Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/03/13

Image is of an unnotable person and is unused on wiki. It also failed flickr review. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon^☂ 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image was uploaded on December 22, 2006 and failed flickr review the same day. Why is it still on Commons? --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon^☂ 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and all other uploads by Matheus Soares Leão (talk · contributions · Statistics). Images from different web sites without permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 1 March 2009; no license

Copyvio. http://www.dinosaurden.co.uk/dino_Aegyptosaurus.html FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as last time this was uploadd. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: http://www.encontrocomcristo.com.br/ Yanguas (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deleted as copyvio. Patrícia ^msg 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appers to fall outside of prject scope, personal picture of a user on wikipedia no use except for on that userpage Marcusmax(speak) 22:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Such images fall within the Commons:Project scope; "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed". Adambro (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My picture, and I decided I dont like it. Faazshift (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the uploader and owner and I want it deleted. Faazshift (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Personal user photo no longer in use, deletion requested by uploader/subject; no particular usefulness in any other context within project scope evident. -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Adambro (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't educational, this is pornography Manuelt15 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In use on many projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep obviously as the fact that it is used on so many projects clearly dispels the assertion that it doesn't have any educational value. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Wikipedia is of public use. Many children look up information in the Wikipedia. I think it's pretty obvious that unnecessary, vulgar or way too explicit content must be deleted without arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekangaroorat (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. In use, thus in scope. –Tryphon^☂ 08:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This video has no educational value. It dosn't give any information upon the theme: Ejaculatio praecox. It simply shows any ejaculation and can easily considered as pornography. Why do we have to accept someones exhibitionary habits disguised as educational? Lektordoc (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept - it's in use, so it has educational value. That it might be considered pornography is irrelevant. Oh and it's not a video. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is sexually explicit material. 197.76.131.76 00:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept: Per previous DRs, and Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

nicht geeignet unter 14 jahren 2003:EB:473B:1100:EC35:7C04:87CD:3346 09:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Wikipedia and WMF do not seek to obey European laws. The same reason applies to it's illegal in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia: they do not care about Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian laws. Not our problem to fix. German laws are not applicable to a court from San Francisco County, State of California. Nor to a federal US court. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Explanation given ("not suitable under 14 years") is not a valid deletion argument. See Commons:Deletion policy. - SummerPhDv2.0 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary inclusion criteria. Who decides whether a political cartoon is "defamatory"? For example, why is File:Uncle_Sam_wants_you_DEAD.png defamatory - whom is it supposed to be defaming? Uncle Sam, who's not even a real person? What about almost all of the other cartoons in Category:Political cartoons that portray their subjects in an unfavorable light - why aren't they "defamatory enough"? It looks like a category for "political cartoons we don't like." We don't do that. -GRuban (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom and pretty much the same reasons I gave when the similar categories were up for deletion. My position and that of others who commented was that defining some images as "defamtory" is very problematic. I welcome the deletion of the other categories but am disappointed that the deleting admin then created this category because it seemed to disregard the concerns that were mentioned with any category like this, not just the particular categories that we being discussed. I consider it impossible to categorise images by such a subjective criteria. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree, subjective categories tend to generate less light than heat. I'm not sure this category would be anything other than a source of controversy. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete POV. Multichill (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment It seems to me that it was a good comprise over the creation of many categories, but I don't really care... Yann (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment/Neutral: I don't care. Commons can live with this category and also without it. In fact political cartoons often attack some people, groups or ideas. --Dezidor (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete For the reasons mentioned above, I think this category should better be deleted. --Leyo 19:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The category is too subjective. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, per nomination. --Blurpeace (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nomination, and for the reasons expressed by most people at Commons:Deletion requests/Categories with "Defamatory cartoons of" by Drork. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the category is necessarily subjective: if a court rules that a cartoon is defamatory, then it probably is. That said, I think the category is actually a terrible idea - I suggested it only as a compromise position because the alternative was even more outrageous. It serves no useful purpose for consumers of our media, cannot be filled in any meaningfully acceptable way, and serves no organizational purpose.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete as it's so very subjective and it's no reasonable way to categorise images anyway. It's not like categorising by subject, colour, year or something useful and rather obvious. // Liftarn (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know if the original flickr account holder was the original photographer due to its age. (69 years) It may be a derivative and the copyright may be owned by another photographer. There are many questions on its copyright status. I think someone just scanned it and placed it on their flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I missed this but from the image description here: "(caption from original)White Lake, Bladen County NC. August 1940", it is clearly scanned from an old photo. We don't know who took the photo or the provenance of the image (which museum, etc). There is no proof it is in the public domain either. The best option is delete since we cannot verify its copyright status. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution, no meaningful description, I can't see any conceivable educational use for this image, and so think it should be deleted as out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom but it looks like it is heading towards deletion due to lack of licence info anyway. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Very unusable photo. --Korman (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for post-1978 artworks in the USA. This was unveiled for the 1st time in Palo Alto, after 1982, although this is the NY copy, unveiled in 1992. See nycgovparks.org and SIRIS

Teofilo (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were multiple copies made and made available to the public, that probably counts as "published" in post-1978 law, and since copies were put up before March 1 1989 (1984 in Palo Alto), they would need a valid copyright notice on them. I'm not sure the SIRIS description is enough to determine that though. Do these statues have any inscriptions on them at all? Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a member of the general public who wants to buy a copy been given an opportunity to order a third copy ? Was it proposed in a gallery ? In an auction ? Lupo says (between 1978 and 1989) "Sculpture remains "unpublished" unless copies are sold, lent, etc. to the general public."  : Template_talk:PD-US-statue/proposal#Need for a bright-line rule. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was offered to others for purposes of public display. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new Copyrigth for each Copy of a Sculpture? Others as a reprint of a Book? --Fg68at de:Disk 11:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:FOP#United States : unlike countries like Austria or Germany, the United States don't have Panoramafreiheit for sculptures. Teofilo (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting item from Nov 2008 -- was never closed.

Kept. Per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon^☂ 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title with wrong spelling, I provided a better alternative: File:Clapperboard.png --Producer (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete same as above. --Waldir ^talk 09:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete same as above. --SF007 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

solicitd by author --Moraleh (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising 85.177.178.63 06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Is this a screen shot? --Leoboudv (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• as long as there is no permission given it should be deleted --High Contrast (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

useless shot, totally blurry, tons of better photos in Category:Dogs and subcategories -- \mu/ 08:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Ugh! I completely agree. Delete. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

useless shot, unfixably blurry \mu/ 08:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was tagged as speedy ("logo") by the photographer who's well known for several "fights" for GFDL-1.2-only and against Commons. Anyway, I don't see a valid reason for deletion in this case. It's a trivial text logo that is ineligible for copyrights (The company exists since 1866). So if we delete this image, we have to delete numerous comparable shots too. -- \mu/ 09:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep, text-only logo, clearly no copyright issue. –Tryphon^☂ 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Das hat absolut nichts mit GFDL zu tun. Ich möchte keinen Rechtsstreit mit der englischen Firma. Auf .de ist das wegen mangelnder SH auch abgesichert, im anglo-amerikanischen Raum mit dem (c)-Modell und ganz anderen Markenrechten sieht das anders aus. Um der Thematik GFDL 1.2-only in diesem Fall die Brisanz zu nehmen: Jedermann kann die Lizenz in CC oder gemeinfrei ändern, ganz nach Belieben. (Nur bitte nicht PD, das kann ich als Deutscher nicht. --Marcela (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For whatever reason an anonymous user mentions the GFDL 1.2 issue in that case, it is a quite unqualified and unnecessary statement.
  Back to the image...  Keep, text only, no threshold of originality. --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hint for EvaK: Ralf stated there (third paragraph) that he will not requested regular deletion here, but two days ago he suddenly request speedy deletition, regardless his clear statement back in February. I only discovered this because I tagged some other files for deletion myself and checked the "speedy" category therefore. The little discussion with Ralf was a bit odd, that's why I mentioned the impression of his inconsistent behaviour that I got. He seems not to accept the existence of {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons. -- \mu/ 05:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple text logo, no need to delete. 3, 2, 1 .. keep (same non-problem as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rolleiflex-6008-rr-800.jpg) --85.183.214.234 08:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-textlogo Yann (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a not self-made T-shirt and thereby just a drivative work which can't be published under a free licence.
D-Kuru (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. This is a T-shirt you can find by truck-load in any Indian shop, and many other places. Yann (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a shirt by clockhouse
D-Kuru (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Industrial product produced in 1000s. Yann (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is seriously meant (see the Summary of the file). --Isthmus (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a piece of silliness. Isthmus (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is likely from a news source; uploader has claimed own work status on similar images SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious info. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyright claim in watermark, no link to uploader's user name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete --Korman (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyrighted design. ;o) Yann (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No meaningful description, no source, no licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sole image by this contributor failed flickr review as 'all rights reserved' within 1 month of upload. The flickr owner licenses all his images with this license. It is also unused on wiki. The best option is delete. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. as per nomination. Ciell (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it passes the originality threshold and cannot be considered PD-textlogo. Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're thinking about the "e" in the yellow circle; one could argue that even if it is stylized, it is still text in a special fonts, and since the use of fonts is not subject to copyright it would be okay. However, it's probably a stretch, and since the image is not in use, we don't lose much by deleting it. So I'm neutral on this one; I think we can legally keep it, but I'm not sure we should. –Tryphon^☂ 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say  Delete this one, even if we might keep it legally. It's unused and very small. -- Lychee (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. as per Lychee. Yann (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to state the obvious. Dorftrottel 04:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Refusing to state what obvious? The pictures demonstrate something and aren't missing any crucial information... --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no good reason in that deletion request. Peeing is life. And we don't even see her face. There's no problem at all. The only problem might be your lack of objective reason for this DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep FxJ 18.07.2008

Kept. ShakataGaNai ^Talk 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authors description says everything, + this doesn't seem to have any educational value. Marcusmax(speak) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the previous deletion request, I do not see how this picture meets COM:SCOPE, hence this re-evaluation is probably nedded. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per previous DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off thank you very much for adding the previous discussion in here, I am still a commons newbie so thank you for being so patient while I learn rules and procedures. My question is, how is this picture educational? It is not used anywhere, it is a rather poor quality picture of some random woman urinating and the uploader says "yeah,that's me showing the guys what a girl is capable of". It really does not seem to have much use, plus in the past deletion nomination the nominator did not even have a good reason as to why the picture should be deleted. Anyways if I am misunderstanding a policy could someone please post a link. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Nothing wrong with this picture (person not recognizable) and a good illustration of the fact that women can stand while urinating, which might seem trivial to some people but well that's life and encyclopedia/education have to talk about anything about life even trivial, funny or vulgar things, regardless one's own interest or despise... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not useful. probably a copyvio from the net. Damiens.rf 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep After two failed attempts to delete it, I would hope for a reason to delete the image. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reason to delete is "not useful. probably a copyvio from the net". What's the reason for keeping? --Damiens.rf 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Re not useful

    See the remarks by TwoWings on 14 March 2009.

    Re probably a copyvio from the net

    Yes, that is possible, but you did not give a reason why it would be probable. The reason for keeping is that I am somewhat an inclusionist. Too often I do not imagine good uses, which others do find. Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No clear sign of copyvio, not obviously out of scope. Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not free for commercial use. Rocket000(talk) 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not contain useful information. Moreover, it contains "latinized" Georgian instead of using the correct script. Malafaya (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in France, architect Paul Bigot died in 1942. --Coyau (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in France, Paul Bigot died in 1942. --Coyau (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis l'auteur de la photo. Et vous avez probablement raison. Toutefois, il serait utile pour tous 1. de ne pas utiliser d'abréviations sans les expliquer (FOP : Freedom of panorama, je suppose) ; 2. de donner une référence de la règle que vous appliquez (par exemple ici : Commons:Liberté_de_panorama#France) conjuguée avec la durée de 70 ans des droits d'auteur en France après la mort dudit auteur. Est-ce bien ces règles que vous appliquez en l'espèce ? J'en déduis que cette image deviendra légale en 2012... Rendez-vous dans 3 ans ! Baronnet (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the photo. And you are probably right. However, it would be helpful for everyone 1. not to use abbreviations without explaining them (FOP : Freedom of panorama, I suppose) ; 2. to give a reference of the rule you are applying (e. g. here Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France combined with the duration of 70 years of copyright in France after the death of the author. Are-these the rules you are applying in this case ? I conclude from this that this picture will become legal in 2012... See you in 3 years ! Baronnet (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'est exactement ça. --Coyau (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dura lex, sed lex. Baronnet (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in France, Paul Bigot died in 1942. --Coyau (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I hope that images like this one will be undeleted without request in 2013. --Dezidor (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - I will restore in 2013, no problem. Coyau (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I thought of keeping it but since there's no author or source, its really suspicious you know. --Korman (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen here it is used on several sites, and is probably part of a press release:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original deletion rationale: "screenshot at windows?" by User:Jonjames1986. Patrícia ^msg 23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I wonder if the visible Windows can't simply be ignored under the De minimis provision. The software itself is licensed under the {{Apache}} license, which is accepted on Commons. I am adding this request to the March 13th list, since it was not listed before. Patrícia ^msg 23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanart - keine sinnvolle Verwendung denkbar -DaSch (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment this file is used on the german wikipeda, see here. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Copyrighted logo & Fanart - unfree image, though there shouldn't be any en:threshold of originality. --Defchris (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete It's a derivative work of a fictional beer. As for the treshold of originality, we should consider case law: a real Duff beer was produced in Australia, but XX Century Fox started legal actions and won Belgrano (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, possibly copied from somewhere. TenPoundHammer (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nominator --Daniel Baránek (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the e-mail I received from the artist: Rklawton (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert,

Thank you for your quick response, I'm sure you value getting credit when credit is due... in this digital age it is very easy to have work show up everywhere.

The only other models that you have photographed that are mine are the Bambiraptor (the paintjob on the one on my website is much nicer), and the Quetzalcoatlus. The other models are owned by Mr. Darrough.

Thank you by the way for posting your work, very nicely done.

Allan D. Smith
Fossilsmith Studios
http://www.fossilsmith.com

>From: "R Lawton" <rklawton@lawtonphotos.com>
>Reply-To: <rklawton@lawtonphotos.com>
>To: "'Allan Smith'" <fossilsmith@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Photo on Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:09:48 -0500
>
>Hi Allen,
>
>I'll be happy to make these changes. Here's a link to the five images >I've uploaded. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rklawton/Galleries#Dinosaurs
>
>If you would let me know who created which models, then I'll be sure to >credit each one properly.
>
>If you could send a link to you work, I'll add that as well.
>
>Great work, by the way!
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Robert Lawton
>
> >-----Original Message----- >From: Allan Smith [2]
>Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:04 AM
>To: rklawton@LawtonPhotos.com
>Subject: Photo on Wikipedia
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>You currently have a photo of Sordes piloses on Wikipedia that was >taken at McKee Gardens in Florida. You have given creation credit to Guy Darrough. >This is incorrect, Guy does own the model, but I create quite a few of >his creatures. You can see the original information at my website listed below.
>
>I would appreciate it if you could change the credit to reflect that >the model was created by Allan D. Smith, Fossilsmith Studios.
>
>Thank You,
>
> >Allan D. Smith
>Fossilsmith Studios
>http://www.fossilsmith.com
>

Deleted. Permission should go to OTRS Huib talk 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio: http://www.achetudoeregiao.com.br/dinossauros/dinossauros.gif/angaturama1.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio: http://www.achetudoeregiao.com.br/dinossauros/dinossauros.gif/angaturama1.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from [3]: The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science program has made every effort to secure proper permissions for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however, it has either not been possible to identify or contact the current copyright owner. If you have information regarding the copyright owner shizhao (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Clearly not {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from [4]: Courtesy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Museum. The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science program has made every effort to secure proper permissions for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however, it has either not been possible to identify or contact the current copyright owner. If you have information regarding the copyright owner shizhao (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Clearly not {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pornography, commons isn't a photo album for nudists Manuelt15 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit: out of scope/vanity image, which doesn't add any educational value over our existing content. Given the uploader's other contribution, it's hard assume good faith here. –Tryphon^☂ 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the hand of an identifiable person--Ms Julie Kertezs. It may have some personality right issues and the image is unused on wiki. I don't think she intended parts of her body to be sold for profit. There are other images to replace it here on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not used, and Flickr user changed license. But "parts of her body sold for profit" is quite an exaggeration. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Commons also doesn't need any problems with an old 70 year old French lady...over such a replacable image. What do you think Ms Kertesz or her family will feel if they sees this here? --Leoboudv (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As the Flickr user changed licensed and this is very replaceable, I see no problem deleting this, but how exactly is the owner of the hand identifiable? We can't even see the person's face! Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment All anyone can do is check the image from Commons and they will see it came from Julie Kertesz's web site. People can make the connection that it is her. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"www.photobucket.com" is not appropriate as source information, no evidence for permission. High on a tree (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. :bdk: 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"www.photobucket.com" is not appropriate as source information, no evidence for permission. High on a tree (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. :bdk: 19:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Picture also on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europasaurus.png FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. A "press release" is not the same as releasing to the public domain. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source information, abandonned coin project. Copyright status unsure. Lucasbfr (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this image appeared in book published by the NASA, it is impossible that this image is in the public domain. Note: this explosion took place in the Soviet Union in 1960 - it was not created by NASA. High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please look in the book (pdf file) on page 621 (page number) "Movie cameras recorded the grizzly aftermath of the R-16 explosion at Tyuratam as in desperation men tried to run away from the growing conflagration that melted everything around the rocket." Just under the photo the name Asif Siddiqi the author of the book [5]. I have looked for copyright information in the book, I can't find any. One place it says from the authors archive, but no copyright is stated. Zilotte (talk)

I have looked in the book under page 621 and because of that I started a DR. Have you read the warnings that come up with the NASA-licence-tag? Here you are: The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain. This image of a R-16 took place in 1960 in the Soviet Union and again I assume that it cannot be a public domain NASA file. Well and you have written already that this image appears in Asif Siddiqi's' archieves which proves not that the image is in the public domain. Very doubtful. All in all the reference for this file is not depicted in a proper way. --High Contrast (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here again, the small size in my opinion doesn't compensate the fact that the drawing is (a bit) more complex than geometric shapes. Eusebius (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pruneau^talk 11:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the same as Image:Brahetrolleborg30012009ax.png 80.167.191.35 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Duplicate; this one is not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this sort of thing. I live in England, we have different laws. Could you explain the American ones to me? Thanks. Malpass93 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no autor, no description Priwo (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source Captain-tucker (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License is very doubtful. Samourt7 is probably not the author. Avron (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio of [6] at [7]; copyright presumably belongs to Modellbau-Universe / NMC Nürnberger Modell-Center und -Literatur GmbH. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyright vio Ottre 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Duplicate of File:Dulcemar Vieira.jpg. Uploader's only image. No confirmation on copyvio claim. Rocket000 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files from single-upload accounts are always hard to judge, but I'd say  keep unless there's evidence or reason to assume bad faith, none of which was provided in the nomination. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, duplicate of File:Dulcemar Vieira.jpg (no copyright problems found). Kameraad Pjotr 19:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am the origional photographer of the work. I have changed my licsence for this work to all rights reserved, please remove it immediately. Thanks 24.40.185.213 00:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. The FlickreviewR bot has verified that the work was at one point distributed by the author with a valid {{CC-by}} license. The author does not deny this and acknowledges that he "changed" the license (in reality meaning he stopped distributing it under that license, which is an important distinction). Commons chose to exercise the rights of that valid and perpetual (i.e. irrevocable) license. (See sections 3 and 7(b) of the legal code.) The work is in use at the Russian Wikipedia edition. The hosting of this file at Commons is both legal and useful, and the file should not be deleted. See also Commons:Ownership of pages and files#Deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate file. Bobtalbot61 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time use {{File:YMSPRR.row.JPG}}, please. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. dave pape (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate Bobtalbot61 (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the two (this one) should remain! Don't delete both files of a duplicate... Gürbetaler (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. dave pape (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]