since XIX. century the rule of shorter term in US copyright for work by Germans. Kragenfaultier (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not meet the threshold of originality, nor in Germany, nor in the US. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Unused image on WM projects, probably promotional. –BruTe Talk 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Still needed? Unused and last changed in 2007 --DieBuche (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
