Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/13

bad name. Angler45 (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Bad name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source says "Foto:EP/..." - I assume that EP is the acronym for "Europa Presse" agency, which is expressedly excluded from the journal CC licensing[1]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is taken from a Spanish newspaper, 20 minutos, published by Creative Commons license

http://www.20minutos.es/

--B.N.Sanchez. (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my above comment? --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: It is not a work by 20 minutos Rastrojo _(D•ES) 01:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original site says that the photo was taken, there is no evidence that they have creative rights over the objects of the photo, design features within the image itself, and could be considered equivalent of a screenshot

FYI, changed from {{Copyvio}} to {{Delete}} by me with original reason listed. There is also some discussion at the file talk page. Wknight94 ^talk 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Android OS is a free software. --112.202.66.167 10:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blurred the software shown on the screen. Uploader stated that the point of the picture is the device, not the software. So now we don't have to lose the image. I did this with images of Windows Phone 7 phones that were nominated for deletion. Consider this as an option in the future. Better photoshoppers could even work it so the screen appears to be off. – Adrignola talk 02:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the point is to illustrate the device, but the image now appears to illustrate a malfunctioning device. (No offense intended; I wouldn't be able to do any better.)

A blank screen would be fine (and I'm going to ask a friend whether he can handle that in Photoshop), but the larger issue — exceeding the scope of this discussion — is whether the unmodified image and others like it are permissible (legally and under Commons policy). My understanding was that they are, but I'm not trying to push that position. I just find it important that we arrive at a firm understanding (one way or the other) because Commons hosts numerous other images that need to be modified or deleted if such content is problematic. This one happened to draw attention by appearing on the English Wikipedia main page, but there's nothing unique about it.

Shall we close the moot deletion request and take this matter to the village pump? —David Levy 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My friend was busy, so I did my best to blank the screen (my first such attempt). —David Levy 06:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Issues resolved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the artist, Robert Templeton, was almost certainly not a Federal employee, this is not PD-US-gov. The uploader, Timtempleton, may be the artist's heir and therefore own the copyright, but we will need a formal statement of that, using Commons:OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Templeton, son of the artist, grants permission in OTRS ticket 2011081310011928. – Adrignola talk 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Withdrawn. Thank you for meeting our needs at OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source is a dead link AtelierMonpli (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: The source being a dead link is not, itself, a reason to delete. However, the uploader gives a source and claims own work -- that is inconsistent and the work looks like a screen shot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement - see userpage AtelierMonpli (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

advertisements AtelierMonpli (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-created Image. This image has some glitches which i will modify and upload again in the future. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Per uploader's request George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal advertising? AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better version of this file exists, File:NASA F-8A Crusader Supercritical Wing Aircraft - GPN-2000-002001.jpg . Is not a derivative, no link or attribution/record needed. The present file is not used anymore. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it. It is now a 1.2 MB version, but the other is 10 MB, too big for many users. Ariadacapo lives in France, where high-speed internet it often available, however, it is not common in most countries of the world. Cobatfor (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case we should at least create a derivative of the original so that at least one can find the low-weight alternative from the original. Otherwise one only ends-up with more mess, some Wikipedia contributors are bound to use only one of the two. I couldn’t find a Commons policy anywhere regarding such cases (the case of File:First_flight2.jpg comes to mind), is there one anywhere? Ariadacapo (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I marked the image as a duplicate of the better version, following Cobatfor ’s advice. Can anyone point me as to what happens next? Ariadacapo (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate tag only applies to exact duplicates. Ariadacapo (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if I caused disturbance with this deletion request, I realize that I lack sufficient experience to decide whether it is appropriate. I won’t be offended if it is rejected =) Ariadacapo (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. High Contrast (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Reich didn't give his work with CC-By-SA --MGuf (d) 13:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copyvio. Unfree music. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Reich didn't give his work with CC-By-SA (and the file is broken) --MGuf (d) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copyvio. Unfree music. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Reich didn't give his work with CC-By-SA --MGuf (d) 13:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copyvio. Unfree music. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader's own artistic creation, personal work, not educational useful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Out of project scope, without EV George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor quality makes image virtually unusable (not used anywhere). Leyo 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom, donna know what the picture is telling us. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused pronunciation file in a non-allowed format (WAV). The pitch of this sound file seems to have been altered in software to make it sound like someone speaking after inhaling helium, which IMO rather limits its potential for educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation file in a non-allowed format (WAV). The pitch of this sound file seems to have been altered in software to make it sound like someone speaking after inhaling helium, which IMO rather limits its potential for educational use. Note that this file is technically in use, though, as it happens to match what used to be a redlink at wikt:ta:nicole. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality SVG which is actually a raster graphic with a so-called conversion where every pixel is given a vector co-ordinate. Now superseded by File:USAADA-BRANCH.svg Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the new one is superior, although the name could be improved. --Gadget850 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - horrible SVG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused badSVG version of File:Entalpia r endotermica1.PNG --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Great example of badSVG. Vector format would be great for the underlying idea/content, but this file ain't it. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: SVG containing a raster image. Leyo 08:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jest stary Spigarrr (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English? Chensiyuan (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: @Chensiyuan -- Commons is a multilingual project and there is absolutely no requirement that anything here be in English. Google translate does a good job for almost all purposes.

This image is in use, so "It is old" is not a reason to delete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from SMP Negeri 2 Padang to publish the logo under a free license and not qualify as PD-ineligible. Geagea (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realy own work created in March 2009? See e.g. this 2007 article. Possibly an official portrait and not own work. Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Many of his photos are suspicious. -- Bojan  Talk  04:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it? Does he have an Wikipedia article? This is too small to be useful for other uses. Or is it you and you want to use it on your user page? Then place {{Userpageimage}} on the file page and use it, please. Saibo (Δ) 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Subject = author? Who is photographer?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted fictional characters, no FoP for 3d sculptures in U.S. Warfieldian ^(talk) 04:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) taken in australia.[reply]

• The picture was taken in Australia. The tags on the flickr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artur Andrzej (talk • contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement from an australian nightclub? AtelierMonpli (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School campus logo, no assertion of permission from the school. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: 15:12, 14 August 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School campus logo, no assertion of permission from the school. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School campus logo, no assertion of permission from the school. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted posted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted logo User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted logo User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo, no permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the school to use this photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the school to use this photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe not free advertisment AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source website does not state a free license. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a presumably copyrighted, non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in this picture is copyrighted? Its a photo of a sign stating something. No more, no less. 62.20.173.214 12:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, no, it's a photo of a work of art depicting several ships, a couple of people, a foreshore, some water, some buildings, and some trees. Are we looking at the same picture? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not GFDL. Published in "Biologische Heilkunst" in 1927. Not anonymous, author signed the work in lower right corner. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Artist was Walter Waentig (1881-1962), lived in Gaienhofen, Germany from 1919/1920 on.[2][3] Lupo 07:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The painting's copyright is not stated. Ben.MQ (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous hits on Google search, not likely own work (I can't read french) Ben.MQ (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in french it's written : photo taken to the Musée of Port au Prince Mike Coppolano (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Although we do not have copyright information for Haiti, it is unlikely that a museum portrait is freely licensed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

converted by me to DR from a speedy by IP 112.202.66.167 for "Copyvio". --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. They're just pink lines. {{PD-shape}}. Wknight94 ^talk 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This is a copyrighted video, fair use not permitted here. HAHAHA!!!! --112.202.66.167 10:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - too simple for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Ineligible to be copyrighted. The fact that it is a published album does not make it copyrightable. Ben.MQ (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really really doubt that this photograph was taken by the Commons user Elsasess: a) the very little photo dimensions of 435x434 are dubious b) you don`t have an EXIF meta file information (which is most certainly given) c) you can find similiar photos by consulting google images (i was not able to find out the original version due to the lack of time) 91.57.91.139 10:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The svg vesion of this file File:UEFA - Champions League.svg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:UEFA - Champions League.svg as a copyright violation. Therefore this file would consequently ahve to be deleted as well. -- Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commercial. Friedrich Graf (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination page created by Mathonius (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unfree image --Christian140 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: copyright violation. Mathonius (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: 13:47, 13 August 2011 by Rosenzweig, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juanalfonsocarrizo5.jpg. Mathonius (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even the oldest of these stamps was issued in 1967 and crown copyright in the UK applies for 50 years - De minimis does not apply - there are other freely licenced album pages and more could easily me made Ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt own work. 391 hits on TinEye and many hits on Google search. No metadata and other contribution of the user also very doubyful own work Wouter (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt own work. 61 hits on TinEye and many hits on Google search. No metadata and other contribution of the user also very doubyful own work Wouter (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence the Flickr uploader owns the copyright of this image which tineye finds a few other copies of. Ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's of very low resolution, and uploader “Glorycycles” is a reputable company, i will email them and have their thoughts —Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Glorycycles are most likely not the copyright holder so their thoughts will likely not be of much help. If they are the copyright holder, get them to give their permission by emailing directly per the procedure found at WP:OTRS. Good luck Ww2censor (talk)

---

Deleted: Unless permission received Ben.MQ (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe that this is a copyrighted artwork/characters from Stor & Liten, and not de minimis and no simple logo Kungfuman (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many better files in Category:Thymine, and no site uses the file. --Master Uegly (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This SVG is actually just a container for a raster graphic, a low quality one at that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "cactus tubolare" is hardly visible, because low quality of the image, so it is not identifiable. There are other plants without interest. Exact place unknown. Tangopaso (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not really deleted, but I got the wrong name by mistake, should be Karlskronaplan as title Mangan2002 (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Moved to the correct file name Ben.MQ (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official logo, published elsewhere (e.g. [4]), no evidence that the uploader is the rights holder as claimed, contradictory permission statement ("All rights reserved") High on a tree (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

"reselling or redistribution on other websites is not allowed" -- a review of the uploaders intentions is recommended Queeg (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an official band photo, previously published elsewhere (e.g. [5]), no evidence that uploader = rights holder. High on a tree (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio see www.flickr.com/photos/neunzehn/117839806/ QuentinUK (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia claims this is a TV screenshot. 117Avenue (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is of five books, with main focus being on the cover of one. Courcelles (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a derivative, see former Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets. Túrelio (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this file is that bad uploader DreParker (talk · contribs) not even created the file himself. http://maditsmadfunny.wikia.com/wiki/Ribbitless. --Martin H. (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright promotional picture for X-men while Hugh Jackman and Wolfram Kons are not central subjects in this picture Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this was a Press Conference!

Crop it and  Keep -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source page displays copyright notice. Missing OTRS ticket for permission. Kelly (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then submit the page to OTRS, and in the meantime, try to get the permission in email (email the institution). Be constructive, not destructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional image of Monteith, thus it can't be registered here on the Commons. HorrorFan121 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is out of the Commons project scope: Commons is no private photo host or album for personal photographs 91.57.91.139 10:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Shows military uniform and practice of labeling military hardware with nicknames. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep image of a bore evacuator is in scope. MKFI (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: per MKFI: the bore evacuator is within the project scope; the rest (means the person) is not. Image has been cropped High Contrast (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image obviously comes from Http://missmemorabilia.blogspot.com/2011/07/miss-brasil-1975.html - as the uploader told on the upload form 91.57.93.220 11:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted, copyright violation. Taking a photo by someone else from a website does not turn you into the photographer and copyright holder of the photo. Infrogmation (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork on the bottle's logo is copyrighted, so this image can not be uploaded without a fair use rationale. De minimis does not apply as the bottle is the subject being photographed here. — ξ^xplicit 01:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - the stag in the logo has been used by en:Alexander Keith's Brewery for a very long time; copyright must have expired. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Jcb (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo -- no evidence of permission from its owner/creator      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete missing permission--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - seems to be too simple for copyright protection, compare Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a UK logo. The UK has a very low COM:TOO. The colouring, the varying degrees of such, would more than meet COM:TOO. IT might be best to get OTRS on this. 106.68.109.97 10:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per WP:DENY (or local equivalent being hammered out at COM:ANUP) (Nomination by sock of Russavia) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Deleted, surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image is out of the Commons project scope: Commons is no private photo host or album for personal photographs 91.57.91.139 10:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Could be of use to depict this type of armored suit (or whatever this is called). -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Herby; a soldier in uniform is in scope. MKFI (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. Jcb (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused downscaled duplicate of File:Stamp of Azerbaijan 303-306.jpg and File:Stamp of Azerbaijan 307-310.jpg. I do not understand why only duplicate is not appropriate here. This images were unnecessary composed (remove border could also apply). -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This infringes on the copyright in the reredos painting -- there is not FOP exception in B-H.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This image is a photo from a church interior. The painting is only portion of it.Quahadi Añtó 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is a significant part of the image -- it is nowhere near de minimis.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: In many countires FOP is based on the fact that inclusion of material is inevitable. I would say it is unavoidable to include the painting in this photo. Anyway, I've cropped the image to make it less a concern. Old version hidden. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free per en:Template:Non-free_Mozilla_logo Svgalbertian (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - If that's the case, a few images from Category:Mozilla Logo should be deleted too. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Per en:Template:Non-free_Mozilla_logo Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 10:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content - User also created the (now deleted) promotional article Kinkaid boat storage Trijnstel (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - good image of boat storage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - image also published at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.136409089783757.30749.136408119783854&type=1 so permission is required. Wknight94 ^talk 02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyvio from Facebook. Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outside commons unused badSVG version of File:Mayococologo.png Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep There is absolutelyu nothing wrong with this. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a real svg which is easily verifyable by looking into the source code. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Deleted: As Cwbm noted, it's not a real SVG, but the PNG image packaged inside a SVG shell. So it's a duplicate of the proper PNG version. Rosenzweig τ 13:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to DR by me from a speedy, by User:Edoderoo for "OTRS 2011080810015971, artist made mistake to share this under cc-by-sa and regrets. This was his only edit, please undo". --Túrelio (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: while it might be granted, the problem I see is, that this image was uploaded in December 2009! What will happen to the external re-users? (I've no idea if there are many or few). --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to the artist, that deletion will mean that the visibility of the artwork will be less, not that the artwork will be "unfreed", as this is not possible in a legal point of view. If the artwork is used elsewhere, or will be re-uploaded by someone else, there is nothing we can do. Edoderoo (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's seen from the viewpoint of the uploader. How about the viewpoint of good-faith re-users, who didn't make a hard copy of our image page at the time when the image was still freely licensed? If he sues them, they will have a problem. As to my knowledge we (Commons) have no easy-to-use record/database/whatever for such cases (which might even include images that were found to be real copyvios only months or year after upload). --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to make clear in the "edit summary" of the deletion (in case it will be deleted), that the image will still be free, with a remark to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971. In case the uploader will sue them for copyright violation, they can ask any OTRS-member to get the proof that the image is free, and still is, in a legal point of view, as well as that the uploader does know this information. My point is not to defend the uploaders right, just to be clear, but I do want to give him a chance to maybe spread the image less. Edoderoo (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - no reason to delete, licenses are not revocable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - I usually don't trust people who make only 1 or 2 uploads, especially when they create a user name portraying to be a prominent artist who's paintings are on display in a major museum in Canada. This image does not even look like the famous one-eyed Sikh w:Ranjit Singh from India. He looks more like a European. I always say that the burden should be on the uploader to provide complete information so that we don't have to investigate.--Officer (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: The license is valid, and the image is already all over the web. If the deletion request had come shortly after the upload, it would have made some sense, but it's pointless to delete the image now almost two years later. Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous kept is ridiculous, so what if the image is unlawfully used in many places? This image is beyond doubt a copyright violation because it's clearly protected by the copyright law of Canada. They show a scene in the movie w:Breakaway (2011 film) where this same painting is displayed at a museum in Canada. If we're going to keep this then we must also keep the Paintings by Tapand. Officer (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof for your claim of sockpuppeteering and the uploader not being the author? --Rosenzweig τ 10:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on now. I cover South Asia and I know all the sockmasters involved. The painting is covered under Canada's copyright law since it was published there first at a museum.--Officer (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no proof. --Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as i understood the prev. discussion OTRS got an email by the artist himself claiming that he uploaded the file hinself but changed his mind some years later. Maybe an OTRS-member should recheck this ticket. --JuTa 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any OTRS in the history, if there is one it is likely prepared by someone who is not the painter and someone who the painter did not give permission to. This painting is at a museum in Canada.--Officer (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the prev. discussion OTRS got an email by the artist himself claiming that he uploaded the file hinself but changed his mind some years later." If this is true, then  Keep this image per Commons:License revocation - the license is irrevocable and the artist cannot change their mind. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that an image is protected by copyright, in Canada or elsewhere, does not make a valid free license (like CC or GFDL) from the author/copyright holder impossible. AFAIK, that's exactly the case here. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The painting was published in Canada and it is protected under Canadian copyright law. Manu Saluja is the painter and she wanted to delete the file from here.--Officer (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not understand quite a number of things. If the author of an image puts that image under a free license, that does not mean that this image is not protected by copyright anymore. It only means that the author has granted usage rights for that image to everybody. The OTRS message referred to in this discussion was the reason for the first deletion request, see the post from Túrelio dated 13 August 2011, above. It seems that in that message to the OTRS, the author declared to indeed have uploaded that image himself, but two years later he now claimed to have done so by mistake and asked for deletion. I still haven't seen any proof for your "stolen image", "sock accounts" etc. claims. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you what kind of proof do you want to see but you ignored me. According to the history of this file, the uploader did not provide OTRS info. The official website where this image is hosted says "Site content © Manu Saluja, 2009. All Rights Reserved". That means the uploader in 2009 copied the image from there.--Officer (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that I overlooked your post from 14:45. So it seems you say that you suspect the sockpuppeteering etc. because of certain similarities etc. between those users you name. That would be called "circumstantial evidence" I guess, and it could be perhaps be used as basis for a precautionary deletion, but still it isn't anything that could really be called proof (like a Checkuser). Especially since we do seem to have that OTRS message saying that the author himself uploaded this image here under a free license. And that message is NOT in the file's version history, but mentioned in the first deletion request for this image. Here, if you prefer a link. --Rosenzweig τ 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the uploader is avoiding the discussions is additional evidence that he/she is a copyright infringer.--Officer (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it could have been. Or not. I do not see any real convincing evidence that all those users and the IP user you mention are in fact the same person. Could someone with access to the OTRS ticket 2011080810015971 evaluate whether that ticket is actually from the author or not? And please do not accuse me of "trying to have a stolen image stored in Commons", that is far from constructive when the whole point is whether this image was uploaded by the author or someone else in breach of copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add the OTRS tag. --  Docu  at 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag? --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If my summary reading is correct, there is an OTRS ticket showing that the Commons uploader is the author. --  Docu  at 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem was that the author wanted to delete the image but the request was denied. I don't know what's the best solution.--Officer (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept I have examined OTRS ticket #2011080810015971 which covers 18 messages to and from OTRS. The e-mails all come from the domain which is the artist's official web site and apparently come from the artist himself. Therefore I conclude that the e-mails are authentic.

In them the artist admits that he himself uploaded the image and licensed it as CC-BY-SA. This is a case, then, of an author changing his mind two years after the fact. We would do a substantial disservice to those who have used the image on the web and in print if we remove the image now. Since the license is irrevocable and the image appears in many places on the web, removing it from Commons would have little effect on its widespread use.

I have sympathy for users who make a mistake and want to correct it a week or two afterward, but waiting two years is too long.

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person who used a camera to make this digital image of a painting is Brian Boyle [6] (clicking on any of the bottom 3 images here will reveal the name, date and location), and the person who created the original artwork (the painting) is Manu Saluja [7]. The painting is displayed at the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada, which obviously means that it was published in Canada on the day it was displayed in said museum unless evidence is shown to the contrary. Officer (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Who is the actual author here (the painter, the photographer or the museum)? If it's the painter then how can she execute an OTRS ticket here? Also, the painting shows someone other than Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Can I paint a similar painting and label the person as Muhammad Ali Jinnah (or better yet as Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Omar) and then upload it to Commons? Isn't that making a mockery of a famous historical figure?--Officer (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: This has already been litigated, twice. There is no new additional information here to merit a deletion of this image and I can confirm that the OTRS ticket says what other agents already said it says. --Majora (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of a book cover. Uploader claim to be author, but he's not the copyright holder (probably the editor CORTEZ ). Also, image so small and of so low quality, that it's hardly usefull even if not copyrighted --Lilyu (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was never explicitly marked for who created it, nor what its license are. This is because it was uploaded on top of another image. I will paste the en.wp history in the below as an explanation.

Deletion log

(del/undel) 10:42, 11 August 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" ‎ (F8: Media file available on Commons) (view/restore)
(del/undel) 02:20, 5 June 2011 Zscout370 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" ‎ (Deleted old revision 20071218194715!Atc.jpg: F9: Unambiguous copyright violation) (view/restore)
(del/undel) 02:14, 5 June 2011 Zscout370 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Atc.jpg" ‎ (Deleted old revision 20080316211855!Atc.jpg: F5: Unused non-free media) (view/restore)

Page history

 (del/undel) (diff) 06:17, 10 August 2011 . . Sreejithk2000 (talk | contribs | block) (294 bytes) (Now commons: new section)
 (del/undel) (diff) 21:27, 17 September 2010 . . Apollo1758 (talk | contribs | block) (222 bytes) (Summary)
 (del/undel) (diff) 04:01, 31 July 2008 . . Zappernapper (talk | contribs | block) (202 bytes) (adding defaultsort to images i've missed and adding to apprpriate subcats using AWB)
 (del/undel) (diff) 00:32, 24 July 2008 . . Zappernapper (talk | contribs | block) (171 bytes) (adding Category:Images of rodents using AWB)
 (del/undel) (diff) 21:00, 10 May 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) (129 bytes) (Summary)
 (del/undel) (diff) 13:25, 24 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) (293 bytes) (Summary)
 (del/undel) (diff) 21:18, 16 March 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": Reverted to version as of 19:47, 18 December 2007)
 (del/undel) (diff) 05:42, 1 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": I use media monkey and when I play the music it automatically downloads the image to my hdd,)
 (del/undel) (diff) 19:47, 18 December 2007 . . Jbowler93 (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": Alvin The Chipmunk Balloon)
 (del/undel) (diff) 18:22, 9 November 2007 . . Salim beleko (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "Image:Atc.jpg": New colors of Air Tanzania)
 (del/undel) (diff) 23:59, 18 July 2006 . . Khatores (talk | contribs | block) (163 bytes) (I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.)
File history

 (del/undel) 21:18, 16 March 2008 . . JMyrleFuller (talk | contribs | block) 275×298 (18,346 bytes) (Reverted to version as of 19:47, 18 December 2007)
 (del/undel) 05:42, 1 March 2008 . . Jawathegreat (talk | contribs | block) 130×130 (7,667 bytes) (I use media monkey and when I play the music it automatically downloads the image to my hdd, )
 (del/undel) 19:47, 18 December 2007 . . Jbowler93 (talk | contribs | block) 275×298 (18,346 bytes) (Alvin The Chipmunk Balloon)
 (del/undel) 18:22, 9 November 2007 . . Salim beleko (talk | contribs | block) 763×375 (72,177 bytes) (New colors of Air Tanzania)
 (del/undel) 23:59, 18 July 2006 . . Khatores (talk | contribs | block) 592×366 (53,612 bytes) (I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.)

As you can see, there is no change in the text between the file that was uploaded by Khatores, the the one uploaded by JBowler. The text, after it was uploaded by JBowler, read:

 == Summary ==
I took this picture of the Advanced Technology Center at Florida Community College of Jacksonville in April of 2006.
== Licensing ==
{{cc-by-sa-2.5}}

I hope I'm not being too unclear here, but the gist is that the uploader never gave it a license nor a source. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted 05:18, 13 August 2011 by Zscout370, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Osilloscope animations.jpg
• File:Showing picture on osilloscope.jpg

These files feature incorrect sources and most likely incorrect licenses. The work shown in these images is Youscope by Tejeez but it is unclear if the work is licensed so that commercial use is allowed as required by Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. (Most likely not since the classic demoscene way has been free non-commercial distribution of final work.) --Archyx (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]