Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/06

This is a contemporary mural in Poland, and it doesn't comply with Commons:FOP#Poland russavia (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. While I did alerted you to this image, while rereading FOP:POLAND I do note that there is FOP in Poland that seems to cover this, if this was in a public place. Am I wrong? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, maybe I am wrong. I thought this was located in a church. Can some further information on its actual location be gotten? If it is "permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" then it will be covered by FOP. russavia (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be right. We need to determine the location to confirm it's free, and no, I tried and failed to do so. I just wanted to make sure my understanding of FOP:POLAND is correct. (That's why File:Ostrowiec Solidarnosc 20100815.jpg is ok, as the description clearly states in on a building wall)) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the uploader will answer soon and explain all the details. Meanwhile I have found this and that. It says that the mural is situated on a building (on the wall) near Chrobry statue in Gniezno. Seleucidis (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. It is can be determined if the mural would comply with the FOP as per the above, let me know, and I'll withdraw this nomination and add {{FoP-Poland}} to the image page. russavia (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I add a few new links [1], [2] and [3] that confirm it is a mural on a building available for everyone on the street to see it and a link to another photo of the same mural, which we host on Commons: [4]. I will ask wikipedian Polimerek, who is familiar with Polish copy right, to comment here and help us to solve the problem. Seleucidis (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the mural is permanent, and is visible from a publicly accessible park, garden, etc it will be fine. russavia (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Look here: [5]. Please write an address: katedra gnie��nieńska, then choose street view and when you see the cathedral turn a little bit to the left side. It is a mural on a building next to the cathedral and it is visible for everybody walking on the street. Funny. Seleucidis (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, that the picture was taken from roughly this place: [6]. This is publicly accessible passing-by and stairs, so it perfectly fulfill the article 33. p. 1 of Polish copyright law. In order to be sure - I asked user Macuk from Polish Wikipedia, who lives in Gniezno. [7]. Actually the mural is situated on wall of the Bishop house, but it is easilly possible to take picture of it without entering private property. Polimerek (talk)

Kept: Withdrawing nomination. Kept as per all of the above russavia (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Value or use of this pic in wiki Proshob (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, bad photoshop, apparent personal joke or insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, has what looks like fold creases across it suggesting a scan. January (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unambiguous copyvio (see here and numerous other sites) Эlcobbola _talk 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kayagunes.com/filiz-ahmet-nigar-kalfa-kimdir-biyografisi-resimleri/ Proshob (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: obvious copyright violation. JuTa 20:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bet it's copyvio Mjrmtg (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyight violation from i.e. http://indiaopines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/dhoom-3-sneak-peek-preview-teaser-trailer-india-opines.jpg JuTa 21:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyenne (Circus Bely) wants this photo to be deleted, because she didn't give the permission to upload the photo on Commons or anywhere else. Brackenheim (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Personal right are over other rights. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fail uopload, privat not to share Christian Marek Müller (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

private datei sofort löschen bitte Christian Marek Müller (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps 95.136.118.103 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some reason Abhi12345678 (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - User request deletion shortly after uploading -Vera (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE, obvious attack image and photo unlikely own work of uploader[8]. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nomination, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

There is nothing that proves that this image is PD-Japan. Original source is not "original" actually and it doesn't mention the author or place. Masur (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per nomination. Date and location of photograph unknown. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that proves that this image is PD-Japan. Original source is not "original" actually and it doesn't mention the author or place. Masur (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Does not even seem to be public domain as per PD-Japan tag, and use of PD-Japan is questioned. Copyright status in U.S. unknown, but likely stil under copyright as per URAA. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, incomplete kludge long superceded with a (still not perfect but still) better image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Poor quality, incomplete. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suspected copyvio like other images uploaded by same user DHN (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user Jean Nguyen is keen on uploading non-free images. Gaconnhanhnhen (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Suspected copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, because the image is almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Duplicate, not in use. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Duplicate, not in use. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not user's work DragonZero (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per nomination - clear copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SVG at File:Eqhd.svg Fry1989 ^eh? 02:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The existance of an SVG does not make the png version deleteable in and of itself. Generally both versions are kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, no use, SVG exists. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The existence of a similar, but not identical, SVG is still not a valid ground for deletion. Sven's rationale from a a year ago still applies. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

flag Missouri. 24.107.184.186 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: troll Request. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep: -Renschi81 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep: rubbish, without any justification. --Pitlane02 _talk 16:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nonsensical nomination. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely that the uploader of this photograph is indeed the author of it, too. Maybe some country-specific PD-license applies? High Contrast (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo belongs to me, but I didn't take this picture. Thank you. Boxes12 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It belongs to you. Who is the photographer? Is the photographer still alive? Have you bought the copyrights? --High Contrast (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have this photo more then 25 years. I found it in our family album. No copyrights issue. The photographer is unknown. Boxes12 (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Everything has a copyright unless it has expired or some special rule applies. Since the subject was Russian, it is very likely that no special rule applies -- that the image will be under copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer. In this case it is easy to see the halftone screen which shows that it has been scanned from a printed source, probably a newspaper, so the copyright may be held by newspaper or by the photographer's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per Jim. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hundreds of better files:low resolution,blurry see Category:West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris, File:Notre Dame Cathedral - Paris.jpgOursana (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously good enough for nl:Portaal:Parijs/Afbeelding --Denniss (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Replacement of the image by a better alternative would improve the portal. --Leyo 08:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement done in preparation for deletion.--Oursana (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check similar DR File:NotreDame2.JPG Danke. --Oursana (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep in scope, no reason to delete. Multichill (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete see above--Oursana (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope, as per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hundreds of better files:low resolution,blurry see Category:West facade of Notre-Dame de Paris Oursana (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete after having replaced its single use by a better alternative. --Leyo 10:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made replacements.--Oursana (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope, as per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image has a low pixel count and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per nomination. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spammy/clueless description for off topic, unused image. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

screenshot. out of scope. 89.249.2.53 09:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several images appear in this collage. The source and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient. High Contrast (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: As per nomination. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text only, unsuitable format. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of this image was later superceded by a slightly cropped version: See File:The Head of Prativeda.jpg. This image seems to be a leftover of that — unused, practical dupe. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unnecessary duplicate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

photo was uploaded to wrong page Voorhis (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: No reason to delete. Actually, no reason. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid rationale provided. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text only, unsuitable format. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot: #Files uploaded by GrosjeanVessot2 (talk · contribs). -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Issue to be determined in the context of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by GrosjeanVessot2 Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off scope. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaninglessly-named dup of structure in File:Xyliphos.png. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Duplicate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suspected copyvio DHN (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: It is text only (which means it cannot be copyright violation, even though it may mean it is off scope), and it is in use. Probably better to replace its use 1st, then delete -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: As per Tuvalkin. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image. Out of scope. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Our of scope, and possible copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope and published on various websites. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality, cannot be further identified, we have similar images at Category:Spines of encyclopedias Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The uploader has uploaded lots of copyvios (see his talk page). I'm not sure if we can trust his own works claims. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Album Proshob (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Album Proshob (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs should be in JPEG, rather than PNG, which doesn't show well on Wikipedia. Replaced with File:Alex Morgan training 2012.jpg. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nominator. JPEG format is better. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal photo, no details so don't know what country from to put person in. Mjrmtg (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Album Proshob (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image of subject of which Wikimedia has better quality images. Motacilla (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No other images from this angle. In general, I oppose deletions of this nature, unless there is another file that shows the same subject in the same way (similar perspective, lighting etc). Then I may consider it.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong  Keep per Nilfanion. We seem to have 3 images of this monument, neither of the other 2 from this angle, and the others are at not much higher resolution (in fact one is lower px than this). -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per above. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per above, only image from the 90s of subject Oxyman (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 16:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Minh out Sài Gòn Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: What do we have here? Six separate DRs for this one image, 2 of them filed within one minute, the other four filed 10 min. later, within a three-minute interval. (Someone thinks Commons is a hosting service?) Nominator is the uploader (and the upload history is spotty), the file is seemingly a self portrait, and it is in use only at the user’s page at the Vietnamese wikipedia. The reasons stated for deletion in 4 of the 6 DRs are merely transcriptions from the page file history, in two different versions, and the other two are a bit unsettling («Kill Minh out »Saigon — yes, that’s English). Ban troll? -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Minh out Sài Gòn Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trở lại 13:58, ngày 25 tháng 4 năm 2012 Hình thu nhỏ của phiên bản vào lúc 13:58, ngày 25 tháng tư 2012 478 × 640 (85 KB) Trần Văn Minh OCD ( nói | đóng góp ) Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trở lại 03:49, 06 tháng 9 năm 2012 Hình thu nhỏ của phiên bản vào lúc 03:49, ngày 6 tháng 9 2012 478 × 640 (85 KB) Trần Văn Minh OCD ( nói | đóng góp ) Trở lại là phiên bản vào lúc 13:58, 25 tháng 4 2012 Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trở lại 03:49, 06 tháng 9 năm 2012 Hình thu nhỏ của phiên bản vào lúc 03:49, ngày 6 tháng 9 2012 478 × 640 (85 KB) Trần Văn Minh OCD ( nói | đóng góp ) Trở lại là phiên bản vào lúc 13:58, 25 tháng 4 2012 Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trở lại 13:58, ngày 25 tháng 4 năm 2012 Hình thu nhỏ của phiên bản vào lúc 13:58, ngày 25 tháng tư 2012 478 × 640 (85 KB) Trần Văn Minh OCD ( nói | đóng góp ) Tran Van Minh OCD (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The artist deceased in 1986, and there is no FOP in France.
Artiste décédé en 1986, et il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France
Trizek ^{from FR} 09:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very low-grade image. Wikimedia has several better images of the same subject. Motacilla (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete "adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold" Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep only image of the subject from 1988, colours could easily be adjusted making this a good image Oxyman (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The green-tinted colour can be corrected, however the quality of the scan can't be fixed. Its badly streaked, and there's not enough contrast in the dark areas to recover anything. I don't care about the "only image from 1988" - the subject hasn't changed significantly between then and the 2000s (I would if something drastic had happened - like a new paint job). File:St Mary's Church Chesham.JPG shows the same thing from the same kind of angle, but you can actually see any detail...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that not much has happened since 1988, useful information in itself, allowing you to make that point Oxyman (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a U.S. government document classified as "top secret"; publication may not be legal under U.S. law section 793 of Espionage Act section 798 Rybec (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Classification guide for cryptanalysis.pdf about another upload by the same contributor. It would have been better if I'd made a single nomination. Could both documents be discussed here, please, unless there are notable differences? Rybec (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Secrecy laws are a non-copyright restriction. Per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions: "Non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." The Wikimedia Foundation may still delete the file if they believe that they are legally required to. Sandstein (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Published on on the Guardian's website. The files are different, One is the classification guide for cryptanalysis in general, the other for project BULLRUN in particular. As a practical matter, the Guardian dosen't appear likely to remove them from their website.--Paulmd199 (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Paulmd199 and a message that was left on my talk page) I'm assuming the Guardian site is not in U.S. territory. The Wikimedia servers are. I didn't read the Espionage Act very carefully, but I didn't notice an exception for information that has appeared in a newspaper. The forced landing of the Bolivian president's plane [9] tells me that the U.S. government doesn't mind looking foolish in its efforts to suppress this information. Rybec (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Guardian also has servers in the U.S. and a U.S. edition. Greenwald actually works for the U.S. division of the newspaper. For that matter the Washington Post also published classified U.S. government documents. Also, there had been court cases and it is ruled that newspapers have the freedom of speech to publish classified documents leaked to them. Wikipedia has this freedom too. See en:New York Times Co. v. United States which ruled that The New York Times had the freedom to publish the Pentagon Papers. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think, we should not make it easier for the government to suppress. If they want to make formal requests, I suspect Wikipedia might actually fight. Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia has described Snowden as a hero http://live.wsj.com/video/wikipedia-wales-calls-ed-snowden-an-american-hero/B62AA74E-0984-41CD-BCAE-FC4E60F1B622.html#!B62AA74E-0984-41CD-BCAE-FC4E60F1B622. --Paulmd199 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there's a genuine legal issue, WMF can deal with it. As correctly stated above, there's no violation of our project's rules about copyrights. Let's us deal with our project and WMF deal with extraneous legal matters. David in DC (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Under doctrine of en:New York Times Co. v. United States ... these documents also have already been published somewhere else --ChaTo (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited case applied only to that particular situation, according to the linked article. It did not necessarily set a precedent for all situations. --Joe Sewell (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Publishing a document does not declassify it. c.f. en:Classified information in the United States --Joe Sewell (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the United States, court rulings set precedents, meaning they are applied to other similar cases. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We are concerned here only with copyright. Other restrictions may apply, but they are not our concern. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be a U.S. government document classified as "top secret"; publication may not be legal under U.S. law section 793 of Espionage Act section 798 Rybec (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is closely related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Classification guide for Project BULLRUN.pdf. Unless someone finds meaningful differences between the two, let's discuss there instead. Apologies for the separate nominations. Rybec (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We are concerned here only with copyright. Other restrictions may apply, but they are not our concern. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio? Edgars2007 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown author, no clue that author has been dead for more than 100 years as licence templace indicates Yellowcard (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014_logo.svg citat:This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country, Switzerland. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. 89.249.2.53 10:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can tell that this picture only is made from content that i have right to use Politikeren (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - Had the logo been correctly categorised in Eurovision Song Contest logos in the first place, the warning on top of that category which refers to Commons:Deletion requests/File:142151-esc2008logo-RESIZE-s925-s450-fit.jpg. Since then we have had Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logos, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2012 logo.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Eurovision Song Contest 2013.svg. The four deletion requests has been concluded by four different administrators and all ended in a delete. I see nothing indicating that something has changed. Note also that the 2013 version is hosted as non-free on EnWiki. --heb [T C E] 13:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see now, that the heart with the danish flag also has a deletion-request now. But the Eurovision-logo doesn't, and neither does my own created text. But if i took a danish flag, that's allowed, and placed it in the logo, then it would technically be allowed. Politikeren (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant and blurred. A bit better image of same view is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I (the author) agree.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing of a book cover by User: Prashant Gandhi. Back in October 2012, he apparently had this image deleted, and asked about it, from an admin and on the help desk: Commons:Help desk/Archive/2012/10#cover page deleted User talk:Sreejithk2000/Archive 8#cover page deleted. In each case, he got the same advice - get the publisher to send permission to OTRS. He didn't. Instead, he created an account on Flickr (user name prashantsgandhi, http://www.flickr.com/photos/95409478@N06/), uploaded the picture there, then got Flickrbot to upload it here. When this is deleted, which I have little doubt it will be, we should add that flickr account Commons:Questionable Flickr images citing this deletion discussion. GRuban (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image lifted from http://www.weathervain.com/mac_SUNNINGDALE.htm Mabalu (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At least one other picture was directly lifted from the same website in user's uploads, and has also been nominated for deletion, but the other two could feasibly be self-taken snapshots that I've not yet found on that website. They might come from somewhere else though. Mabalu (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, bandspam del. on DE Nolispanmo 12:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A studio portrait cannot be ever a "simple photograph" and therefore 70 years pma applies Stromare (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many images similar to the this in web.[[10]] Proshob (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. Similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. Almost similar picture (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. A bit less blurred similar picture is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. Almost similar image (better focused) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. Similar image (less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

author's request, poor quality, better image uploaded, no usage Ivar (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete -- "poor quality" is not accurate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

author's request, poor quality, better image uploaded, no usage Ivar (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete -- "poor quality" is not accurate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal album Proshob (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Bonkers as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: image not created in Italy but in Brasil: the footballer is depicted with the jersey of Sap Paulo FC and there is no clue about the creator and the place where it was taken January (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could even meet the criteria for a speedy deletion; the image was created in Brazil and no information about the author is given. --Bonkers (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-NC-ND is not an acceptable license for commons material. DMacks (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This image was uploaded to the English Wikipedia on April 8, 2007 with acceptable GFDL-no-disclaimers and cc-by-2.5 tags. On April 4, 2013 (i.e. six years later minus four days), the uploader added a note to the image description: "This file should not be used for commercial use. The copyright owner of this image file originally intended Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)." Creative Commons licenses are not revocable, and this file is still free to use under the terms of the original license specified.

  On the Commons, we will sometimes delete an image as a courtesy upon the request of the original uploader, but there always needs to be a good reason (not simply a change of heart). In the case where the uploader made an error, or misunderstood the scope of the CC license, we will sometimes delete the image upon request (and, BTW, we don't even have a request), but typically we require such requests to be made a reasonably short time after the original upload (in other words, not six years later). This image has been on Wikipedia for years now. In reliance on the creative commons license, other non-Wikimedia users are using the image (see, for example, here and here), and us deleting this image would not stop these external users from continuing to use the image (or new users from starting to use the image). The cows have left the barn, the toothpaste is out of the tube, the genie has escaped the bottle -- whatever metaphor you prefer -- it is way too late for the uploader to be reconsidering the original CC at this late stage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. We've also had a low-resolution copy at File:LilioukalaniGardens Hilo Hawaii.jpg since 2012. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah and try to pick one or none of these, two is too much. :-) --grin ✎ 16:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for keeping the file. I like to see the image remain on Wikipedia. I'll remove my previous request and review the license details to further understand it's scope. Thank YouCLStout

That's very kind of you, and thank you for having originally freely licensed this image. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in France. The Pyramid architect is not dead. Trizek ^{from FR} 09:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral De minimis. Pymouss Let’s talk - 00:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps screenshots on page 4. C.f. Commons:Free media resources/Map -- Rillke^(q?) 21:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not a notable person Drakosh (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user pic 91.66.57.190 09:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work. Small resolution, missing EXIF ProfesorFavalli (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Фотография газеты, которая защищена авторским правом Dogad75 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Изображение газеты, защищённой авторским правом Dogad75 (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Изображение газеты, защищённое авторским правом издательства Dogad75 (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Изображение газеты, защищённое авторским правом издательства Dogad75 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Изображение плаката, имеющего автора, разрешение на размещение на Викискладе отсутствует Dogad75 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

obviously not a free image Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image lifted from http://www.weathervain.com/mac_SUFFOLK.htm Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Google Maps derivative to me. Liamdavies (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been published. See http://www.carnegiehall.org/BlogPost.aspx?id=4294989671 Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality, superseded by File:Schermata registrazione 2013.png Ricordisamoa 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wasn't aware I had made it so badly until I saw the new version :-) A speedy deletion would be fine --g (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Google Maps derivative to me. Liamdavies (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not up to date and the author asked me to delete it. The band no longer exist in this line-up and may hurt their new line-up by this picture. Kthxbai. Foggethemainman (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Delete a photo of a concert because the band no longer has this line up? Great idea, that’s exactly how we should preserve history in a media repository! Please delete also all the contents of Category:The Beatles, as last I heard thee of these guys are dead set in not performing toghther again, ever. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Tuválkin. Commons is not for current material only, and not for commercial promotion. (If this photo is not in scope now, it was not in scope when it was uploaded and neither is anything else related to this band, regardless of how current the "line-up".) Also, do not remove image descriptions when listing images for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Wait- "The author asked me to delete it" - Do you mean you asked yourself? Or did you upload this photo with a fraudulent claim of authorship? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image from Google Earth. Under copyright. Trizek ^{from FR} 12:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was flagged as {{No license}}, but I think this deserves some discussion: The usual PD-templates don't fit, but since this is one of the images released by the Getty Research Institute in their Open Content Program we should think about keeping it anyway. We are also keeping similar images from FlickR via {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}. El Grafo (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd question their PD determination. The more generic {{PD-US}} is probably the most appropriate, as they claim they are PD under U.S. law (thus we would probably need to look at non-U.S. photographs more closely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep we can use {{PD-because}} or create more generic {{No known copyright restrictions|institution}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Изображение газеты, защищённое авторским правом Dogad75 (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is described as a monument in Stockholm, but it actually appears to be the Sibelius monument in Helsinki, and there is no freedom of panorama in Finland. The sculptor, Eila Hiltunen, died in 2003, meaning the sculpture is protected by copyright until at least 2073. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

• File:Cape Town Stadium in Green Point.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium panorama.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium view 2.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium view.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium.jpg
• File:Cape Town, Green Point Stadium.jpg
• File:CTS01.JPG
• File:Green Point Stadium under construction July 2008.jpg
• File:Green Point Stadium, 02-2009.jpg
• File:Greenpoint.jpg
• File:Groenpuntstadion onder konstruksie vanaf suide.jpg
• File:Signal-Hill-052.jpg
• File:Stadium progress - June 2009.jpg

LGA _talk^edits 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I wasn't aware of that. Too bad, but it does seem clear enough. Blue Elf (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

• File:2011-02-06 14-57-32 South Africa - Bakoven 2.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium outside.jpg
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2133.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2167.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2168.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2191.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2339.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2402.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2406.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2415.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2196.jpg
• File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2221.jpg
• File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2338.jpg

LGA _talk^edits 07:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded new cropped versions of the following in case it helps.

• File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2191.JPG
• File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2196.jpg
• File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2221.jpg

HelenOnline 13:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep the cropped versions and delete the historical un-cropped versions. LGA _talk^edits 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LGA. Note there is a comment by the original uploader on the discussion page in case you missed it. HelenOnline 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NP; I did see it, I would not hold my breath as I don't think the City would give the consent that commons would need, but if they do then the un-cropped versions and the ones in the first batch should be restored. LGA _talk^edits 11:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Cropped versions. HelenOnline 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted historical versions, cropped versions kept -FASTILY 10:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The stadium was completed in 2009 by Gerkan, Marg and Partners. There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa, permission from the architectural firm is required.

• File:2011-02-06 South Africa - Cape Town Stadium.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium - panoramio.jpg
• File:Cape Town stadium - panoramio.jpg
• File:Cape Town stadium - view from V&A Waterfront (evening).jpg
• File:Cape town stadium aerial view 1.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium Fish Eye View.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium from Victoria & Alfred Waterfront.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium Panorama 02.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium Panorama.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium West Entrance.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium- OLD vs NEW - panoramio.jpg
• File:Cape Town Stadium.jpg
• File:Capetown stadium.JPG
• File:Green Point, Cape Town, 8005, South Africa - panoramio (1).jpg
• File:GreenPoint Stadium - Cape Town.jpg
• File:The Cape Town Stadium from Table Mountain Cape Town 066.jpg
• File:Wikimania by Rehman - 2018-07-24 - H007 - Post Conference.jpg
• File:Wold Cup Stadium (11270484726).jpg

A1Cafel (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there really no legal way to get around this limitation? For example, if the object takes no more than a certain percentage of the photo? How about the Greenpoint.jpg file? — Soul Train (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soul Train If the copyrighted work is not prominent, it might then be allowed as de minimis – but only if you don’t refer to it and don’t use it as a reason for taking or publishing the photo. That probably doesn’t suit your purposes.

  This is a horrible legal situation, which is why (as noted at the linked FoP page) some people are trying to change the law. Brianjd (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

• File:Moses Mabhida at the Germany-Spain semi-final.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida at the Spain-Switzerland.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium before Brazil & Portugal match at World Cup 2010-06-25 1.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium before Brazil & Portugal match at World Cup 2010-06-25 2.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium before Brazil & Portugal match at World Cup 2010-06-25 4.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during half time of Brazil & Portugal match at World Cup 2010-06-25.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during World Cup 2010-06-24 2.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during World Cup 2010-06-24 3.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during World Cup 2010-06-24 4.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during World Cup 2010-06-24.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium during World Cup 2010-06-25.jpg

LGA _talk^edits 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the artist images appear to be copied from the "History" section of http://lorne.fallsfestival.com.au/more-info/ and the festival logo is a clear copyvio. I suggest the two other festival images be deleted just out of precaution.

• File:2010, PE.jpg
• File:2009, yeah yeah yeahs.jpg
• File:2008, Franz Ferdinand.jpg
• File:2007, paul kelly.jpg
• File:2006, Modest mouse.jpg
• File:2005, artist.jpg
• File:2004, Falls.jpg
• File:2003, artists.jpg
• File:2002, Black Eyed Peas.jpg
• File:2001, The Hives.jpg
• File:2000, Silverchair.jpg
• File:1999, Falls.jpg
• File:1998, Blondie.jpg
• File:1997, Falls.jpg
• File:1996, Falls.jpg
• File:1993, Falls.jpg
• File:Field Stage.jpg
• File:Falls logo.jpg
• File:Lorne, Victoria.jpg

Quibik (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPG renderings of transcribed documents with no relevant typographical or diplomatic interest. Uploader should provide the text as text in the relevant project pages instead. (One* image of these already pending DR; three** images of these are in use: they should be transcribed before deletion.)

• File:Traduction de la lettre à l'empereur (3).jpg**
• File:Lettre de Munsch (Transcription).jpg**
• File:Copie de Transcription lettre à l'empereur (4).jpg**
• File:Transcription lettre à l'empereur (3).jpg
• File:Traduction lettre à l'empereur (2).jpg
• File:Transcription lettre à l'empereur (2).jpg
• File:Traduction de la lettre à l'empereur.jpg*
• File:Transcription lettre à l'empereur.jpg
• File:Traduction lettre à l'empereur.jpg

-- Tuválkin ✉ 03:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private picture of user and a logo designed for the users userpage, but not used there. Out of project scope.

• File:Kodisaikrishnalogo.jpg
• File:Kodi.Sai Krishna.JPG

Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of promo images. No evidence of permission(s).

• File:EC Chacha Club.JPG
• File:EC Chacha Club 2.JPG
• File:EC Sticker.JPG
• File:EC Studio Meiko sigle.jpg
• File:Passion Pit Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:Supertition Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:Doobie Brothers Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:Nightcall Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:Modjo Lady Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:King Harvest Eewas Cesium Remix.jpg
• File:Eewas cesium & Anonymous.jpg
• File:Eewas cesium Phone.jpg
• File:Eewas Cesium Metro Paris.jpg
• File:Eewas Cesium street.jpg
• File:Eewas Cesium N&B.jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable provenance. No evidence that uploader (mika-photography (talk · contribs)) is an agent of that website (mika-photography.com) or Mika Väisänen. That website has no free license (to the contrary “copyright all images MikaVäisänen”). We would require OTRS permission to retain the images. Several images have appeared on various other sites before upload to the Commons (for example, File:Aaliyah-02.jpg was here (post #8) on November 20, 2011, well before upload here.) Others may have SCOPE issues (e.g., File:Blade-01.jpg - who is this? Non-notable person?)

• File:Aaliyah-Germany-2000.jpg
• File:James brown-06.jpg
• File:James brown-09.jpg
• File:James brown-03.jpg
• File:James brown-07.jpg
• File:Az-05-mika.jpg
• File:Az-04-mika.jpg
• File:Jurassic 5-mika.jpg
• File:Cut chemist-mika.jpg
• File:DJ Nu-Mark-mika.jpg
• File:Chali 2na.jpg-mika.jpg
• File:J5-09-mika.jpg
• File:J5-12-mika.jpg
• File:J-zone-01-mika.jpg
• File:Ig-off-02-mika.jpg
• File:High&mighty-02-mika.jpg
• File:J live-03-mika.jpg
• File:Ig-off-01-mika.jpg
• File:Gza-01-mika.jpg
• File:Gza-02-mika.jpg
• File:Grand agent-04-mika.jpg
• File:Gravediggaz-02-mika.jpg
• File:Gangstarr-03-mika.jpg
• File:Gangstarr-02-mika.jpg
• File:Gangstarr-08-mika.jpg
• File:Freddie foxxx-02-mika.jpg
• File:Freddie foxxx-01-mika.jpg
• File:Foxy brown-03-mika.jpg
• File:Finsta bundy-03-mika.jpg
• File:Fat joe-03-mika.jpg
• File:Fat joe-04-mika.jpg
• File:Fat joe-06-mika.jpg
• File:Fat-joe-mika.jpg
• File:Eve-03-mika.jpg
• File:Erykah badu-02-mika.jpg
• File:Erykah badu-03-mika.jpg
• File:Eminem-07-mika.jpg
• File:Eminem-06-mika.jpg
• File:Eminem-02-mika.jpg
• File:Eminem-01-mika.jpg
• File:Edo G-mika.jpg
• File:Dj tony touch-03-mika.jpg
• File:Dj tony touch-01-mika.jpg
• File:Dj Spinna-mika.jpg
• File:Dj prince paul-mika.jpg
• File:DJ Premier-06-mika.jpg
• File:Dj premier-06-mika.jpg
• File:Dj jazzy jeff-mika.jpg
• File:Dj grandmaster flash-05-mika.jpg
• File:Dj Grandmaster Flash-01-mika.jpg
• File:Dj muggs-mika.jpg
• File:Dj Marly Marl-mika.jpg
• File:DJ Babu.jpg
• File:Grandmaster DXT.jpg
• File:Biz markie-mika.jpg
• File:Dizzle Don-mika.jpg
• File:Dilated Peoples-mika.jpg
• File:DeLa Soul-mika.jpg
• File:Defari-mika.jpg
• File:Das EFX-mika-06.jpg
• File:D&D Studio-02-mika.jpg
• File:D&D-Studio-NYC-mika.jpg
• File:Cypress Hill-mika.jpg
• File:Craig G-mika.jpg
• File:Common-Sense-01-mika.jpg
• File:Click-da-supalatin-01.jpg
• File:Chaotic crew-03.jpg
• File:Capadonna-02.jpg
• File:Busta rhymes-07.jpg
• File:Buckshot-01.jpg
• File:Bubba Sparxxx-02.jpg
• File:Bobbito-07.jpg
• File:Blade-01.jpg
• File:Blade-08.jpg
• File:Blackalicious-02.jpg
• File:Big Daddy Kane-03.jpg
• File:Beatnuts-02.jpg
• File:Beatminerz-05.jpg
• File:Beanie Sigel-01.jpg
• File:Bahamadia.jpg
• File:Az-03.jpg
• File:Afu Ra-04.jpg
• File:Dj Kool Herc.jpg
• File:Africa Bambaataa-02.jpg
• File:DMX.rapper.jpg
• File:Aaliyah-02.jpg
• File:Aaliyah Dana Haughton 02.jpg
• File:Afrika Bambaataa.jpg

Эlcobbola _talk 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Эlcobbola -- given (C) elsewhere, we need OTRS at the least. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private picture of user and a wordmark with the users name, out of Commons project scope.

• File:K3nytron LOGO.JPG
• File:K3nytron 7.jpg
• File:K3nytron.JPG

Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.

• File:Type60 recoilless gun.jpg
• File:Aimpoint comp m4.jpg
• File:Type 62 scope.JPG

EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Marcelo-Salas-en-River-Plate.jpg
• File:2013 01 04 1101 1357308084 original.jpg
• File:Deportes@1 G7U1S6KK7 1 4104 1.jpg
• File:CarlosMunoz 04 1.470x0.jpg
• File:2365581-3988-atm14.jpg
• File:CLAUDIO-BRAVO-PORTERO-REAL-SOC 54376715350 54115221152 960 640.jpg
• File:Genoa 132516.jpg
• File:Al-minuto-65-hector-mancilla-anoto-el-1-0-definitivo-ante-jaguares-0.jpg
• File:Arturo-vidal-chile.jpg
• File:Juventus-Chelsea.jpg
• File:VIDAL.jpg

All the images uploaded by User:Carlos Shueberger Bianchi. Seems like all of them are copyrighted. --Warko (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 16:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of autorship 91.66.57.190 09:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: This is most likely a retouched & derivated work (face substituted) of (example) http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/rubies/9544-Bollywood-Necklace-large.jpg, previously circulating via Google = (example) http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51oQqqFNpZL.jpg (last modified: 2010). Similar manipulations are available via (examples) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n4jUJR-avpM/TkqBG3hIm7I/AAAAAAAAArI/5PS3obncMWE/s1600/75774_1707643576105_1388546775_1877022_7988319_n.jpg and http://pics.sonicocnt.com/photos/25/AU/DV/28011368/2270751/md_11546529.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Gunnex. whym (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant. Almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant image. Almost similar and better focused is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of claimed release on source facebook page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.234133366647060.58094.216366321757098&type=3 MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the photo allowed me to use his picture. Why you guys like to make things complex?

Proof: http://postimg.org/image/4yj0nyu7p/

Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ausversehen hochgeladen. LindaWillSommer (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penis photo, no evident in scope usefulness, far inferior as anatomical illustration to a great many other human penis photos on Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image. Out of scope Justass (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an organizational user name, "own work" has no meaning and therefore there is no permission for the image. In addition, the screen image captured here probably has its own copyright, which would have to be seperately licensed. It would be free of copyright if and only if it had not been recorded, which is unlikely in this day of almost free recording. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that this was first published in the United States. It is much more likely that it was first published in Germany, where it is still protected by copyright as Heinrich Hoffmann hasn't been dead for 70 years yet. Stefan4 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is 60 years old. While it is not impossible that the photographer was the individual who is User:WorldJewishCongress, it seems very unlikely that it is "own work" as claimed and certainly deserves clarification. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by PICAWN as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo is unlikely to be cc-by. Converted to a DR as I'm not sure it's complex enough for copyright. January (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a duplicate of the file Екатерининская железная дорога.jpg Konstrooktor (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

• File:2011-06-22 11-37-39 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-37-47 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-37-54 South Africa - Durban - Moses Mabhida Stadium 4hl.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-55-30 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-58-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 12-08-18 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 12-14-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-00-25.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-00-43.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-01-02.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-02-25.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-03-46.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-04-04.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-04-27.jpg
• File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-14-02.jpg
• File:Estadio Moses Mabhida.jpg
• File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Germany Australia.jpg
• File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil.jpg
• File:FIFA World Cup 2010 South Korea Nigeria.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida 2010 Stadium tour.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Durban Stadium.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium 2010-02.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium at night 2010-02.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium AUG 09.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium Panoramic.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium y el viejo ABSA Stadium.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium.jpg
• File:MosesMabhidaStadium.jpg
• File:MosesMabhidaStadiumDurban.JPG (kept – Taivo)

LGA _talk^edits 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know South African copyright law, but I am surprised that my uploads File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Germany Australia.jpg, File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil.jpg and File:FIFA World Cup 2010 South Korea Nigeria.jpg are concerned. All these photos were uploaded to illustrate specific World Cup matches taking place in this stadium and are used in the articles about relevant teams and tournaments (e.g. en:History of the Australia national association football team, es:Alemania en la Copa Mundial de Fútbol de 2010 or ko:2010년 FIFA 월드컵 B조). As the main object of these pictures are matches and not stadium architecture, this should be  kept as a case of COM:DM — NickK (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO these all go beyond COM:DM, the stadium is not a trival aspect of the images. As for use on en:History of the Australia national association football team they can all be uploaded to enwp as {{FoP-USonly|South Africa}} just cant be hosted here. LGA _talk^edits 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not that easy: firstly, it requires a lot of efforts to copy to all different wikis using these images, secondly, not all of them have similar FoP policies (if you don't want to be enwiki-centered and don't forget about use of photos of Korean team on Korean wiki). The stadium may not be a trivial aspect of these images, but it is definitely not the main aspect. If you really want to, you can try to crop what you consider an architect's copyright violation, but the result will be most likely rather ugly, as it is hardly possible to picture a match without picturing even a single part of the stadium — NickK (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the guidelines to determine if a element of an image is not DM; the images you mention above tick a number of them and the fact that it would be hard to remove the copyrighted material from the images and still retain usefulness is a big indication that the depiction goes beyond DM. LGA _talk^edits 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try and uploaded File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil cropped.jpg. There is definitely no FoP violation: I kept just the pitch. However, for me now it looks like these teams are playing completely without fans but with journalists. This does illustrate that these teams were playing indeed, but this does not show the atmosphere of the match (that the match was sold-out and lots of supporters attended the match, with a majority of Brazilian ones, but one can also see a number of flags of other countries). This crop is not completely useless, but provided very limited information on the match. Unfortunately, by cutting architectural elements you also crop fans and grandstands which constitute a very valuable part of the atmosphere of each match. Thus I do think that copyrighted architectural elements (like this arch on the roof) are indeed DM compared to players, journalists and fans — NickK (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Cropping fans and grandstands is not needed, when onlookers cover with their bodies all architectural features. It is not so on these photos and all of them have clear architectural features fully seen, so I must conclude: it is difficult to make a free photo about football fans in stadium in South Africa. Personally, I like the cropped version of photo about Brazilian–Portuguese match. This photo is free. The last photo is kept, because no details are seen. Taivo (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa

• File:2011-06-22 11-49-36 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-51-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 11-55-07 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 12-10-39 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:2011-06-22 12-11-38 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
• File:Moses Mabhida Stadium Durban.JPG
• File:South Africa - Durban - Moses Mabhida Stadium.jpg

LGA _talk^edits 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First five files are views from the stadium and not views of the stadium. Please do not nominate all files automatically: for example, File:2011-06-22 11-55-07 South Africa - Morningside.jpg depicts seaside and not the stadium — NickK (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • All affected pictures of Moses Mabhida Stadium have already been deleted. FOP requires that the MAJORITY of the picture should show the questionable piece of architechture, if I am not completely wrong. In any case, I habe uploaded all under FOP deleted pictures to the German Wikipedia, where the FOP rules for outside views are not applicable. Simisa (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for that claim ? LGA _talk^edits 07:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]