Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
uploaded to en.wiki with "this image is owned by Reef Encounter Enterprises Pty Ltd 05:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)" Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear copyvio to me. Added {{Copyvio}} to mediapage. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
uploaded to en.wiki with "this image is owned by Reef Encounter Enterprises Pty Ltd 05:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)" Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear copyvio to me. Added {{Copyvio}} to mediapage. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Record cover - No fair use allowed Lymantria (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
asalmuklleikasm 217.88.5.210 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That was a most enlightening reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
uploaded to en.wiki with "this image is owned by Reef Encounter Enterprises Pty Ltd 05:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)" Skier Dude (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like a clear copyvio to me. Added {{Copyvio}} to mediapage. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Record cover - No fair use allowed Lymantria (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
asalmuklleikasm 217.88.5.210 09:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That was a most enlightening reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Cover of game, so most likely copyrighted. Author unknown Maniago (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded the incorrect file. I wanted another another similar picture. The file is not in use and I just uploaded it today. Easal22 (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Yann (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
See [1] André (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotion for non-notable business Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Olg25 (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am Raghavendra from India. I have been selected as a Campus Ambassador for the India Education Program of Wikipedia.
We have been asked to make a userprofile page of ourselves, with a picture of ourselves so that students whom we go to can relate to us better.
Which is why i have posted the picture. Is there a better place to post such pictures? Am a newbie to wiki editing as such, and hence i am not really aware. Kindly let me know
Thanks Raghavendra
Kept: User page image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHigh_Contrast&action=historysubmit&diff=55075768&oldid=55040209 High Contrast (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be optimized. Sarrieri team (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad name Юкатан (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete the correct name is at File:Petah Tikva bus lane01.jpg. In the future, please use the {{Badname}} template on the image (i.e. {{badname|Petah Tikva bus lane01.jpg}}) so it gets speedy deleted; there is no need to go through a full deletion request like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: dupe of yesterday Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
permission needed Yann (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:sdeletion requests/Files of User:Buweosman Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
scan of an old (1985) magazine advert or so. I doubt you are the artist who created this work. Please see COM:L --Saibo (Δ) 04:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, useless private drawing George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
very low quality soft porn, wrong license Yann (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Mbdortmund (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Nothing copyrightable in this image. Just a 08/15-type building. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)- Keep - Plain apartment building without any architectural originality. --Terfili (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a teenager. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Useless Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not used not in scope. Good twins (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Good twins (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - article in pdf Slfi (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not readable. Good twins (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - text in jpeg Slfi (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope Good twins (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be personal picture with incorrect license. Either way I'm very confused by the text on this pic Good twins (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, some spam by a funny guy. The listing in the description is a partial copy from es:Dom DeLuise, the rest is just nonsense. --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, fake. See [2] --Nolispanmo 17:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Someone having fun by taking an existing wikipedia article (Dom Deluise) and making it about himself (presumably), but pointless and out of scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere, out of project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Allowing self-made pictures of an animal with clothes pegs on it to be uploaded is likely to encourage mistreatment of animals. There's plenty of other pictures available. Rob (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- They have skin of a whale, there's hardly any pain involved, and (I suppose) no effects on blood circulation. No more "mistreatment" than Category:Dogs wearing clothes (but looks just as silly). NVO (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it causes it causes great pain, though I doubt it's really comfortable. We have to draw the line somewhere. This is on the borderline, and allowing it inevitably encourages others to go one step further (and that person will use this as a precedent). --Rob (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- If we draw the line for this one then the entire content of Category:Dogs wearing clothes should also be deleted, which I doubt will find favour so for me it's a keeper. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are likely some dogs who are fine with clothes, and people may have a legit reason to do it sometimes (although it's usually silly), and regardless it's a common thing worthy of illustration. There's no possible benefit to a dog to be pinned up. An idiot doing this may cause harm if a pin closes tighter than what they realize. --Rob (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- If we draw the line for this one then the entire content of Category:Dogs wearing clothes should also be deleted, which I doubt will find favour so for me it's a keeper. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it causes it causes great pain, though I doubt it's really comfortable. We have to draw the line somewhere. This is on the borderline, and allowing it inevitably encourages others to go one step further (and that person will use this as a precedent). --Rob (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this image simply out of scope? I do not see any educational value... Grand-Duc (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
logo not appropriate for Commons, please upload to en:Wikipedia before deletion Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
the can's design is probably eligible for copyright (not COM:DM) → COM:DW. Saibo (Δ) 04:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Subject may in PD and died long time ago, but the source of this drawing (color) is not showing a PD status, moreover this drawing can be drawn recently so no PD came yet. Please provide a source showing that this particular drawing is in PD ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Image used in book covers from 1939 at the least. (link)--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.109.164 (talk • contribs)
- For more support please link a book cover which is published from 1939, current link is not showing any publication date..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Look again. All the books he wrote has his picture on the front cover and the list of books has one published in 1939. Combine that with the the age of the person in picture, this image is clearly in PD. Don't expect others to backfill your laziness to investigate.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.80.83 (talk • contribs)
- The book suppose to be this-Malankara Sabhamathavinte Oru Veerasanthanam adhava Divyasree Chavara Kuriakose Eliasachan, Fr. Valerian C.D., C.M.I., St.Joseph's Press, Mannanam, 1939., but where is the cover page, as you say the image printed on that...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Dear uploader please provide the following informations..
- Who is the author of the image
- If no author available, please provide the first publication date of this image (Verification link required), So that we can assume that this picture is in PD if its published long time ago(as per the Indian copyright law )--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unusable image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 08:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - In principle I agree, but it's in use on an en.wp userpage, so qualifies at worst as a used personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, I moved because someone has requested it from me, seems it is deletable Mardetanha talk 10:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet RE rillke questions? 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree that file should be deleted. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Used for an enwiki spam article, no educational purpose that I can think of. Out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a graph with objective info about Beroa Technologies, who is the industry leader in the engineering and installation of refractory material and the construction of industrial chimneys and other tall structures. Regards
- Delete - looks like a corporate image to me, so likely copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
this is a duplicate and pre-version of File:Giro d'Italia 2011.svg. It was moved to commons shortly before I could ask to delete it in the de-wiki. Maxxl2 (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not actually a duplicate and it is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. This building was achieved in 1994. Civa (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unused userpage image, near duplicate of File:Langaa egeskov rimfrost.jpg Santosga (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
no freedom of Panorama in France, this is a recent building ! Frédéric (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. Please delete file. --GunterS (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although I'm not the original uploader, I'd be glad if this image could remain on WikiCommons. It does not show the current situation, as the monument doesn't exist anymore. I'd keep the image as it therefor reflects a historic situation. I also wouldn't be surprised if the current law in Bahrain changes. What's then? Joerg,
The BajanZindy (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The monument is not the "primary subject" of this photograph. Rather, the incredibly newsworthy wikipedia:2011 Bahrain protests are. I'm not thrilled about the FOP concerns about other Pearl Monument photos, but at least I understand FOP; however I don't see how it can be applied here. I don't believe we can bar the circulation of pictures of a protest camp because of what it happens to be located in view of. Please withdraw the deletion request. Wareh (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is not only of the monument. Photos which are of a different subject but which happen to include a monument like this should not be subject to deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep That means that we goona have to delete almost every picture about because someone will be in a building or standing next to one. The picture is showing protesters who happened to be standing next a panorama. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bahrain, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Oh, goodness. This is a cityscape, and not a derivative work of any individual building. City skylines are not derivative works. This is a clear case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
CC-BY-NC-ND license on Flickr A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I can verify from deleted revisions that this was originally uploaded to English Wikipedia by the creator and owner of the Flickr stream linked. The upload to English Wikipedia was made under the less restrictive Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as Commons doesn't host photos with such tags. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- But the creator did upload the image to English Wikipedia using the CC-BY-SA license. Having the license on Flickr as CC-BY-NC-ND doesn't change that. Creative Commons licenses are non-revokable. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per IronGargoyle. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as it isn't licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND here. Photographers are free to release work to different parties under different licences. For instance, a photo might be uploaded to a commercial site under a NC licence intially then later, when the photographer decides that there is little chance of selling the photo, it is uploaded here under a different licence. AlasdairW (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 08:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a press kit photo, unlikely that user was photographer or copyright holder. The source given is "Street Team" (??) CutOffTies (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 10:00, 4 June 2011 by Yann, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely own work, no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's a personal image, look at the other uploads of the same user. No educational content anyway. --Broc (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image, user-independent political compass can be found here File:Political chart.svg Santosga (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I dont think this photo was the own photographic work of the uploading user. Copyright violation? A.Ceta (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I have just written a mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to state that the photographer who took the picture has sent it to me by email allowing the use of it! You are right, it was not me that took the picture during the fashion show in Ramallah, but the photographer Alessandro Pizzi gave it to me so I can it use as I need: what should I do? Thank you for the help! Aster dani (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: see en:User talk:Aster dani for more discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Error Diego DB Araujo (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:22, 10 June 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Image is not used. Encyclopedic use seems not to be possible. High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, personal picture from the uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:Legend Rig.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This is not just typeset and geometric forms. There's a drawing of a couch, and an stylizsed globe. It's creative enough. Damiens.rf 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low resolution image previously used to illustrate deleted page sv:Maria Bideke. But that page was deleted because of missing notability. Therefor I think the image is not in Commons Scope. /Ö 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Ö 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am the person diplayed on this photo. I am asking for deletion. PatrickScales (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... This looks like on a public performance, so personality rights are not really affected. Depends on whether subject is notable. There seems to be no article on him, so I dono. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I, the photographer took this picture in a Jazz Club in Munich. I'm photographing regularly there, and not only me but also a lot of other photographers. The "officials" in the club never have any problems with this, as we try not to disturb the audience. Several of the musicians also asked me in the past if they can get the pictures. Nobody of the musicians ever told me, he does not like, that I'm taking pictures. On that evening at least 150 guests have been in the club, so it was a public performance for sure. In the German Wikipedia there is an article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Scales. Patrick Scales is Bavarian.--OhWeh (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As a matter of policy, we do not delete images under these circumstances. I also note that the User:PatrickScales has made no contributions other than two DRs. We have no way of knowing whether our user is actual the subject of this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation, see http://www.uoguelph.ca/web/graphicstandards/ Holyoke, mass (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture/composition advertising a not notable musician. Self promotion, out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Advertasing Florent Pécassou (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the license is appropriate. Flickr says, the image was taken on February 1st, 2007, which is obviously wrong. PaterMcFly (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Info Original picture appears to be for sale [3], this 350px copy can be found there. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
flickr washing, screenshot Yann (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio anyway. Good twins (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:51, 4 June 2011 by Lymantria, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
no permission, non-free content Yann (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private image host High Contrast (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a notable person: w:Nikolay Nenovsky. Trycatch (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this delightful information did not come out from file's description. Under this circumstance, this file must be kept. Trycatch, can you please help us to categorize this image, please? --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: created Category:Nikolay Nenovsky for three images Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
file uploaded without owner permission, and is licenced Valugi (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No valid evidence given why this image is in the public domain: "I believe it is in the public domain" is definately not enough and the fact that the sources credits this file as an abc-file there are some severe doubts left 80.187.110.67 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- The abc logo on the file is not a "credit", it appears there because it's a still from abc news when they aired the photo (or video, or whatever it was). If the sources say the media is from the CIA ("CIA videotaped it"), then the current license seems to be ok.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I uploaded this file my reading of the relevant articles made me believe this was an image from the recordings made of the use of extreme interrogation techniques. Since then I have seen this image as being described as an image taken, on the scene, of an injured Abu Zubaydah, shortly after he was shot while trying to evade capture. His capture was a joint mission of the CIA and Pakistani security officials We don't know whether this image was taken by CIA officials, or by Pakistani officials.
So I agree, unless we can show it was leaked by the CIA, not the ISI, that this image is not in the commons's scope. I'd like to see it moved to the english language wikipedia. It is an important "before" image. Abu Zubaydah capture and interrogation played a key role in the Bush admininstration's torture memos. We have known, for years, that Bush administration lawyers asserted that a US President could authorize "extended interrogation methods" -- including plucking out a captive's eye. About a month ago wikileaked documents showed that Abu Zubaydah's eye was in fact plucked out during the period of his initial CIA interrogations. Commentators have pointed to this image as showing that Abu Zubaydah did not seem to have any wounds that would have provided a medical reason for plucking out his eye. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
useless format, wrong licence (maybe should be some PD?) Slfi (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
this version looks like copyvio, old version of file is private photo Slfi (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - small and screenshot Slfi (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
unclear if the uploader is the photographer or author ob painting Avron (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
not notable person - private photo Slfi (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
scan from newspapers/magazine Slfi (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
the painting is big so I think this photograph may be derivate works Avron (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
DW of some artist's work (exhibited in this museum). IF this is Public domain (e.g. copyright expired) please explain why. Saibo (Δ) 21:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The artist is Juan Muñoz (1953–2001). Since this work is located indoors, COM:FOP#Spain does not apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes FOP#Spain is only for: "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares ..." --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange portrait of a professor that wrote her own autobiography on russian wikipedia. The picture is somehow spoiled, may be wrongly uploaded, and in my opinion is unusable this way even for an autobiography. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Another strange portrait of the professor that wrote her own autobiography on russian wikipedia. The picture is somehow spoiled, may be wrongly uploaded, and in my opinion is unusable this way even for an autobiography. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IGESIA_DE_SAN_JOSE.JPG#file Elvira44 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 19:02, 4 June 2011 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Publication of photos taken with the pourpose of depicting one or more specific person(s) with the person(s) consent in Denmark is illegal as per Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#A_bit_unclear_on_Consent_of_the_subject.3F and WMF resolution of May 29th 2011 on Images of identifiable people (resolution). I was not aware of that when I took and uploaded the picture and kindly requests its deletion. Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- It does not violate the resolution (which is about pictures taken in private places). But, it may be an issue with Danish law, and possibly performer's rights, so if the author requests deletion I would support that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry - I missed that part during my first read-through of the resolution :( It is still an issue with the Danish guidlines for peoples privacy at public places. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 10:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Public performance. Yann (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Publication of photos taken with the pourpose of depicting one or more specific person(s) with the person(s) consent in Denmark is illegal as per Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#A_bit_unclear_on_Consent_of_the_subject.3F and WMF resolution of May 29th 2011 on Images of identifiable people (resolution). I was not aware of that when I took and uploaded the picture and kindly requests its deletion. Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Public performance. Yann (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Publication of photos taken with the pourpose of depicting one or more specific person(s) with the person(s) consent in Denmark is illegal as per Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#A_bit_unclear_on_Consent_of_the_subject.3F and WMF resolution of May 29th 2011 on Images of identifiable people (resolution). I was not aware of that when I took and uploaded the picture and kindly requests its deletion. Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Public performance. Yann (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Hammurabi90 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.Some may be public domain, but relevant information should be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- He's almost certainly a sockpuppet of Richards88 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , already blocked for similar uploads.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme. Yann (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Junaidsidhu123 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras. Unused private photos are out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I guess that this image is related to those listed here: Commons:Deletion requests/Personal photographs by Alisidhu. Grand-Duc (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no permission from the subject Yann (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Lymantria. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
.ARCHIVO_PAREDEZ..jpg){kind=link}
and all files uploader by Jonyrh: non-free content, no permission Yann (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio screenshot. Plus it's too small to be used. Good twins (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's straight-up pornography. There is no other value to the image. - El Juano (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete + questionalbe Flickr-pic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No encyclopedic sense A.S. 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Poster does not have permission to post this file. 76.21.16.86 07:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - original uploader of source file states own work, and Burning Man is a pretty public affair. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- The original rationale given at File talk:Burning man 2.jpg was "Poster does not have the permission of my girlfriend and me (pictured) to post this file." However, the subjects of the photograph obviously know the photograph is being taken (posing for the camera), in a pretty public place. On the other hand Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg was deleted in similar circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the image were not in use I might agree to a courtesy removal. However, my general thought is that if you take off your clothes and smile for a camera, expecting those pictures to remain private is foolish. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It happens. But, no matter what they thought, there's a long distance from "agreeing to be photographed" to "agreeing to have your photo used commercially all around the world (and not getting a penny back)". And it's not only about nudity. Normally, this kind of objection was washed aside "because we don't heed non-copyright restrictions" but with this new board pronouncement I don't know how it could be kept. NVO (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no assumption about using their image commercially. That would not be allowed, but we aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- It happens. But, no matter what they thought, there's a long distance from "agreeing to be photographed" to "agreeing to have your photo used commercially all around the world (and not getting a penny back)". And it's not only about nudity. Normally, this kind of objection was washed aside "because we don't heed non-copyright restrictions" but with this new board pronouncement I don't know how it could be kept. NVO (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete only because of request of the subjects and the particular circumstance (nudity) of the photo. Burning Man is a public place, and photos taken in the open there probably don't violate privacy laws, so the poster likely does not need permission from the subjects to post the file. But, particularly when it comes to photos of nudity, inclusion on a Wikipedia article may be a bit more than they bargained for. At the very least blur the nudity portions, but I could also see deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Well ... for starters, how do we know that the rationale is from the actual subject? Was any evidence proffered to suggest that she was? That being said, Burning Man is indeed a public event with tens of thousands of participants, and it's something of a stretch to imagine that someone comfortable with 50,000 people staring at her naked would suddenly be uncomfortable about this. Without solid evidence that the protester is indeed the subject, there are no legitimate grounds to delete. Ravenswing (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Given the posting on the image's talk page, yes the request felt like it came from one of the people. Gut feel, maybe, but it feels like a legitimate request. And yes, I think being visible at Burning Man is quite different than being visible at Wikipedia. This was actually one of the topics in the recent board resolution. I think, on balance, their request should be respected more than the educational purpose. If there was a way to make them unidentifiable, maybe, but that will likely be difficult. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and comment: in fact Burning Man has a policy that any commercial use of photos taken at Burning man requires written permission from the festival -- [4] [5] (which makes free licensing of this work a bit murky, I think). They consider themselves a semi-public event -- yes, it is open, but you also have to buy a ticket and accept the terms of the intentional community to get in, which includes photo guidelines. The spirit is clear: don't invade people's privacy even if they are running around naked at a big party that you happen to be invited to as well. Because of that, as well as our consideration of subject consent (which was explicitly not given, it sounds like), the special care we should take with images that show nudity of identifiable persons, and the limited educational value of these photos (seeing as we have plenty of other burning man pictures, and these show two participants rather than any kind of scope of the event, like the major art), I'd say clearly delete on this (and the other related photos). -- Phoebe (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- comment: there's a posting on Burning Man's updated terms and conditions for photographer here: [6] -- key points include: they only allow the cc-by-nc-sa free license; "Burning Man requires written contracts with all parties interested in making a commercial enterprise out of their documentation of the event or distributing footage beyond personal friend/family networks"; etc. This is an update of the terms that were in force when this photo was uploaded, but it seems very clear that the photographer violated their contract with burning man when they uploaded this image. BM is an odd case, but all of the other considerations I noted also apply. As AnonMoos noted, this special case has been debated extensively before.-- Phoebe (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the uploader had a written contract, then maybe, otherwise photographers own the copyright to their photos and Burning Man really can't control them (short of denying them admission in future years or something like that). Or, perhaps their terms would constitute a contractual violation by the uploader -- that is their decision to risk, or not. Without a written transfer of copyright though, Burning Man has no copyright interest in the photos and cannot themselves make any restrictions based on them (though those terms are a significant improvement over their earlier ones). I support deletion in this case because of the personal nature of the photo, not any Burning Man policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- As am I -- I'm just pointing out that I'm even less comfortable with this if the uploader didn't actually have rights to the photo in the first place (because of a contractual agreement with the venue in which the photo was taken). -- Phoebe (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It would have to be a signed contract -- Burning Man cannot impose copyright transfer via an en:adhesion contract or similar ticket-back things, per U.S. law (17 USC 204). Those are required by anyone doing the permitted commercial stuff, but from previous discussions that is not attempted for all attendees. In general, "house rules" have no effect on copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Such agreements exist for the privacy of the subjects as well however. If one had a reasonable expectation that such house rules would be complied with, then one might be particularly surprised and dismayed to find one's picture all over wikipedia, which is rather in opposition to the arguments above about "what do you expect if you pose for the camera naked..." At any rate, we agree about deletion in this specific case, which seems to have a clear set of circumstances arguing for it; I agree with your assessment above that on balance the request to delete outweighs the educational use. best, -- Phoebe (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plenty of venues (say concerts) have photography rules; that does not mean they are a "private place" per privacy law -- there are tons of people about, so unless you are in a private tent or something, I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, at least per current case law. Copyright is owned by the photographer, and cannot be transferred forcibly, so to me none of Burning Man's conditions have any effect, copyright-license-wise (unless the photographer actually did sign a copyright transfer). That was all I was saying. In this case though, yes, keeping the image rubs me the wrong way -- I think we certainly should be able to illustrate Burning Man (despite their policies), but we should also be able to do that without needlessly embarrassing identifiable individuals. It's not completely impossible a judge would rule along those lines either (being that privacy is mostly a common law thing). In situations like this I would generally abide by the wishes of the pictured person (or the photographer, if they requested deletion), but probably not if simply requested by the Burning Man organization (as laudable as their goals may be, trying to force a copyright transfer via ticket stub is still pretty abusive). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Such agreements exist for the privacy of the subjects as well however. If one had a reasonable expectation that such house rules would be complied with, then one might be particularly surprised and dismayed to find one's picture all over wikipedia, which is rather in opposition to the arguments above about "what do you expect if you pose for the camera naked..." At any rate, we agree about deletion in this specific case, which seems to have a clear set of circumstances arguing for it; I agree with your assessment above that on balance the request to delete outweighs the educational use. best, -- Phoebe (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- It would have to be a signed contract -- Burning Man cannot impose copyright transfer via an en:adhesion contract or similar ticket-back things, per U.S. law (17 USC 204). Those are required by anyone doing the permitted commercial stuff, but from previous discussions that is not attempted for all attendees. In general, "house rules" have no effect on copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- As am I -- I'm just pointing out that I'm even less comfortable with this if the uploader didn't actually have rights to the photo in the first place (because of a contractual agreement with the venue in which the photo was taken). -- Phoebe (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I am one of the pictured's husband and would really like this taken off, or at the very least blurred. This has very little educational value, and there are other photos in the commons of a similar nature that could be substituted. Posting nude Photos without permission (especially considering the Policies listed above) seems to be in bad taste and seems against the policies I've been reviewing regarding deletion of files. --Freelove (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Delete
- There are potentially reasons why we could keep this, if we wanted to argue licensing minutiae. Those might not even stand up if BM's implied licence is enforceable.
- None of that matters though - we should delete this, for the reasons stated, as a very simple courtesy deletion. Having yourselves photographed naked in a somewhat-private gathering is very far from granting an informed permission for endless commercial re-use net-wide. WP & Commons are not here to cause embarassment when we can so easily avoid it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Delete as a courtesy and in deference to plain common sense. It is more prurient than necessary to convey the "clothing optional" nature of the event.Jarhed (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- question how long until this comes down? Thank you for being so understanding. This whole thing is truly a shock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.16.86 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It would be extremely useful if you signed in when participating in a opinion gathering exercise. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Does your wife know about this image? What is her opinion to this? Amada44 talk to me 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've tagged this for speedy deletion too, as there seems to be consensus to delete, yet nothing has happened for a week. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Image is in use in 3pages:
- en.wikipedia.org
- Burning Man
- Clothing-optional bike ride
- fr.wikibooks.org
- Photographie/Thèmes/Le nu
Also i ask what expectation of privacy have people that get naked in public and in front of potencially several dozens of thousands of other peoples in a public event were thousand of peoples carry photographic cameras. Also how it is proveed that the user that made the deletion request is indeed one of the persons depicted or the husband. Tm (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Use of this image on "Clothing-optional bike ride" is idiotic. It depicts nothing of the sort.--Jarhed (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Has educational value for a cultural event and USA culture. Has an appropriate {{personality}} template. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There's a related derivative image here: File:Belly-chain-and-necklaces.JPG My personal !vote to delete would extend to such derivatives too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- comment My wife is mortified by the fact that this is on the internet. One of her friends actually stumbled upon it and basically told her, "Look what I found!" Much crying ensued. I apologize that not all of my posts have been up to wiki standards. I've never done this before, and have spent quite a while reading the rules to even get to this point. Im curious as to why these (this and the other two I've nominated) haven't come down yet, I was under the impression that if a consensus was made it can come down a week after nomination, despite a few keepers it seems like most reasonable souls have sympathized and agree it should come down. Thank you all for you understanding Edit - this file also shows up on the first page of google images when you search Burning Man. Again, thank you all for your understanding. Freelove (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: While I still believe that the best way to avoid naked photos of yourself turning up online is simply to not be photographed naked, I think we should probably delete here (yes, yes, I changed my mind, I know). Photo may be in use, and may have a personality rights tag, but I ask people to think how they might feel if they found a naked photo of themselves on Wikipedia without their consent. We commonly delete images at the subject's request, even if they're just incidental. For the record, I don't believe we should care about Burning Man's terms and conditions about licencing, unless they make people sign a written contract they can only suggest copyright conditions. In the end, common courtesy - we can replace this image easily enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Poster does not have permission to post this file. 76.21.16.86 07:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - original uploader of source file states own work, and Burning Man is a pretty public affair. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 2.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)- Delete - Seems Phondras didn't get permission from the subjects. According to the policy on relatively unknown non-public figures it seems this should be taken down. (I'm the subjects husband and would like this deleted as well) It also adds a negligible amount of content to the already extensive Burning Man page. -- 03:23, 4 June 2011 User:Freelove
- Keep Image is in use in 3pages:
- de.wikipedia.org
- Freikörperkultur
- fr.wikibooks.org
- Photographie/Thèmes/Le nu
- pl.wikipedia.org
- Burning Man
Also i ask what expectation of privacy have people that get naked in public and in front of potencially several dozens of thousands of other peoples in a public event were thousand of peoples carry photographic cameras. Also how it is proveed that the user that made the deletion request is indeed one of the persons depicted or the husband. Tm (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 2.jpg Amada44 talk to me 17:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
the "apollo" on the left side could be seen as a sculpture. It is inside an amusement park and {{FoP-Nederland}} is not used. I do not know if it could be used - but I doubt that amusement parks are "public". Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands mentions inside of shopping malls but not in the inside of shops. Saibo (Δ) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to the FOP information for the Netherlands you link to, if a fee is charged it is negative. Most amusement parks has a fee so if it is also the case here, then it is not FOP and the picture should be deleted. --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you - there was too much text that I overlooked: "two negative criteria: whether an entrance fee was charged, and whether access may be denied on civil rights grounds." (Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the photo is not specifically of that (possible) sculpture. It is of a larger scene which includes the work, which changes things. Somewhat like the French case ruling, where a photo just of the Louvre pyramid is a derivative work, but a photo of the entire plaza (even if it prominently incorporates the pyramid) is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the sculpture is half of the picture and not really uninteresting to the eye as it is very unusual to see a "moon". --Saibo (Δ) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not the point. The Louvre pyramid was a big part of the plaza photo too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Carl: did you mean our Commons:De minimis policy? I think that it's not applicable here. I believe too that it's not a case of FoP, according to the wording here, so this picture is not compatible with Commons and needs to be deleted. Grand-Duc (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not de minimis. A work does not gain control over photos over the area that they are in... that is going a bit too far. France has similar rules to the Netherlands I'm pretty sure, but that has not stopped their courts from ruling that way (see COM:FOP#France for the case I'm talking about). That isn't the only one either... in 1980 in France, someone made a postcard of a night photo of a street, which prominently included a building on that street, but the photo was ruled non-derivative (since the photo was of a wider subject). Basically, it is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". Really, you are arguing that most photos taken in the amusement park are not legal, as there is going to be something copyrighted prominent in most all of them. The focus is not really on any one work in that photo though. Similarly, buildings of a city skyline can not be derivative works of buildings in non-FOP countries, even if one building is prominent in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- "as there is going to be something copyrighted prominent in most all of them." - not really, I think that an amusement park is not cluttered with sculptural and thus protected works all over the place. E.g. a roller coaster, even with some decorations, could be such an item that is not protected and is large enough that you may find several view points to depict it without copyright infringement... Grand-Duc (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Carl, enabling photographers to depict whatever (kind of) they see is just the reason for FOP - in specified places. Why should the copyright holders have not their rights where there is no FOP? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, FOP is for photographs directly or mainly of a specific, copyrightable object -- in that case, the photo is focusing on the object itself, and the point of the photo is to reproduce the copyrightable expression embodied in that object, and the reason people would buy such a photo would be largely due to the original artist/architect's expression. Once a photo is of a wider subject, the situation changes, and the objects become accessories to the wider scene -- that was shown even in France, a country with no FOP at all, where a photo of a street was not a problem even though it prominently contained a copyrightable building -- the building became an accessory to the main subject. Or a photo of an entire plaza was not derivative of the building in the middle of that plaza; same thing. France is about as strict as they come for that kind of thing, and we have no precedent for going any further in our interpretations, particularly given those concrete examples for not going further. Secondly, the Netherlands section even says a "photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground" -- and these are most certainly visible from public ground, given the looks of things on Google Maps. There appear to be residential houses inside the boundaries of their monorail even, and Google has their street view stuff throughout and surrounding the park. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not really understand you. Now you said "No, FOP", before you said "not de minimis". So, what is it then? According you what you explain in the first half of your comment you mean De Minimis. And in the last half you mean it is covered by FOP? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the French courts called it the "theory of the accessory" or something like that. The Ets Hokins case in the U.S. was vaguely similar... a copyrightable label on a bottle would not make a photograph of the bottle a derivative work of the label, since the "underlying work" was the bottle as a whole and not the label. Only a photo mainly of the label itself could be considered a derivative work. This pattern seems vaguely consistent; do you know of any photographs like the one under discussion which have been ruled derivative? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your long explanation. However, I do not see the difference between the concept of De Minimus and "theory of the accessory". Maybe because both could be translated de:Beiwerk (if I think correctly). At de:Beiwerk there is a court decision cited: "Das OLG München (NJW 1989, 404) hat aber die Darstellung eines geschützten Gemäldes in der Abbildung einer Wohnlandschaft im Prospekt eines Möbelhauses als unzulässig angesehen." → roughly: "The Higher Regional Court Munich (NJW 1989, 404) has prohibited the depiction of a copyrighted painting in a photo of furniture in a room in the brochure of a furniture store". However, this is Germany and not Netherlands. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- It does seem the courts are trying to balance the rights of photographers versus the rights of these other artists (the Ets Hokins decision in the US had basically that language); in this case (and the others I have mentioned) the copyrightable building was an unavoidable and integral part of the wider subject the photographer was trying to show (and the authors of those works knowingly placed them in those public situations); in the example above none of that seems to apply, so probably only a de minimis argument could work for something like that (and apparently did not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your long explanation. However, I do not see the difference between the concept of De Minimus and "theory of the accessory". Maybe because both could be translated de:Beiwerk (if I think correctly). At de:Beiwerk there is a court decision cited: "Das OLG München (NJW 1989, 404) hat aber die Darstellung eines geschützten Gemäldes in der Abbildung einer Wohnlandschaft im Prospekt eines Möbelhauses als unzulässig angesehen." → roughly: "The Higher Regional Court Munich (NJW 1989, 404) has prohibited the depiction of a copyrighted painting in a photo of furniture in a room in the brochure of a furniture store". However, this is Germany and not Netherlands. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the French courts called it the "theory of the accessory" or something like that. The Ets Hokins case in the U.S. was vaguely similar... a copyrightable label on a bottle would not make a photograph of the bottle a derivative work of the label, since the "underlying work" was the bottle as a whole and not the label. Only a photo mainly of the label itself could be considered a derivative work. This pattern seems vaguely consistent; do you know of any photographs like the one under discussion which have been ruled derivative? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not really understand you. Now you said "No, FOP", before you said "not de minimis". So, what is it then? According you what you explain in the first half of your comment you mean De Minimis. And in the last half you mean it is covered by FOP? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, FOP is for photographs directly or mainly of a specific, copyrightable object -- in that case, the photo is focusing on the object itself, and the point of the photo is to reproduce the copyrightable expression embodied in that object, and the reason people would buy such a photo would be largely due to the original artist/architect's expression. Once a photo is of a wider subject, the situation changes, and the objects become accessories to the wider scene -- that was shown even in France, a country with no FOP at all, where a photo of a street was not a problem even though it prominently contained a copyrightable building -- the building became an accessory to the main subject. Or a photo of an entire plaza was not derivative of the building in the middle of that plaza; same thing. France is about as strict as they come for that kind of thing, and we have no precedent for going any further in our interpretations, particularly given those concrete examples for not going further. Secondly, the Netherlands section even says a "photo of a building in a private holiday resort was considered covered by article 18 because the building was visible from public ground" -- and these are most certainly visible from public ground, given the looks of things on Google Maps. There appear to be residential houses inside the boundaries of their monorail even, and Google has their street view stuff throughout and surrounding the park. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Carl, enabling photographers to depict whatever (kind of) they see is just the reason for FOP - in specified places. Why should the copyright holders have not their rights where there is no FOP? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- "as there is going to be something copyrighted prominent in most all of them." - not really, I think that an amusement park is not cluttered with sculptural and thus protected works all over the place. E.g. a roller coaster, even with some decorations, could be such an item that is not protected and is large enough that you may find several view points to depict it without copyright infringement... Grand-Duc (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not de minimis. A work does not gain control over photos over the area that they are in... that is going a bit too far. France has similar rules to the Netherlands I'm pretty sure, but that has not stopped their courts from ruling that way (see COM:FOP#France for the case I'm talking about). That isn't the only one either... in 1980 in France, someone made a postcard of a night photo of a street, which prominently included a building on that street, but the photo was ruled non-derivative (since the photo was of a wider subject). Basically, it is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". Really, you are arguing that most photos taken in the amusement park are not legal, as there is going to be something copyrighted prominent in most all of them. The focus is not really on any one work in that photo though. Similarly, buildings of a city skyline can not be derivative works of buildings in non-FOP countries, even if one building is prominent in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- @Carl: did you mean our Commons:De minimis policy? I think that it's not applicable here. I believe too that it's not a case of FoP, according to the wording here, so this picture is not compatible with Commons and needs to be deleted. Grand-Duc (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not the point. The Louvre pyramid was a big part of the plaza photo too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the sculpture is half of the picture and not really uninteresting to the eye as it is very unusual to see a "moon". --Saibo (Δ) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- (outdent) Anyways, for this photo, COM:FOP#The_Netherlands does say we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there (as long as they're outside), and this qualifies for that -- the building on the left is most definitely visible from a public place (browse around using Google Maps), so we probably have no need to get into any other theories. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
| Camera location |   | View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap |  |
|---|
- Is it here (photographer's location view to east)? Oh, it even has a WP article: nl:Zweefapollo (Slagharen) and some web info is here.
- So in your theory of FOP#NL if a building is visible from a street you can also take pictures of it from non-public places? "as well as works visible from there" is not totally clear to me. As I do not speak any Dutch I cannot read the linked laws and decisions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what it sounds like -- if it's visible from a public place, and outside, then it is covered by FOP (no matter where the photo was taken from). Just by the wording on the FOP#NL section anyways; I can't read Dutch either, and I can't tell from the Google translation of the case exactly where the photos in question were taken from, though it seems to mention that since the building visible from both the street and water it was therefore OK to photograph (and since a photo could not have been taken from both locations, that does seem to imply only a general visibility from the public). If they wanted it to apply to where the photo was taken from, that would have been easy to make clear anyways (Germany does). The US appears to be similar actually -- the buildings just need to be visible from a public place. As for the location, yes, that's it -- Google has full street view around there too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the streetview hint - I did not notice it. Yes, it is visible from outside/public area. But this shot's perspective is clearly only possible from the restricted (entrance fee) inside area. Maybe someone from the Netherlands comes by and can explain the FOP in more detail. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what it sounds like -- if it's visible from a public place, and outside, then it is covered by FOP (no matter where the photo was taken from). Just by the wording on the FOP#NL section anyways; I can't read Dutch either, and I can't tell from the Google translation of the case exactly where the photos in question were taken from, though it seems to mention that since the building visible from both the street and water it was therefore OK to photograph (and since a photo could not have been taken from both locations, that does seem to imply only a general visibility from the public). If they wanted it to apply to where the photo was taken from, that would have been easy to make clear anyways (Germany does). The US appears to be similar actually -- the buildings just need to be visible from a public place. As for the location, yes, that's it -- Google has full street view around there too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I read the second court case as mentioned at COM:FOP: here. The judge explained that according to jurisprudence a building is considered to be in public space as long as it is visible from e.g. a public road. According to the judge the object may be the main subject of the picture, as long as it isn't completely cut out. There must be at least something of the environment visible. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Publication of photos taken with the pourpose of depicting one or more specific person(s) with the person(s) consent in Denmark is illegal as per Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people#A_bit_unclear_on_Consent_of_the_subject.3F and WMF resolution of May 29th 2011 on Images of identifiable people (resolution). I was not aware of that when I took and uploaded the picture and kindly requests its deletion. Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use, in scope, public figure, public place, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Multichill (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I know little about Danish law, but apparently taking pictures of the police at work in publicly accessible places is not illegal in Denmark, according to this link provided by Henrik at the Village Pump. By implication, neither is publishing them. So the reason given for requesting its deletion does not seem well founded, and certainly not strong enough grounds for a courtesy deletion. --Avenue (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Just a normal building of a normal village mayor's office. The resource you link to is dead, but when retrieved from the WIPO's database it obviously speaks about "reproduction of works that are on permanent display on streets, squares and other public places". I don't think that buildings, especially these of local government authorities, can be considered "works on permament display". →Spiritia 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Works includes architecture too..that's why FOP is mentioned..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, architecture... Given the age and the location, I'd doubt that any architect has been ever involved. Being a native, I can surely say that no one will ever claim copyrights on this image and advise you to save your efforts for cases which definitely violate rights. →Spiritia 05:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can surely say that no one will ever claim copyrights on this image - This statement falls under precautionary principles, where there is no evidence presented for your statements...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Works includes architecture too..that's why FOP is mentioned..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete In most countries -- France is the exception -- very simple buildings have a copyright. See, for example, these, all of which are copyrighted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Not quite just an ordinary building. Wknight94 talk 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Poster does not have permission to post this file. 76.21.16.86 07:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - original uploader of source file states own work, and Burning Man is a pretty public affair. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: has educational value for USA culture.
It was also nominated for deletion on 30 December 2010 and kept. I do not know why is was nominated for deletion again here.Snowmanradio (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)- That was a speedy keep due to a vandalous DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Photographed in a public place, so I do not understand basis of deletion request. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- comment seems to be a derivative of File:Burning man 2.jpg, so see comments there as well. -- Phoebe (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - according to the policy on unknown non-public figures, poster should need permission first. This file doesn't link to a page. I believe Burning Man is a private festival as well. (I am one of the pictured's husband, we would like this file removed.) --Freelove (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Burning Man is not a private festival, at least in regards to the policy, which follows privacy law... those are places where there are only family or friends, or where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from others around (such as restrooms and the like). That said, the policy is also to balance our needs with reasonable requests from pictured people -- Wikipedia is way higher visibility than many other places around the web, and pictures involving nudity we should be particularly careful and sensitive with. So I would say to Delete this one, per request of pictured person. Or follow the results of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning man 2.jpg, at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Burning Man is not a private festival, at least in regards to the policy, which follows privacy law... those are places where there are only family or friends, or where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from others around (such as restrooms and the like). That said, the policy is also to balance our needs with reasonable requests from pictured people -- Wikipedia is way higher visibility than many other places around the web, and pictures involving nudity we should be particularly careful and sensitive with. So I would say to
- Keep I ask what expectation of privacy have people that get naked in public and in front of potencially several dozens of thousands of other peoples in a public event were thousand of peoples carry photographic cameras. Also how it is proveed that the user that made the deletion request is indeed one of the persons depicted or the husband. Tm (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments at the original image. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal photographs by Alisidhu
[edit]
Personal images out of scope. I grouped the original three single DR into this mass DR. The nominator User:Mmxx has used "unused personal image" three times as his rationale. --Grand-Duc (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
no permission from subject Yann (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Central discussion for all of Ben's images.AerobicFox (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We have no information on the background of this images, making them high-risk Jcb (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
no permission from subject Yann (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead an arbitrarily centralize the discussion for all three of these images here, and redirect everyone here.
- That said, permission for your work is given when you upload it under a license. Unless there is some reason to believe that the subject is not the uploader there is no further requirement of proof needed. See Commons:Sexual content, a failed proposal which has attempted to increase the burden of proof.AerobicFox (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - per other DR - Jcb (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
no permission from subject Yann (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Central discussion for all of Ben's images.AerobicFox (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: see central discussion Jcb (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
NO FOP in the country (Azerbaijan) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question But is this building recent? It could be old, or not? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- From the image's information's i didn't get any age details, so its nominated..looks like an old building but not sure..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not improbable to be a recent building, we don't have information to assume it's old, the windows at least don't appear old Jcb (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Bulgaria, FOP is restricted to non-commercial use. For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing copyrightable here. Just an ordinary house. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Plain apartment building without any architectural originality. --Terfili (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete In most countries -- France is the exception -- very simple buildings have a copyright. See, for example all of which are copyrighted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plans? Maybe. But the image in question is not a plan, it's just a photograph of a typical concrete panel exterior of a typical panel house. It's just a purely functional concrete LEGO, there is no space for designer's fantasy. Trycatch (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything copyrightable. Trycatch (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Trycatch Jcb (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused image without categoryes and description, with bad name - unknown building, unknown place - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work. Art-top (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad source, questionable license and the author - site name in image. Art-top (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Good twins (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Adding three more files with the same problems (same uploader):
- --Art-top (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, by Masur
Unused photo of unidentified buildings in unidentified locations. No description, uninformative filename. 79.173.80.61 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the uploader knows the answers. NVO (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A duplicate of this image is in use at ar:قلعة شنقل. Here we get the geolocation. Some ancient castle in Turabah in Saudi Arabia. Lupo 08:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Now known and in COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, many alternatives given, e. g. this. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, many alternatives given, e. g. this, and UNUSED! Yikrazuul (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- In the future please make sure a file is unused before you nominate it for quality reasons. If a file is in use, I don't delete it for quality reasons and I'm not gonna change that. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is also no obligation for you to decide a DR, especially not before the 7 days are over. You could just add a note pointing out this matter and come back three days or so (when the usage will be replaced) to make the decision. --Leyo 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- You must replace the usage before you nominate, to give the using wiki the opportunity to revert you if they want. Also 31 - 24 is 7, so the closure of that other DR was on time. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, 28 minutes too early. :-) Yes, it was a mistake not to have replaced this single usage before. Still, there is no need for a
second mistakeoverbureaucratic action. --Leyo 12:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)- There is nothing "overbureaucratic" about not deleting a file for quality reasons if it's in use. It's just clear policy. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant.2Fbad_quality states the order-of-operations: nom, discuss, replace if consensus-to-delete after standard discussion timeframe, delete. Seems like you're saying if we get as far as consensus-to-delete, you close-reject rather than allowing that replacement to be done? Obviously it's cleaner if the nom (or someone else reading) just jumps in and does the replacement if/when it becomes obvious we're headed for a consensus to do so. DMacks (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing "overbureaucratic" about not deleting a file for quality reasons if it's in use. It's just clear policy. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, 28 minutes too early. :-) Yes, it was a mistake not to have replaced this single usage before. Still, there is no need for a
- You must replace the usage before you nominate, to give the using wiki the opportunity to revert you if they want. Also 31 - 24 is 7, so the closure of that other DR was on time. Jcb (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted
- @Leyo -- just so we don't confuse newbies -- as I think you know, we don't count minutes in the seven days. It is 13:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC) right now where I am and I can validly close any DR made on June 3. That is the setup of Commons:Deletion_requests#Latest_requests_to_be_closed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Jrberg
[edit]- File:Art of Adventure.jpg
- File:Below.jpg
- File:Elephant (2).jpg
- File:GloryInTheChaos.jpg
- File:PartyInTheSun.jpg
- File:Robots (2).jpg
- File:SunKing (2).jpg
- File:Wow (2).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
These files were all uploaded with a declaration that the uploader is the copyright holder, and releases these into the public domain. These are images of paintings by Tyler Ramsey, and there is no evidence the uploader holds the copyrights to these paintings. --Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate: File:GRAMPS icon.svg 95.53.22.254 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not exact duplicate, but seems better replacement. No need to preserve for attribution - original traced to the GRAMPS project. Demmo (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the 'duplicate' is a vector file and also quite different Jcb (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
