Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/12

Wrong structure, -OH group is missing Mabschaaf (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Edgar181 will surely upload a corrected version soon. --Leyo 13:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Thanks for catching the error. Ed (Edgar181) 13:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Error fixed. Leyo 13:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the watermaro of this image on the left corner: www.President.ir. This is an obvious flickr copyright violation 91.57.90.45 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Yes, Parmida Rahimi is already listed as a fake account created by this persistant copyvio vandal Amir.Hossein.7055 Martin H. (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:UlricDahlgren.jpg E Wing (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The person in the photo is Ulric Dahlgren (sourced) and not Brenchley, the photographer was not an employee of the Federal government and the uploader hasn't cite a source.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – Adrignola talk 03:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icon already existing with another name (as File:BSicon vBHF-KBHFle.svg) Tener (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Duplicate file; already tagged. – Adrignola talk 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya2sine (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason given.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file does not belong to the Flickr account owner. It was uploaded to Tan Cheng Bock's Facebook page on April 8 (see profile pictures album), which predates the June 11 upload onto Flickr. The image was used by Channel News Asia, which confirms the original source. Arsonal (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author is 彭彬, living. see zh:一江山岛战役#绘画 shizhao (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author in en:Zhang Aiping, Not PD shizhao (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No evidence that this is public domain. Wknight94 ^talk 03:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this does not look like a photo from 2010. Who is the photographer? When was it shot? Saibo (Δ) 03:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio: http://guaranidivinopolis.com.br/site/?p=896 → http://guaranidivinopolis.com.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/G30.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 03:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really the author / person who did draw the image? Looks like the two other files by "Bosch Rexroth AG" File:Estacion simetrica.png and File:Estacion ergonomica.png. Is it possible that this image is also by Bosch? Saibo (Δ) 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really the author / person who did draw the image? Looks like the two other files by "Bosch Rexroth AG" File:Estacion simetrica.png and File:Estacion ergonomica.png. Is it possible that this image is also by Bosch? Saibo (Δ) 04:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Argentina there is (unfortunately) no FOP for sculptures in Argentina. ALE! ¿…? 06:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to File:Mafalda y Lourdes marzo 2010 ni.jpg and File:Mafalda.jpg. --ALE! ¿…? 06:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT Maarten Kooijman of Johan, yet a random audience member at Into The Great Wide Open 2009. Maartmeester (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of Panorama in Russia Lymantria (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Uploader's description states the subject, Reid, is the "assistant inspector general" of the "USASMDC/ARSTRAT". That sounds like a potentially important appointment, depending on the importance of this agency. So, probably not a personal album.

  The description says this public fountain is in front of "building 5220". Aren't public fountains in scope? Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "USASMDC/ARSTRAT" is the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command according to this page. Geo Swan (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; this is a low level military function. Not notable for Commons or any Wikimedia project, thus an educational use of this file because of her assistant-role is not given. --High Contrast (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to take the position that her position was notable enough to merit images of her -- merely that it was a possibility.

  I did a google search of building 5225. I found a bunch of images, all the others were from the Category:Redstone Arsenal. Would you agree that images from the Redstone Arsenal are in scope? I suggest if the decision was made that the fountain was in scope, but the inspector general wasn't, this image should nevertheless be retained, so images cropped to show just the fountain could point to the original image it was derived from. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The "fountain" is merely a water jet in a pond. If the individual were in uniform, it might be in scope -- as is, it is just a personal image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear whether this image falls under a PD-Army licence High Contrast (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Sparky was created in 1951 for an Advertising Council campaign, not a copyrighted character, just trademarked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Advertising Council campaign under a PD-Army licence? Evidence for that? --High Contrast (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.army.mil/article/28788/ - not army, but "National" to me suggests a Federal license; 1950's images would certainly be free as no-notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The was uploaded with a PD-Army licence.
I doubt the this certain image is from the 50ies. The arrangement and the quality of the image seem to be more modern, as stated: from October 15, 2009. The "National Fire Protection Association" (NFPA) is no US governmental organisation. Their material is copyrighted. NFPA material is not free. --High Contrast (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wird ncht gebraucht 87.170.178.203 09:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep you might want to read Commons:Project scope and it is in use at de:Dresdner Heide. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This screenshot and similar (see <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Boloomo>) should be deleted unless there is a specific release from the verifiable copyright holder via OTRS. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watermark in upper left corner suggests this image is not own work by the uploader "Marta vips". Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright is listed as (C) Rob Rich at the Flickr site with no evidence that owner of account is Rob Rich, Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright is listed as (C) Rob Rich at the Flickr site with no evidence that owner of account is Rob Rich Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image taken from here not likely to be in PD Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Painting of an historical figure. Obviously not self-made by original tr-wiki uploader as claimed, but likely also not old enough for PD-art; style seems modern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that this painting was painted by the uploader himself as claimed. JuTa 12:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrightable table, evidently from a scholarly print source, highly unlikely to be original uploader's work; not PD-ineligible as claimed; original source missing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a poster, and the image at Wikipedia is tagged as non-free. This image is thus possibly 'non-free use' which is not technically allowed on Commons.. 212.225.123.202 11:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW from non-free media. Blacklake (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a photo of a TV screen. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of commercial software - not commons-compatible SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of commercial software - not commons-compatible SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of commercial software - not commons-compatible SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of unstated copyright status Ben.MQ (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image_casebook#Trademarks - background is is photo → copyrighted. Maybe even the text due to texturing, 3d design Saibo (Δ) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr license laundering? uploaded to flickr 1 hr before uploading to commons Ben.MQ (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete TinEye shows this picture here as well. http://data.whicdn.com/images/2852718/4664791292_57ca4ed6c4_z_large.jpg Warfieldian ^(talk) 04:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nominator. Flickrwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is own work as it is the official logo of this tv station. COM:L. Saibo (Δ) 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader did change the source now from "Trabajo Propio" to http://www.canal15.com.ni/ Still wrong author and license. --Saibo (Δ) 22:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also e.g. at http://chromatv.com.ar/blog.html since 01/08/2010 I do not think you are the photographer. Please do not grab images from the web. Saibo (Δ) 15:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and Mamilo masculino2011.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this image is copyright by Harald Finster and has been published on Wikipedia without permission 91.57.174.161 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nomination. Looking at the uploader's log, it appears that he often tags as "own work" works that are actually from other people and that he collected from different places. (A verification of all his upoads should probably be done, if someone is motivated.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

soruce is "Yuka Hirata blog (Read June 09, 2011)". Sorry, we need the photographer's permission via email. Saibo (Δ) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 02:21, 13 August 2011 by Martin H., closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted product logo. Kelly (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture of 1986 building in France, country with no FoP (sorry for the update, I thought the building was much older) Léna (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ing in France, country with no FoP (sorry for the update, I thought the building was much older) Léna (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ing in France, country with no FoP (sorry for the update, I thought the building was much older) Léna (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ing in France, country with no FoP (sorry for the update, I thought the building was much older) Léna (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ing in France, country with no FoP Léna (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep as De minimis, but the other photos of the same author are not. --Tangopaso (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me ? The town hall is half the pixels of the picture, the other half being the sky. Léna (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photography of a 1986 bulding in France, country with no FoP Léna (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

unsuccesful translation via SVGTranslator Mozzan (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I recently uploaded File:Harrison New York Temple map.JPG. At that time, I failed to realize that I already uploaded this map, which that accomplished the same thing. However, they are not "exact" copies of each other, so I can't "speedy delete" the duplicate image. I see no reason to have both images as they "Map" the same location and both use the same image from USGS. They are only cropped differently. Please note that the "White Plains New York Temple" was renamed the "Harrison New York Temple", which is why I made this mistake. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Both are in use. Please clean that up and then nominate one again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It is a logo of Citcorp -- among other things, third largest bank in USA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bad name Alenutka (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: please use {{Rename}} -- a bad name is not a reason to delete a file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bad name Alenutka (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: please use {{Rename}} -- a bad name is not a reason to delete a file.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse trap location? I think this is more a joke than something useful. Not used. Avron (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is copyvio because of the bad cropping. Not used. Avron (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image is watermark with copyright notice, I don't know if we can trust the uploader. OTRS message would be helpful. Avron (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

self promotion? not used Avron (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unuesed text-image, should be in text -form in wikipedia. Avron (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal work Avron (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Bulwersator (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is never OWN WORK, nor was this photo taken in 2011 91.57.90.45 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader :

• GeographBot (talk · contribs)

ANDROBETA (talk · contribs) tagged this file with speedydelete with the rational : Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg and Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay (derivative work of a copyrighted character).

As this photo is not a direct derivative of the other image (like a cropped version), i disagree with speedying it. So i removed the speedydelete and nominated it for deletion, so that community can express advice related to this specific image. --Lilyu (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• other files added by ANDROBETA (talk · contribs) to this mass DR:

1. File:Darth Vader in Star Wars exhibition.jpg
2. File:Darth Vader from Lego.JPG
3. File:Darth Vader costume.jpg
4. File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 13 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
5. File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 14 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
6. File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 15 (Darth Vader and a pirate).JPG
7. File:Emperor's Royal Guard & Darth Vader cosplayers at WonderCon 2010 2.JPG
8. File:Darth Vader in Star Wars exhibition (2008).jpg
9. File:Emperor's Royal Guard & Darth Vader cosplayers at WonderCon 2010 1.JPG
10. File:Darth Vader cosplayer at WonderCon 2007.JPG
11. File:Kalle ja batman.JPG

What is there to talk about? It's exactly the same case. Either derivatives of copyrighted characters are allowed either they aren't. I can't see how a balloon in the shape of Darth Vader's head (among other balloons in that image) can be deleted and this one not :P. --ANDROBETA 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just speedy tagged, hardly considering the case. You also tagged more than 25 other files, including cosplay, which has nothing to do with Dark vador and Ballons. Also, the countries are different -> different copyright laws. Also, i don't consider a successful DR automatically create a new policy, thus other images, especially if they are here for years or have successfully passed a DR in the past for example, should be studied in a mass DR or specific DR for each image, not by tagging them for speedy deletion.--Lilyu (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay may have nothing to do with Darth Vador and balloons but it may have with being a derivative work of a copyrighted character :P --ANDROBETA 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You consider there can be no differences, and that the decision on the previous DR should apply to any photo depicting sutff related to star wars characters. Let me try to show you there can be some, let's consider the following situation :

The object is an official derivative product (not a copyvio). (difference with the balloon case)

The object is permanently installed. (difference with the balloon case)

The country has a COM:FOP, which is the case here (United Kingdom).

Than the photo of it is NOT a derivative work (the copyright on the fictional character is not transfered).

Also, consider there IS a case law in UK that state that G. Lucas copyright do not apply to star wars helmets (in that law case, it was mostly storm troopers helmets i think).

That's why each image should be studied case by case, or at least in a mass DR... but you tagged a too wide variety of photos (ballons, cosplay, different countries, etc) to put all of them in a single mass DR.--Lilyu (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, considering THIS specific photo, i really have no idea and i prefer to let people check and decide by themselves, there might be other points i didn't thought of. If i knew you had tagged with this abusive rational so much images and not only this one, i would just have reverted your tag without opening this DR.--Lilyu (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by official? If you mean that the derivative is released by the copyright owner, it makes absolutely no difference. Taking a picture of a 3d copyrighted character of theirs is the same as taking a picture of another picture with that copyrighted character. So it's still copyrighted.

So what if it's permanently installed? If they would have permanently installed that balloon there, would've that make a difference in it's copyright status?

Freedom of panorama applies to panoramas, that is when the captured copyrighted item just randomly happens to be there and is not the subject of the image, like it is in all the images tagged by me.

I only tagged american copyrighted characters cosplay (though this one may be some stuffed figure or smtn) and a Joker fan art (which doesn't comply at all with Commons copyright policies).

Besides, this image really is useless just considering it's quality and the fact that there are other better images of it's kind (not for long though >:) ). --ANDROBETA 17:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but maybe you should avoid mass tagging copyvios if you dont understand what is COM:FOP and the difference with com:de minimis. *sigh* --Lilyu (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the original nominator has been cloning the deletion template on other images which are not even mentioned here, and revert warring, restoring them even after being asked not to do so (ex. [1], [2]). I hope somebody can clean this mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• COM:POINT : i'm not going to clean that mess, and there's not going to be any rational discussion supported by policies and copyright laws... I'm out of here.--Lilyu (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lilyu, I admit that I didn't had the time to study all the policies in detail, but this should say more than enough: Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay.

Piotr, please retain yourself from making such absurd statements. I've been "cloning the deletion template"? Do I have to list all the files I nominate for deletion at every deletion request discussion page (and update each list as I nominate more)? Revert warring? Do you even know what that means? I previously added a speedy deletion template because I considered those images to be obvious copyright infringement and I still do. I was told by some that they do not consider it obvious copyvio and someone reverted my edits. So I added a regular deletion template so that the cases are analysed individually (though this is only wasting time). What mess? If anything I'm only helping cleaning up commons of copyrighted material, before issues may occur. --ANDROBETA 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to tell that I didn't notice that the delete template I copied from here was sending to the same discussion page, so I made it into a mass deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/2011/08/12#File:Darth Vader - geograph.org.uk - 1379636.jpg. --ANDROBETA 11:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The two exhibition photos might have been all right, but they are from Spain which has no FOP indoors or for non-permanent displays. The others are all private creations, almost certainly unlicensed, and therefore copyvios themselves.

Note, please, that User:ANDROBETA's comment:

"Freedom of panorama applies to panoramas, that is when the captured copyrighted item just randomly happens to be there and is not the subject of the image, like it is in all the images tagged by me."

is not correct. FOP applies whenver it fits, even if the copyrighted item is the principal subject of the photo. Thus, File:De tre vingarna, Alexander Calder.JPG is OK because it is in Sweden where there is FOP for sculpture. It would not be OK if it were in the USA.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a British film. It's in the PD in the US because of the 1903 release date, but in the UK, its country of origin, it is not, because its director died in 1953. So it will enter the PD there in 2024. Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant part of the British Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for films, according to which “Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of the following persons— (a)the principal director, (b)the author of the screenplay, (c)the author of the dialogue, or (d)the composer of music specially created for and used in the film.” There was no music (silent film), and as far I can make out (en:Alice in Wonderland (1903 film)), the other three persons are all the same: en:Cecil Hepworth, who died in 1953.

We also have several stills from the film:

• File:Alice in Wonderland 1903 film title.jpg
• File:Alice in Wonderland 1903 film tea party.jpg
• File:MayClark.jpg --Rosenzweig τ 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a low-quality single still from the film, of no inherent commercial value, which should certainly help it to qualify for fair use. Evertype (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But fair use material is not allowed here. You might try your luck at the English wikipedia. --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File has been undeleted and marked with {{fair use delete}} and awaiting migration to enWS. This will need to reclosed after migration and redeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored It's 2024. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like fake. Seems to be a picture of Diego Benaglio. Leyo 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that the uploader has rights to the image, an official architectural drawing of a building. Disavian (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture seems not to be taken by the uploader (scan). Leyo 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption says that the image must not be used for certain commercial reproductions... this is an unacceptable license for Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've seen that the file was in "public domain" released like the others: Category:Topographic maps of the Faroe Islands, and this isn't a commercial use.. What's the matter? --Betta27 (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons requires freedom to use images commercially.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is certainly not a personnal of work EUsedtrue because it's directly drawed out from Anyango Website Omondi (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the page this came from that indicates they have rights to this image, or that it would be CC 3 even if they did. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bonsairolex cannot give a permission by "dr. andres cordova" that "dr. andres cordova" allows him to publish this photo under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license 91.57.90.45 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a copyrighted website ([3]) with no indication the permission was given to release the image into the public domain (i.e. COM:OTRS). Themeparkgc  Talk  23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a better version and linked that one to the wiki pages that were previously linked to this one Charles01 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a better version and linked that one to the wiki pages that were previously linked to this one Charles01 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo, website states that all rights are reserved, probably false claim of authorship. Mathonius (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete and File:Kurd1.jpg; not simple shape/text.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is again a pointless copy of a Wikipedia template to Commons. The dablink template is supposed to go with a certain CSS style that allows users to customize the appearance. We don't have this CSS and I don't know if that's really necessary. The few remaining templates that still use this template can just be replaced with a simple <div>, as this has the same effect. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, there are more than enough templates of this sort already. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless copy from en.wikipedia, not useful for Commons. We have our way of dealing with these issues. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on an angle, provided a higher quality and leveled angle alternative Wykymania (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: substandard image quality; better alternatives have been uploaded by this User High Contrast (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

provided a video version, better portraying of on screen events Wykymania (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Far better alternative is given that is better usable for eduactional purposes High Contrast (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Subject is apparently the uploader who claims "own work". Since it appears not to be a self-timer image, who is actually the photographer and owns the copyright?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete No value to the project that I can see --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, out of focus. Subject is apparently the uploader who claims "own work". Perhaps it is a self-timer image, but we need to clarify who took the image and who owns the copyright?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Pinto ereto2.png. Out of Commons:Project scope: what is new there in comparison with Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - the same question can be asked for additions to Category:Monge (A601), and that is just the same object over and over again, from far far away. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Per nom, and as to this Category:Monge (A601): Is there a way to mass tag pictures for deletion with a single klick? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know; for mass uploads there are tools like Commonist, mass deletions are tedious work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not clear why the photographer should be an employee (in duty) of the USAF - even cannot find this image at the source. Saibo (Δ) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Pretty sure this is an official USAF photo - to verify, I can ask the NARA to take a look for me. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per [4] Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thank you! Sounds trustworthy.  Keep now. But anyway: could you please mention the correct source? It is not available at http://www.historyforsale.com/html/prodetails.asp?documentid=258657, is it? --Saibo (Δ) 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't? What does the link take you to? I had User:Quibik clean the image up a bit from the source (watermark removal, levels). Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aah, if I enable Javascript (had it disabled for this site by default) it takes me to http://www.historyforsale.com/productimages/jpeg/258657.jpg when I click on the thumb. Okay, sure - if this big version (which I did not see before) has been manually reworked/retouched everything is clear now. If possible mention (for web sources) the html page where the image is and a direct link to the jpg. Then I would have understood it. Oh, and of course, make a note that and what exactly (if possible) has been reworked. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I'll see what I can do. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfect - also from a content point of view! :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plik nie jest nie jest wykorzystywany/Mój własny błąd w przesyłaniu PaPaKo (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay. The file's description page does not give any reason why this photo of the mask / costume is no DW. Saibo (Δ) 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to myself: There are many more: Category:Baseball team mascots --Saibo (Δ) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay Jcb (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay. The file's description page does not give any reason why this photo of the mask / costume is no DW. Saibo (Δ) 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay Jcb (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other photos uploaded by Ljbouere (talk · contribs) and attributed to Mairie de Plouarzel. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nominator. Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Beispiel Deckblatt der Neuen Reihe 1925.png
• File:Beispiel Sammelblatt der Neuen Reihe 1925.png
• File:Wappen der ehemaligen Gemeinde Aubing.png
• File:Berun Wappen.png
• File:Beuthen O.S. Wappen.jpg
• File:Bladen Wappen.png
• File:Borislawitz Wappen.png
• File:Breslau Wappen.png
• File:Bromberg Wappen.png
• File:Cammin arms.png
• File:Coat of arms - Thamsbrueck.png
• File:Deutsch-Neukirch Wappen.png
• File:Dobrilugk Reklamemarke Kaffee Hag (Alter Fritz).jpg
• File:Wappen Eisenbachm.svg
• File:COA Everloh.jpg
• File:Falkenberg Wappen.png
• File:Georgenberg Wappen.png
• File:Gleiwitz CoA.png
• File:Gleiwitz Wappen.png
• File:Goerlitz Wappen.png
• File:Gottesberg Wappen.png
• File:Groß Strehlitz Wappen.png
• File:Guttentag Wappen.png
• File:Herb Sepolno Stary.gif
• File:Jakobswalde Wappen.png
• File:Joachimsthal wappen.PNG
• File:Kallmuenz-wappen.png
• File:Kattowitz Wappen.png
• File:Kirchhain Reklamemarke Kaffee Hag (Alter Fritz).jpg
• File:Klein Strehlitz Wappen alt.png
• File:Koenigshuette arms.png
• File:Krappitz Wappen.png
• File:Krems Coa.jpg
• File:Köslin Wappen.png
• File:Landeshut arms.png
• File:Langendorf Wappen.png
• File:Leschnitz Wappen.png
• File:Liegnitz Wappen.png
• File:Loslau Wappen.png
• File:Lublinitz Wappen.png
• File:Marne-Wappen.png
• File:Wappen Massbach.png
• File:Wappen Mellrichstadt.png
• File:Myslowitz Wappen.png
• File:Gemeindewappen Nachrodt-Wiblingwerde.svg
• File:Neisse Wappen.png
• File:Neustadt O.S. Wappen.png
• File:Nikolai Wappen.png
• File:Oels Wappen.png
• File:Oppeln Wappen.png
• File:Peiskretscham Wappen.png
• File:Pitschen Wappen.png
• File:Pless Wappen.png
• File:POL Miastko COA 1.svg
• File:Posen Wappen.png
• File:Proskau Wappen.jpg
• File:Provinz Pommern Wappen.png
• File:Provinz Posen Wappen.png
• File:Provinz Schlesien Wappen.png
• File:Ratibor Wappen.png
• File:Reichenbach Wappen.png
• File:Rosenberg Wappen.png
• File:Sagan Wappen.png
• File:Wappen Sandau 1926.png
• File:Schmargendorf Wappen.gif
• File:Sohrau Wappen.jpg
• File:Staedtel Leubus Wappen.png
• File:Steinau O.S. Wappen.png
• File:Stettin Wappen Hupp.png
• File:Stralsund Wappen Hupp.png
• File:Tost Wappen.jpg
• File:Treptow a.d.Rega arms.png
• File:Troplowitz Wappen.png
• File:Ujest Wappen.png
• File:Wappen Allenstein (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Arnswalde (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Bahn (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Berlin Friedenau.jpg
• File:Wappen Berlin-Heiligensee.png
• File:Wappen Bremen Hupp.png
• File:Wappen Buchloe (Otto Hupp - 1920er).png
• File:Wappen Buer Westf.jpg
• File:Wappen Cammin1.png
• File:Wappen Daber (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Damgarten1.png
• File:Wappen Domnau (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Dueshorn.png
• File:Wappen Duisburg-Hamborn.png
• File:Wappen Fallersleben (Wolfsburg)2.png
• File:Wappen Froschhausen.png
• File:Wappen Ichtershausen.jpg
• File:Wappen Koelleda (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Kreis Mohrungen.gif
• File:Wappen Loppersum.png
• File:Wappen Marienberg (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Neustettin1 Freistaat Pr.png
• File:Wappen Pyritz.png
• File:Wappen Retz.jpg
• File:Wappen Rudolstadt (Otto Hupp).png
• File:Wappen Schraplau.jpg
• File:Wappen schwanheim.gif
• File:Wappen Swinemünde1.png
• File:Wappen Thüringer Tiergarten.png
• File:Wappen Travemuende.png
• File:Wappen Wattenscheid 1920.jpg
• File:Wappen Wattenscheid bis 1937.png
• File:Wappen Wernigerode 1903.png
• File:Wappen Wesermünde1.png
• File:Wappen Westerhusen.png
• File:Wappen Wuelfrath bis 1937.png
• File:Woischnik Wappen.png
• File:Ziegenhals Wappen.jpg
• File:Zülz Wappen.jpg

Images in the category Category:Coats of arms by Otto Hupp are tagged with various licences. Most of them claim that the images are public domain because of the author's death is more than 70 years ago. That is not correct: Otto Hupp died in 31th January 1949 in Oberschleißheim. Therefore the images become public domain not earlier than 2020. --JesperZedlitz (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Undeletion request. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the author's copyright term has now expired, I have undeleted those files with a source. On this note, these coats of arms would still be eligible for {{PD-Coa-Germany}} Files that still remain deleted did not have a proper source. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of non-free, copyrighted board game pieces.

• File:RiskCannon.jpg
• File:RiskCavalry.jpg
• File:RiskSoldier.jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear source and authorship information, and no sign that the legitimate copyright holder approved the stated license. The source is stated to be Rafael Calventi, who is apparently an architect, and the author is variously stated to be Ricardo Briones or Rafael Calventi. The uploader's username bears no resemblance to either of these names, and it's not clear who Briones is or who actually took the photos. Three different cameras and three different scanners were used.

• File:Libro "Arquitectura Contemporánea en República Dominicana".jpg
• File:Palacio de los deportes de Santiago de los Caballeros.jpg
• File:Interior de la Residencia Mastrolilli .jpg
• File:Palacio de los deportes de Santiago de los Caballeros..jpg
• File:Monumento a la Restauración.jpg
• File:Monumento a la Guerra de Restauración de la República Dominicana..jpg
• File:Residencia Mastrolilli..jpg
• File:Residencia Mastrolilli .jpg
• File:Torre Libertador.jpg
• File:Interior del auditorio del Banco Central de República Dominicana..jpg
• File:Banco central, interior..jpg
• File:Palacio Deportes Santiago.jpg
• File:Banco Central de la República Dominicana.jpg
• File:Banco Central 01.jpg
• File:Rafael Calventi 01.jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as the previous nomination. Instead of commenting on that, the uploader chose to add more photos with the same problem.

• File:Lateral edificio Palic.jpg
• File:Patio residencia Mastrolilli.jpg
• File:Fachada Mastrolilli.jpg
• File:Torre Libertador (detrás).jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jameslwoodward deleted those files: Reason: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source. --High Contrast (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verstoß gegen die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Abgebildeten: Franz Prokop ist zwar de:Person der Zeitgeschichte, Gernot Rammer wahrscheinlich auch. Dies trifft aber nicht für die beiden Kameraleute und den Sohn Prokops zu. Eine Einwilligung der Abgebildeten ist aus der Freigabe nicht zu erkennen. Siehe auch: [5] Three of the five persons shown on this image are no public figures. According to personality rights it should be deleted (violation of austrian law). See also: german law, austrian is simmilar [6] Marcus (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crop it an then  Keep -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Clearly a very public occasion with loads of cameras around. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and the cameramen aren't public peoble... You can also crop the picture, but what will you do with the child? You need a statement of Franz Prokop that his child can be published, otherwise you have a problem for publishing this picture without the knowledge of the people shown. And on the other hand: what shows this image? The persons could be speek about chilkdren rights, may be. Who knows it? The description of the image writes abount a Smart Mob, but you can see anyone, didn't you. Marcus (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious infringement of personality rights: Austrian laws criminalise the use of unauthorised photographs of a person with no notability.--JordiCubero (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one is around this many cameras, authorization is obvious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply to a small child ("All those formally granted children's rights...")... Well, talking seriously, Austrian privacy laws affect the circumstances in which you may use images of people. It does not matter if the photo is taken in a public situation. You need a written permission from the parents of the girl in order to publish her photography. Or make her face irrecognizable (and cut out the two men on the ends) ...if you like.--JordiCubero (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that that is true. References? Anyway, all this is can be taken care of by {{Personality rights}}. It is not a copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference is given above. Or have a look at [7]. Of course it is not a copyright problem, it is a personality rights problem ("Verstoß gegen die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Abgebildeten" as Marcus said = "Obvious infringement of personality rights", as I said in my first statement), and therfore the picture should be deleted, since its publishing is illegal in Austria (and many other countries in the world).--JordiCubero (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wote:"You need a written permission from the parents of the girl in order to publish her photography." There is no support for that in those links that you gave. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons wrote: "Germany: (...) Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: Requires consent, unless it is a Person der Zeitgeschichte (public figure)." (Austrian legislation contains more or less the same regulation.) This is exactely what I said. Consent means permission, authorisation. Of course it has to be written, at least if you want to publish the photography on the Wikimedia Commons website, due to the fact that you have to prove it. If you publish the girl's photography on your personal website, you may trust in what parents just told you orally. But if you do not have explicit, provable permission, you cannot publish the picture here. There is no such thing as "implicit authorisation" except for so called Personen der Zeitgeschichte (people known in the public sphere).--JordiCubero (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Law is not exactely the same as the legislation in Germany (stated above), but results are more or less the same. In order to be more precise, I added Austria to the country list in the Personality-Rights-Guideline, pls see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Austria. Reference is given there (though in German language).

Pieter's argument ("authorization is obvious") could be acceptable in relation to the two unknown cameramen (accidental appearance, although this is not applicable for publicity purposes), but does still not apply to the small child (clearly a private issue). Mr Prokop may claim a "legitimate interest" in not being published his son's photography. You need a written permission from the parents in order to publish the photography.--JordiCubero (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I do not agree with the latest statement: Parents can waive the rights of their children. And bringing your kid to a public event as a public figure and holding it on your arm while giving an interview is an implied agreement. --h-stt !? 13:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I had the same thought cross my mind. On the other hand the privacy rules for children generally adopted by the courts are still very strong, and showing yourself (or your child) in a public situation does not necessarily imply your consent to publish the photographs taken on this occasion under a free license.

According to ECHR jurisprudence children would be private nearly everywhere, if not paraded deliberately in front of the press.

In Germany, a written consent to use and publish the image must be obtained from any person recognizably depicted, except public figures and people participating in a public event. Celebreties' children are (or were usually) not considered public figures.

Austrian law is not as strict in terms of permission and more flexible in interpreting the "legitimate interest" of the subject according to the individual case. If there was no explicit or implicit authorisation, a person can oppose to their portrait being made public, alleging reasonable interests.

I now learned also that re-use of images, in terms of personality rights, is not a Wikimedia's problem (this makes sense, of course), so truly there is no "possible use for publicity purposes" Prokop could argue with.

After all, infringement of personality rights is not as obvious as I thought initially and Henning's statement could be a valid argument. On the other hand, the image could still considered to be unacceptable since it is at least arguably illegal in the country in which the photograph was taken. Now unsure.--JordiCubero (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@h-stt: war das ein Fernsehinterview? Wohl kaum, denn die Kameras zeigen in die falsche Richtung. Prokop hält in diesem Moment auch keine öffentliche Rede, aus dem Bild ist noch nicht mal ersichtlich, ob er Gernot Rammer in dem Moment ein Interviev gibt. Rammer kann genau so gut die Veranstaltung blos kommentieren. Im Moment ist nicht klar, ob Prokop bei der Veranstaltung eine tragende Rolle gespielt hat, oder nur als Zaungast neben Rammer stand. Grüße Marcus (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I added {{Personality rights}} to the image description page Jcb (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of the Greek alphabet in a made-up Greek font, falsely claiming to be an example of an historic script style (uncial). Unauthentic, hence no legitimate educational use. Uploaded by sock of cross-wiki vandal en:User:Wikinger and used for disruption on several wikis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination statement is being vandalised by the uploader [8]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this nomination statement is abusive and derogatory and needs arbitration. Constantinople (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalized but cleaned of derogatory and abusive suspicions which are breaking both en:WP:CIVIL and en:Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Especially civility was broken in spirit of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility which says:

"In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong."

I am interesting mainly in 24 letter Byzantine alphabet, only occassionally intending to strip original research where noticed by me in loosely related topics. Constantinople (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This deletion request appears to be nonsensical - files with similar graphic forms are treated oppositely, see unfair derogatory double standards applied here [9] in File:CopticLetters.png. Constantinople (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise -- This one doesn't have any "extras", but confines itself to the basic standard Ionian 24 letters, so I'm not completely sure what you're objecting to. If it's a typeface sample of a modern pseudo-uncial font, rather than a true medieval script, then just label it as such. I used a modern pseudo-uncial font for File:Blason_Sainte-Mère-Eglise_50.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's some kind of pseudo-Coptic-looking typeface, of a kind that to the best of my knowledge has never been used for Greek. It seems to be just a compilation of the letters at en:Coptic alphabet. Needless to say, if it was authentic uncial, it would not have upper and lower case forms; that's basically a contradiction in terms. I don't know in what category to put it. It can't stay in the Category:Uncial; it can't go in any of the subcats of Category:Greek alphabet I know. Wikinger was trying to put it on various wikipedia pages all over the place, and as long as it's here, it will serve as an attractor for him to mess around with it yet more – as you said elsewhere, just as a light attracts moths. Is this guy still not considered banned here to the extent that we can simply eradicate everything he does without having to freaking discuss it first? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that File:ConstantinopleCases.gif is redundant because it has no legitimate use where File:CopticLetters.svg would not be preferred, then it would have been clearer to say so. Certainly anything Wikinger-generated which appears to give "extra" letters beyond the Ionian 24 any kind of unwarranted prominence must automatically fall under grave suspicion, but I'm not sure about "delete on sight" unless he's violating the terms of some ban... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_16#"Wikinger" using impersonation socks, which led to indef blocks of multiple sockpuppets. Thie new account is clearly another block-evading sock. It has been lying and cheating even on this very page, its activities have been combined with the usual spat of related IP edit-warring [10] and open-proxy games on multiple other wikis. What the hell more do we need until we finally close the lid on this one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise -- I understand you feel very strongly about the matter, but your original deletion rationale did not include either of the two statements "This image is uselessly redundant to File:CopticLetters.svg" or "This image was uploaded by a banned user violating the terms of his ban", so it was by no means as clear or compelling as it could have been... AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "uselessly redundant" to File:CopticLetters.svg. It's wrong. CopticLetters.svg is a representation of the Coptic alphabet, and it's correct as such. This one is only the subset of Coptic letters that also exists in Greek. It isn't a correct representation of either the one alphabet nor the other. And it was created with the sole purpose of vandalizing a page [11] on a project where Wikinger has long been banned too, and where he regularly does stuff like this [12]. Yes, I'm angry now; I strongly resent even having to discuss anything this person does. Block-revert-ignore is the only appropriate response to him, and it is highly disconcerting to see that Commons may be acting as a safe haven for him systematically empowering his disruption elsewhere. (BTW, I didn't mention the other file in the original nomination because I hadn't yet realized the glyphs were taken directly from there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite of being treated by FPAS in derogatory, abusive and uncivil manner I explain that file discussed here can be used as illustration of direct Greek ancestor of Coptic alphabet immediately before adding Coptic additions. Constantinople (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can't. The specifically Coptic stylistic adaptations shown in this typeface were developed only in Coptic, after its writing system split off from Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. I think when I make good faith mistakes, they should be corrected, not vaporised as in Orwellian w:en:Nineteen_Eighty-Four, to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody likes his good faith edits vaporised. Constantinople (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it currently has an invalid license, since it claims PD despite being derived from a CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL image... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly relevant; typefaces are PD-ineligible. The other image is mistagged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: please be careful with accusations - this nomination is directed at oploader, not at the file Jcb (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the PD-Sweden tag is correct here. It can be applied to fotografiska bilder published before 1969, and fotografiska bilder is defined as press images and the like lacking originality (sv:Verkshöjd#Fotografi, English translation). This is clearly a posed photograph for an album cover, hardly lacking originality. Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is not a photographic work, which were meant to be rare; artsy photos, signed by the artist, typically sold in limited editions to art lovers. Ordinary photography for press, product advertising, etcetera are fotografiska bilder; there is no expression of an individual style of the photographer in this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Förarbeten in the legislative process. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sv:Upphovsrätt i Sverige essentially says that the preparatory work for the legislative change in 1994 did not contain any discussion of the difference between a photographic work and a photographic image and that it had never been made clear what a "scientific or artistic value" was (referring to the old, pre-1994 law which required this for longer protection). Examples for fotografiska bilder mentioned are press photo and other reportage photography, advertising and other commercial photography, passport and other basic portrait photography. Is this basic portrait photography? Does the fact that the photo appears on a record cover make it commercial photography? Are there any actual court cases on this? --Rosenzweig τ 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish photographers have never taken this to court. As to the preparatory work in the legislative process, auktorrättskommittén wrote: <<Enligt förarbetena till 1960 års upphovsrättslag gjorde lagstiftaren en distinktion mellan å ena sidan fotografiska verk, och å andra sidan "pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering".>> (NJA II 1961 p. 108.). This is ordinary applied photography. And in work for VAT rates for artists and ordinary photographers it said that "fotografier tagna av konstnären, tryckta av honom eller under hans tillsyn, signerade och numrerade samt begränsade till 30 exemplar" qualified as art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an artistic work (not a documentary photograph or snapshot), thus it doesn't meet Sweden's non-artistic exception. Also likely copyrighted in the US due to URAA. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (not a "non-artistic work"). --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]