Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_&_Super_Dale_Jr"_with_their_hot_wives..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Is a direct copy of File:Awatar2.png – JBarta (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to original. Sreejith K (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free logo Sreejith K (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free logo. Sreejith K (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: News paper screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: News paper screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, promotional Chesdovi (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
copy vio Chesdovi (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
promotional, unused Chesdovi (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Per watermark: © Ole Sindt/foerdefluesterer.de Ralgis 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: All evidence indicates that the author released the image with a Commons-compatible license. Watermark is no reason in such case. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Description says "Exterior Of The Temple" Which temple? File is not in use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted and redirected to File:Exterior view of mandir.jpg since it was a duplicate. The DR still stands --Sreejith K (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still stands? On what grounds? File:Exterior view of mandir.jpg is used in en:Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Dhaka. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake. The file is not {{Out of scope}} now and so I am deciding to keep this. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still stands? On what grounds? File:Exterior view of mandir.jpg is used in en:Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Dhaka. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted and redirected to an used and identified file. Sreejith K (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The same image is listed as unfree at en:File:Samylovskii 5.jpg. This could mean that the licence is wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kommentar It seems that the uploader has started an undeletion request although the file hasn't been deleted. See COM:UR#File: Ivan Samylovsky_resized.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There was a lot of issues with this file, keeping on en.wp for the time being. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: # Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
not own work McZusatz (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv7SUncOAAQ (around 1:20). --Túrelio (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- calm down. --Dogwalkerz (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Listed as fair use at en:File:Jay Park, Nigahiga, Phil in Word of the Day - Bromance.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
how do i close this deletion nomination? wasting my time --Dogwalkerz (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Löschen. Only admins can do that. See COM:DEL. --McZusatz (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Discovered that works licensed under creative commons non-commercial licenses are not permitted. Nextil (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Unknown uncommon license. Perhelion (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen. As I there is no legal code for this license, it is either invalid or might be considered identical to the unported version. In the latter case, the COA of Vogtland and the license "name" would likely mislead user and re-users. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)This is a screen grab from a programme shown on Channel 4 television in the UK in the 1990s. There is no way that this image is in the public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not public domain, rather a Creative Commons license. w:User:AnOpenMedium is the user who uploaded the image. According to that page, the editor is authorized by the program's producer to import images from the program under the CC license. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I made a mistake. I thought that somebody had just taken this photo off their telly. I didn't realise that the photo was taken on the show's set. It shouldn't be deleted after all.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Added OTRS russavia (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)This is a screen grab from a programme shown on Channel 4 television in the UK in the 1990s. There is no way this image is in the public domain. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was wrong. It's not a screen grab, it was taken on set. It shouldn't be deleted after all.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS added russavia (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy. Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Going by the Tom & Eddie's web page the logo is copyrighted. Sans evidence of permission it is not allowed on Commons. However, it may be PD-textlogo. The text certainly is PD, but the spatula icon could go either way. I'm leaning towards probably not eligible which would make the whole logo PD and it can stay. – JBarta (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Doesn't appear to be distinct enough for protection. russavia (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Found on this forum five months prior to the Commons upload date, where the image is in a higher resolution and is watermarked. — ξxplicit 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio russavia (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A collage of 18 different pictures, but no source provided for any of these individual pictures. At least File:The famous mustache and goatee.jpg is freely licensed, but I'm not sure where the rest are from. — ξxplicit 01:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- No opinion, pending comment by the author. This almost certainly needs some attribution adding for those images that require it, but that's just a book-keeping exercise for the author. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No comments from uploader. It isn't our job as editors to search out licencing info, etc. russavia (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It's duplicated. (By the way, I'm the creator.) GRuellan (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- A duplicate of what? – JBarta (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- A duplicate of the file shown below. --GRuellan (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The position of the colors is slightly different, and the image dimensions are slightly different, but I'll assume that doesn't really matter. For all practical purposes, it's a duplicate. Delete. – JBarta (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tagged 'duplicate'. – JBarta (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination russavia (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No source, may be a copyrighted rendition. Fry1989 eh? 04:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
If this uploads pertains to http://bigsight.org/quentin_fayet, then this isn't significant. In any case the file isn't in use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal file russavia (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnny Controletti as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright holder is "Dominik Cool" Sreejith K (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Little correction: This file was intitially tagged by User:1971markus as Copyvio (copyvio) on 31. March 2012. The Tag was deleted by an IP 16 hours later. I have only reverted the delition. --Johnny Controletti (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Does not matter anyways. This file might marginally qualify to be {{PD-text}}. I converted copyvio to DR to have a consensus. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in use, likely out of scope as self-promotional russavia (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a document signed by Sukarno. The uploader wrongly used PD US. When I replaced it with PD Indonesia, I found it requires 50 years to be PD. Hence I feel it is not in PD and should be deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Retagged as Template:PD-IndonesianGov russavia (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
this is an unused fantastic photoshoot with hardly any academic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Fishy licensing. From what I understand, Freebase uploads images from other websites that were freely licensed. The Commons files links to Freebase, which in turn links to Wikipedia, where the file was deleted for lacking source information. So basically, the core source is a bad one. — ξxplicit 06:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good pickup on this one russavia (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Author would like it; not a really useful picture for commons Lumastan (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Am closing this as an author requested deletion russavia (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- How about {{PD-textlogo}}? --Sreejith K (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but to my eye that stylized H is borderline. Then again, my eye tends to err on the side of caution. – JBarta (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm too cautious. This Best Western logo lost a claim for copyright and it's in the same ballpark... text with a somewhat stylized letter. Given that Best Western is also on a 5 sided signboard, that would make it even more creative than this HARA logo. I'm thinking PD-textlogo would be appropriate. – JBarta (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo russavia (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation Chesdovi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
useless small res. depiction of a leg Chesdovi (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is also the users only upload. May just be some sort of a test. At any rate, the image is essentially useless. – JBarta (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
reserved rights. Eluveitie (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Löschen - Would need permission to remain on Commons. – JBarta (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: UK has a low threshold of originality russavia (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No permission, see second page of the file, where a CC-BY-NC-ND license is present. We do not allow NC or ND restrictions. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
unused "Personal Profile Picture" Chesdovi (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - That's a freaky, unusual and rather well done image. I think we should find some way to keep it. Re-name it, re-categorize it, whatever. – JBarta (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- A dog with a superimposed human face? Revolting. Chesdovi (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Ignoring all rules here - as per Jbarta, quite a well done image, could be used for photoshop or other such topics russavia (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Almost unreadable Spanish - machine translation? Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It was apparently created by SpaceX http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html Craigboy (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence presented of SpaceX images being in PD. So as per nom russavia (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Lacks permission - no information on author for PD status, a friend does not inherit copyright usually. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is clearly PD Old Oxyman (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Photos from the 1890s can still be copyrighted - PD-old is 70 years post mortem, so that's currently anyone who died before 1942. That said we have no idea when this photo was taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The LNWR abolished second class on 1st January 1912 so the photograph is over 100 years old Oxyman (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the date the photo was taken isn't especially relevant, what matters is when the photographer died. I was updating the Nailsea and Backwell railway station article a few weeks back, and found a picture I wanted to use. It was taken in 1895. Slam-dunk, right? Nope, the author died in 1947, so it's not PD until 2018. 70 years post mortem is a LONG time. To put that into perspective, things like The Beatles? Even assuming the copyright was only vested in the four band members (and not any studio staff, label execs, etc) we still need to wait for Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney to die and THEN for another 70 years. If you went out and killed them both tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to upload Strawberry Fields here until 2083. That would be about 115 years of copyright, and let's face it, McCartney's nowhere near dead yet. Unless we get a date when the photographer died, we really can't assume it's PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- So what is the rule if the author is unknown? Oxyman (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Template:PD-UK-unknown - JBarta (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- PD-UK-unknown seems suitable here, It's just a case of changing the license info is it not? Oxyman (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- The issue with that is what constitutes a "reasonable enquiry". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- A reasonable enquiry is what you're reasonably able to do in a reasonable amount of time expending a reasonable amount of effort. You can contact the original flickr uploader to ask if he has any further information or if there is anything on the back of the image. You can seach the internet for possible clues. That's pretty much it. Reasonable enquiry. I will say this, judging by the date, quality and resolution, this was probably done professionally along the lines of the Detroit Publishing Co. – JBarta (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- The issue with that is what constitutes a "reasonable enquiry". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- PD-UK-unknown seems suitable here, It's just a case of changing the license info is it not? Oxyman (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Template:PD-UK-unknown - JBarta (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- So what is the rule if the author is unknown? Oxyman (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the date the photo was taken isn't especially relevant, what matters is when the photographer died. I was updating the Nailsea and Backwell railway station article a few weeks back, and found a picture I wanted to use. It was taken in 1895. Slam-dunk, right? Nope, the author died in 1947, so it's not PD until 2018. 70 years post mortem is a LONG time. To put that into perspective, things like The Beatles? Even assuming the copyright was only vested in the four band members (and not any studio staff, label execs, etc) we still need to wait for Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney to die and THEN for another 70 years. If you went out and killed them both tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to upload Strawberry Fields here until 2083. That would be about 115 years of copyright, and let's face it, McCartney's nowhere near dead yet. Unless we get a date when the photographer died, we really can't assume it's PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The LNWR abolished second class on 1st January 1912 so the photograph is over 100 years old Oxyman (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Photos from the 1890s can still be copyrighted - PD-old is 70 years post mortem, so that's currently anyone who died before 1942. That said we have no idea when this photo was taken. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Did a little bit of looking around. I'm getting the feeling this might have been a postcard. If so, the reverse might offer more information. I'm finding similar images from about the same time and they are marked This "Series" and That "Series", etc. Maybe a postcard printer sent a photographer to various train stations to take photos, then printed them up into postcards and sold them at those stations. (forgive me if I'm stating the obvious... I know nothing about train stations... or postcards for that matter) – JBarta (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per JBarta's reasonable enquiry have marked this as PD-UK-unknown russavia (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.181.19 13:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
not a nice one, there are enough better ones. 79.239.208.205 13:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no policy based reason given for deletion russavia (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This image is maybe protected. Anyway, another version has been loaded on fr:WP as a trademark. ℍenry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 14:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also: File:Turk edited-1.jpg
This is a derivative work of a mural. The photographer does not own the rights to the image. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong licence. 90523rs 14:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The file on flickr was under a free license at the time of upload, so the license shown here is the license from flickr at the time of the upload. But the flickr user Rubenstein is not the author, he only took the photo from http://www.flickr.com/photos/nysarts/3045987055/, flickr user Rubenstein violated copyrights and the license is invalid. Löschen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Err... it's "she" behind the account last I checked, but I have to agree with Martin's reasoning. Tabercil (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as per martin h russavia (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_%26_Super_Dale_Jr%22_with_their_hot_wives..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%26_Super_Dale_Jr%22_with_their_hot_wives..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious CC-licensing, as the original caption on Flickr says "Thank you Mark Aldridge for the photo". So likely some Mark Aldridge, who is clearly not identical to the Flickr user, has shot this image, which makes the Flickr accounts CC-licensing questionable. Besides, such a personal shot seems hardly usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
_&_Super_Dale_Jr"_with_their_hot_wives..jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
_&_Super_Dale_Jr"_with_their_hot_wives..jpg){kind=link}
Model, no freedom of panorama in italy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Model, no freedom of panorama in italy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Model, no freedom of panorama in italy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Model, no freedom of panorama in italy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nomination russavia (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
non-free image Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, unused Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for any educational purpose Nikthestoned (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Yet another penis picture. How original. This image is similar to, and no better than, the large number of penis pictures that have already been uploaded. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has many similar images of grass. If we're going to go with the policy of deleting any images of which similar images exist, let's at least be consistent. Handcuffed (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- By all means, pop over to Commons talk:Nudity and argue your helmet off. At this time, as it says on that page "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera". Do you really think you're the first person to think of taking a picture of your penis and uploading it to Commons? I'm sure to some it sounds like the coolest thing in the world. "Hey man... I'm gonna take a picture of my dick and upload it to Wikipedia.... heh heh... won't that be cool?" But after hundreds and thousands of the same old images taken by the same old whatevers a line has to be drawn. If you really want people to see your dick, upload the pictures to flickr.... pass them out at bus stops if you must... but please spare the Wikimedia project an endless train of people taking pictures of their penises. Geez. – JBarta (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not me, it was uploaded from Flickr. And could you try to talk in a civil tone? Handcuffed (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- By all means, pop over to Commons talk:Nudity and argue your helmet off. At this time, as it says on that page "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera". Do you really think you're the first person to think of taking a picture of your penis and uploading it to Commons? I'm sure to some it sounds like the coolest thing in the world. "Hey man... I'm gonna take a picture of my dick and upload it to Wikipedia.... heh heh... won't that be cool?" But after hundreds and thousands of the same old images taken by the same old whatevers a line has to be drawn. If you really want people to see your dick, upload the pictures to flickr.... pass them out at bus stops if you must... but please spare the Wikimedia project an endless train of people taking pictures of their penises. Geez. – JBarta (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, educational value, unique due to display of vein and associated venous anatomy and structure. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Cirt russavia (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
COM:NOPENIS Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per previous discussion. No new rationale for deletion offered. Handcuffed (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - good quality image, no new arguments presented since last DR 6 months ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen This was originally nominated for deletion on the day that it was uploaded. It should have been deleted then per COM:PENIS. Russavia erred in his closure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have not explained why it should be deleted now. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- COM:PENIS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- So it should be deleted because "PENIS" and because "NOPENIS". Truly this makes perfect sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- What part of this is not making sense to you, Matt? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- So it should be deleted because "PENIS" and because "NOPENIS". Truly this makes perfect sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- COM:PENIS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have not explained why it should be deleted now. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous discussion. Also what is the reason for this deletion~, as no one mentioned what part of "No Penis" supossedly applies to this image? This is a good image that adds value and diversity to our current stocking of male genitalia images. Tm (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- That said, it could benefit from renaming. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- What diversity does the image add compared to, say, File:Semi-erect male genitals.jpg? I'm really curious. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, a frivolous and time-wasting nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen Keep... out of disgust, I don't even care anymore. It's bad enough that some doofus uploads pictures of his "helmet" but the fact that Commons is riddled with even more misguided doofuses who seem to think these idiotic pictures are a valuable addition to the Wikimedia project is simply a big embarrassment to everyone here. It also screams we need a few more adults in the room, and is one of the reasons I do a whole lot less work around here anymore. – JBarta (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Ass on a scanner. That's new. Half a bonus point for useless creativity. Still, I would argue this is not reasonably useful for educational purposes. Actually, it's really not useful for much of anything other than giving the scanee something idiotic to do for 6 seconds and giving Commons editors yet another asinine (a pun!) file to delete. – JBarta (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is an illustration of a cultural phenomenon, and it shows the texture of the scrotum quite well. Handcuffed (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique usage of light and shadow in depiction of popular cultural phenomenon. -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per handcuffed and cirt russavia (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Questionable whether this has any educational content, especially given low quality Ubcule (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given that this has already been nominated and kept (as per above), I'd like to withdraw this request. (I still think it's pretty worthless personally, though). Ubcule (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Reclose as kept; nom withdrawn by nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Seemingly out of scope. Unused image with no demonstrable encyclopedic or educational value. Night Ranger (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, as per past discussions. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous 2 DR. This is a popular activity, so much that is parodied in several shows like the US Simpsons, so this image is in scope. Tm (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Wow, a scanned ass... A piece of art indeed, although a bit dark in my opinion, but then again it can be art with lights and contrast. Also it can depict the social-economic status that people are currently living (no money for a camera or a higher resolution scanner?). --Btmpnr01 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - this is in scope because it demonstrates that the scanner can capture even the bizarrest of "material". Green Giant (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept per the above. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Unused, Seemingly out of focus. Questionable EV Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept, Non-admin closure, Apparently technical quality and questionable EV are not "policy" reasons for deletion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
While Commons is truly blessed to have so many public-spirited users who generously upload pictures of their penis, this image is similar to, and no better than, the large number of penis pictures that have already been uploaded. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has many similar images of grass. If we're going to go with the policy of deleting any images of which similar images exist, let's at least be consistent. Handcuffed (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, good usage of lighting and clear picture, unique due to coloration of skin pigmentation and blood formation around anatomical areas of anatomy structure. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per city russavia (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Random penis photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not bad and kept before. I'd probably keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Ikan Kekek. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Similar to, and no better than, the large number of penis pictures that have already been uploaded. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has many similar images of grass. If we're going to go with the policy of deleting any images of which similar images exist, let's at least be consistent. Handcuffed (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, educational value, unique due to display of anatomy in creative black and white photography with good contrast. -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per cirt russavia (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Similar to, and no better than, the large number of penis pictures that have already been uploaded. Plus there's no proof it's actually morning wood as opposed to any other time wood. If we're going to specify morning wood, then the penis should be shown next to a clock. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has many similar images of grass. If we're going to go with the policy of deleting any images of which similar images exist, let's at least be consistent. Handcuffed (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, educational value, unique due to display of underside, and artistic photography use of lighting and shadow. -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, and can I just say, I had an amazing laugh at the "there's no proof its morning-time wood without a clock" argument. Fry1989 eh? 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No requirement for clocks to be part of the photo. As per other arguments russavia (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Mtuaxcent.jpg
- File:Dominatrix in leather dress.jpg
- File:Female Masochist in black leather dress.jpg
These look photoshopped, probably using copyrighted base images. The uploader has a history of doing this; see for example http://www.flickr.com/photos/23886303@N00/4715258712/in/photostream and http://allnight.com.ua/uploads/posts/2011-07/1310320477_latex-girls-20-w550.jpg. Handcuffed (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kommentar - The flickr user does at least seem to keep coming up with photos of the same person rather than the usual "anyone" approach of most flickrwashing. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's the same person photoshopped into different pictures. The ones that look real, such as http://www.flickr.com/photos/23886303@N00/6406341477/in/photostream, have much different lighting situations and quality. Handcuffed (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Erring on the side of auction here COM:PRP russavia (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
obviously copyright infringement Hephaion (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation (hence the lack of license, I guess). GRuellan (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted athletic logo, with no evidence of permission. Source given is an unofficial blog with no connection to the school. cmadler (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This image infringes the model creator's copyright High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- agree! Image has to be deleted. --Wvk (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong name (correct name is Pentacene) Aushulz (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: use a speedy tag next time Denniss (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
nothing is discernible from this small file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BalkisBenn (talk · contribs)
[edit]collection from the web (e.g. http://www.j-14.com/2012/01/j-14-top-picks-top-14-moments-from-one-direction-behind-the-scenes-one-thing.html), no "own work"
- File:JoeJonas001.jpg
- File:JoeJonas002.jpg
- File:JoeJonas007.jpg
- File:JayConcert.jpg
- File:TomConcert.jpg
- File:SivaConcert.jpg
- File:NathanConcert.jpg
- File:MaxConcert.jpg
- File:Danse01OneDirection.jpg
- File:OneDirection01GottaBeYou.jpg
- File:1D OneThing01.jpg
- File:TW007.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Erledigt, no indication of freeness, I have spotted many source images that are non-free. From that it seems normal to delete all images. The user has been told to stop. Have a nice day. Letartean (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I have found many unfree source images (more than 5) I think it is safe to assume all images are non-free. Letartean (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jayabharat
[edit]Unused files which seem to be out of scope.
- File:Jayabharat in his personal liqour lounge.jpg
- File:Jayabharat in His room.jpg
- File:Jayabharat NiggaHair Tinted.bmp.jpg
- File:Jayabharat with hand in face green.jpg
- File:Jayabharat with windmill in background neon effects.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen - Per nom. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kommentar - several of those are in use on the Jayabharat's userpage, though I wonder if we ought to DR that too as it seems to be trying to be a biography. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- They were all unused yesterday when I nominated them for deletion. I guess it would make sense to DR his userpage on Commons. Same issue with the category page. Not sure about the English Wikipedia user page. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Jayabharat. --ŠJů (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I have doubts about the fact that Jean-Marc Ayrault is taking pictures of Francois Hollande and posting the bnm on Flickr. Could someone check. Hektor (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Maybe not Jean-Marc Ayrault himself, but one of his most trusted advisers. IMO, there is little doubt that these photos are uploaded with Jean-Marc Ayrault's constent. Yann (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I totally agree with Yann. The question of the author (Jean-Marc Ayrault or not) dooesn't matter. It is present on his Flickr page along with other "official pictures" and in this way, it is totally official and free of use. As we say in french "il ne faut pas se montrer plus royaliste que le roi". Jmex (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kommentar I sent a Flickr mail for clarification, but it is very likely the official flickr account of Jean-Marc Ayrault the same way this is the official account of the White House. Léna (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC). Please not that in the US, they have PD-US-Governement while in France, it is not possible to "forget" the author of a picture, so we will need the name of the real photographer. Léna (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Léna, if you have more informations to provide, please hurry up. France has now Jean-Marc Ayrault as new prime minister and the picture is... another one coming from his Flickr account. It is even more obvious that JMA didn't took himself his own official picture ! It becomes a bit, let's say "ubuesque". This means also that either we keep all the pictures coming from this account, either we delete them all. Let me BTW remember to you all that these pictures are under a Creative Commons (CC by 2.0) licence, and therefore free of use... Jmex (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Moreover, it turns out that this picture is present, and several times, on at least 21 different wikis. I assume that all those wikis are not subject to the specificity of the french law concerning the absolute need of knowing the author. So my question is : do we have the right, just because of only one country's law, to delete this picture (and let me remember also to you all : all the pictures coming from Jean-Marc Ayrault's Flickr account, let me also point out that JMA's own picture, also widely used, is not yet subject to deletion) and deprive everybody from this production ?? On this point, I would deeply like to get an answear. Thanks Jmex (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
- I'm waiting for more information. Of course, this DR is about all the pictures uploaded by the FlickR account, not just this one.
- You're wrong, the Foundation has a clear policy : every image should respect both US and local (here, French) law. French law is very clear : you must provide the name of the photographer, whenever is it possible (that is why, for French people, there is no "real" difference between a CC-by and a CC-0 licence). Léna (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Kommentar This is not a vote, please refer to the project policy to keep the file and explain why it is free:
- To respect the CC-BY licence the file must be attributed to the author. The law in France also impose this, so to respect our policies, the file has to be attributed, it's obvious JM Ayrault is not the author (article L121-1 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle).
- The "il ne faut pas se montrer plus royaliste que le roi" argument is just void. We have a precautionary principle here. In doubt we don't keep files.
- I have no doubt that the pictures from this flickr account must be deleted if we do not get the correct attribution and some kind of hint/proof of release under free licence by the authors.
Hence for me it's Löschen --PierreSelim (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Kommentar j'y vais en français après tout. C'est à nous de dire que JMA n'est pas l'auteur ? C'est sur sa page officielle, c'est donc fait sous son contrôle. S'il s'en dit l'auteur, c'est suffisant, ce n'est pas à nous, ici, de jouer les limiers pour en connaître la véritable paternité, ça me semble évident. Auteur : Jean-Marc Ayrault, officiel, et point. Jmex (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- ce sont des photos pros, elles ne sont pas de lui (il ne se prend pas en photo lui même non plus). Si tu veux pour faire ce genre de photo j'utilise un objectif pro assez encombrant, je ne vois pas JMA avec cela dans un meeting. Et si on le fait tous les jours de supprimer des photos importer de flickr car l'auteur est douteux, c'est ce qu'on appelle du Flickr washing (ou licence laundry) (j'avais fait un billet de blog sur le sujet). Au final, c'est important de vérifier quand on a des doutes : on assure le réutilisateur que les images sont vraiment libre, il n'y a pas que Wikipedia qui réutilise Commons. Là il y a doute et quand on fait la vérification cela ne colle pas, on a fait une demande pour avoir les attributions correctes et les libérations sous licences libres. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, alors il n'y a plus qu'à attendre. BTW, pour ma part, j'utilise un iPhone ou parfois, comme toi, quelque chose de plus encombrant -;) Jmex (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oui je pense qu'il faut laisser du temps pour répondre, si ça se trouve dans 2j on a une réponse. Perso en tant qu'admin je clos ce genre de demande en suppression (en attente d'autorisation ou d'information) quand un délai raisonnable est passé (ici 4 mois). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Juste une question : il est sous-entendu ci dessus que toute photo sur Flickr est forcément libre de droit (It is present on his Flickr page along with other "official pictures" and in this way, it is totally official and free of use)... Est-ce bien le cas ? J'attire en particulier l'attention sur le fait qu'un copyright figure clairement et sans ambiguïté en bas de la page Flickr...
- Sinon, il n'y a pas besoin de se livrer à une enquête pour comprendre que les photos ne sont pas de Jean-Marc Ayrault, et qu'à défaut d'une attribution/autorisation claire, c'est Löschen, en accord avec les remarques de PierreSelim. --Azurfrog (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pour répondre dans la langue de Molière à Azurfrog, elles sont toutes sous licence Creative Commons (CC by 2.0). On est donc libre de les "partager et remixer" (soit "reproduire, distribuer, communiquer, adapter et utiliser à des fins commerciales"). Ca répond à ta question ? Il n'y a donc absolument aucune autorisation à demander. Reste bien sûr la seule et unique question ici posée : connaitre l'auteur. Jmex (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oui je pense qu'il faut laisser du temps pour répondre, si ça se trouve dans 2j on a une réponse. Perso en tant qu'admin je clos ce genre de demande en suppression (en attente d'autorisation ou d'information) quand un délai raisonnable est passé (ici 4 mois). --PierreSelim (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, alors il n'y a plus qu'à attendre. BTW, pour ma part, j'utilise un iPhone ou parfois, comme toi, quelque chose de plus encombrant -;) Jmex (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- ce sont des photos pros, elles ne sont pas de lui (il ne se prend pas en photo lui même non plus). Si tu veux pour faire ce genre de photo j'utilise un objectif pro assez encombrant, je ne vois pas JMA avec cela dans un meeting. Et si on le fait tous les jours de supprimer des photos importer de flickr car l'auteur est douteux, c'est ce qu'on appelle du Flickr washing (ou licence laundry) (j'avais fait un billet de blog sur le sujet). Au final, c'est important de vérifier quand on a des doutes : on assure le réutilisateur que les images sont vraiment libre, il n'y a pas que Wikipedia qui réutilise Commons. Là il y a doute et quand on fait la vérification cela ne colle pas, on a fait une demande pour avoir les attributions correctes et les libérations sous licences libres. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen Si ça reste sans réponse Keep si on connait l'auteur. Kyro (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Bien sur que ce n'est pas JMA qui a pris ces photos, mais elles sont publiées sous son nom par un compte pro et son auteur suit ses déplacements en France comme à l'étranger (voir la dizaine d'albums photos) et fait référence au site officiel de JMA. De plus, on voit très bien que ces photos sont prises de manière officielle. Pilkarz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please keep the discussion in English so that it is readable by a larger number of people. Thanks. 92.147.173.89 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Keep argue that it is not important to know the name of the photographs since the FlickR account publish them in CC-by-SA while the Löschen say we need the name of the photographs (as required by French law) since it is really unlikely they were taken by the Prime Minister himself. Léna (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The
- Could you please keep the discussion in English so that it is readable by a larger number of people. Thanks. 92.147.173.89 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It is believed that the photo was taken by photographer of JMA's team, or some photographer who gives him and his team a full permission, in which cases, the "Original Author" may be regarded as a legal person (JMA's team or his party) and the "Licensor" should be regarded as JMA's team or JMA himself, making it unnecessary to provide the name of the very original author according to CC-By 2.0 (legal code). --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not ok, in France attribution must be to the author (it's moral rights) the law and the jurisprudence is quite clear on that in France. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Either the author is Jean-Marc Ayrault, and he uploaded it and granted the CC-BY license, or the author is not Jean-marc Ayrault, Jean-Marc Ayrault uploaded the photo and granted the license without the author's consent, and the author should sue Jean-Marc Ayrault first, which seems rather unlikely. --Awkiku (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Commentaire. J'entends qu'il pourrait être intéressant de connaître le nom du photographe, mais je me demande si c'est nécessaire dans un cas comme celui-ci.
1. Même si on tenait à faire intervenir la loi française (quoique, pourquoi le ferait-on?), l'article L113-1 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle dispose que «La qualité d'auteur appartient, sauf preuve contraire, à celui ou à ceux sous le nom de qui l'oeuvre est divulguée.» Or, pour autant qu'on sache, cette photographie (comme les autres photographies qui sont dans le même cas) a été divulguée sous le nom de Jean-Marc Ayrault. Si on voulait attribuer la paternité en fonction de la loi française, Jean-Marc Ayrault serait donc l'auteur, parce que la loi le dit. Toujours pour autant qu'on sache, on peut raisonnablement présumer que toutes les personnes qui ont pu être concernées sont heureuses de cette situation. Nous n'avons aucune preuve à l'effet contraire qui nous permettrait d'écarter la présomption qui nous est imposée par la loi, ce qui serait le cas si par exemple on savait que la photographie aurait été volée au photographe et publiée en fraude. Est-ce qu'il nous appartient de chercher à contredire les personnes concernées contre leurs propres volontés ?
2. Par ailleurs, pourquoi ferait-on ici intervenir la loi française ? Toujours pour autant qu'on sache, cette photographie a été publiée pour la première fois aux États-Unis, sur Flickr. Il n'y a pas lieu ici de faire intervenir, en plus, la loi des droits d'auteur du lieu de la prise de la photo, comme certains le font parfois dans les cas où le sujet d'une photographie est lui-même une oeuvre protégée par des droits d'auteur distincts, comme une sculpture ou un monument. François Hollande n'est pas un monument (du moins, pas encore) ni un autre type d'oeuvre sous droits d'auteur. Il n'y a pas de droits d'auteur autres que ceux sur la photographie. Si la photographie a été prise par un employé de Jean-Marc Ayrault dans le cadre de son emploi, l'article 201(b) du Copyright Act des États-Unis accorde la qualité d'auteur à Jean-Marc Ayrault. (Par ailleurs, il est possible que la photographie ait été republiée aussi ailleurs qu'aux États-Unis à l'intérieur d'un délai de 30 jours (en l'occurrence, avant le 1er mars 2012). Encore faudrait-il documenter que la photographie a effectivement été ainsi republiée dans ce délai dans tel ou tel autre pays (par exemple, en France) mais, de toutes façons, je ne sais pas si cela affecterait la paternité.)
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Marrant : quand c'est explicité comme ça, si clairement par Asclepias, c'est conservation directe. Quand la même chose est dite et redite depuis le début, mais disons moins bien exprimée, ou pas dans les termes qu'il faut, utilisation juridique en sus, alors on attend des semaines. Je note notamment que Pierre-Selim, que je salue au passage, n'a donc pas voulu entendre des arguments qui développés ci-dessus dans les formes, sont clairement incontestables. Merci de votre attention Jmex (talk) 14:59, 18 june 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Asclepias. Yann (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused, out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
useless photo, out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, advert Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
no proper description or location given Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, low quality Chesdovi (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, non-free logo Chesdovi (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
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) 18:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a photo of Victoria Justice [1] with someone else's face superimposed on it. Out of scope and obviously not PD-US as tagged. January (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, url showing Chesdovi (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Please look at the reflect on the bottom left of File:“大大”遗址.jpg, I highly doubt this files is taken from other photo on a wall.
For File:一大纪念馆.jpg, assume the captions on zhwp is correct then those photos, then the second file shows a same meeting room 30 years after which is shown in the first file. The exifs show those two photos are taken in the someday. Mys 721tx (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Incorporación de instrumentación virtual en el estudio experimental del oscilador de densidad.pdf
[edit]Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no description, useless image Chesdovi (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Chesdovi (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
this user has too many userpage images, this is one of the less quality ones Chesdovi (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
this image, together with all the other ones user has uploaded are copyrighted: Наукова бібліотека УАБС НБУ © 2012 Chesdovi (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, out of scope, personal img Chesdovi (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file serves no purpose without a description - its not in use either. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Chesdovi (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image Chesdovi (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
blurred useless img Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
too small Chesdovi (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Same file with other name by me only Alcides86 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image is of low resolution and there are no valid EXIF information. It is highly likely not the uploader's own work. High Contrast (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for any educational purpose Nikthestoned (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no use Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
spam fashion Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
spam fashion shot Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
non-free logo Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, used for self-promotion Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
non-free logo Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
unused, no description Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
promotional Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
il n'est pas libre de droit, j'en suis le propriétaire. tous droits réservés. Edouard Rolland (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unidentified QR code. January (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Image also found here: http://www.master-music.it/endorser/mori.html (foto tab). If it is own work, send mail to OTRS please Edoderoo (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Satellite photo, claimed to be an own work by the uploader. Most people don't own satellites, so it is more likely that the photo has been copied from some unknown source. Stefan4 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
copyvio McZusatz (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of some copyrighted video game High Contrast (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic matter, unused in personal pages; description say "nothing". Ciaurlec (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a template; looks like a failed image upload was intended. No contribution in the last year. SBaker43 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation? Another Believer (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Please see discussion here and here regarding uploaded images. I don't know if each imaged needs to be tagged individually, but the Kvinneakt category contains seven images, all of which may need to be deleted if they violate copyright rules. --Another Believer (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (For now). The statue was finished in 1975. If no copyright notice was given, the images are in the public domain due to {{PD-US-no notice}}. I haven't yet seen indication of a notice of copyright. I would expect it to appear on File:Kvinneakt, Norman Taylor, 1973.JPG, but it does not. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If these do turn out to be copyvio, make sure you upload locally on en.wiki using a fair use rationale. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: According to SIRIS, there is proper copyright notice on the left big toe. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It states that the angel is a derivated work of a Flickr photograph that doesn't allow derivative works. Ralgis 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I took the photo from a proper licensed file with Creative Commons. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but license is not a proper license: It is, as you said, CC BY-ND. Ralgis 15:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: True. Sadly, ProtoplasmaKid, CC-BY-ND files can't be uploaded here. Badseed talk 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Error in file Andrzej 22 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was easy to repair the error in the file! :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: And easy to keep it, too!! :O) Badseed talk 22:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
" no original description" - what is this showing? Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen I, as the person who transferred the file from the English Wikipedia, no longer see any utility in having this file on Commons. Logan Talk Contributions 18:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really that difficult to figure out if you look at the uploader's contributions made at the time. You'll find this failed attempt to include the image (using the wrong capitalization). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, low quality orange image. Badseed talk 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead and delete it --Awinda (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Badseed talk 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Found on http://www.master-music.it/endorser/mori.html and several other websites. Image not free. Edoderoo (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen Blatant copyright violation. Can be speedied. --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Badseed talk 16:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is surely not the own work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep- This is a true fact about Grenada and aslo this photo are related to the Grenadian Revolution. (Kylekieran (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC))
There is a serious problem with the image license and the fact that important author information is not given. The uploader is not the creator of these two files. The left image appears on various internet pages - such as this one --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator. Badseed talk 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Description says" Interior Of the Temple" Which temple? File not in use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The duplicate (except for the file format) File:Mandir Interior.png is in use and answers your question. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
no description, useless image Chesdovi (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Löschen Too small to be discernible or be in-use. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in USA. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do we have a date that these recreations were created? Perhaps a little bit of info on this may help us ascertain the copyright status of these two. russavia (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The ruwp page says the software is licensed under LGPL and thus the license tag would be completly wrong. Can somebody confirm that the software is free? mabdul 13:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
What software? FreeOffice is distribution of pack free (such as OpenOffice.org or Thunderbird) and freeware (Adobe Reader) software. There is full list of packed software on http://www.altlinux.ru/products/for-work-station/free-office/ (sorry, on Russian). FreeOffice is distributed under the terms of ALT Linux license agreement that allow to use on unlimited number of computers. Any software from this distribution distributed under the terms of its license.
Image made in ALT Linux and distributed under CC SA 1.0. --Андрей Черепанов (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above link translated with google translate states: "Recommended retail price: 780 rubles" - so free is something different! It's very likely that the cover/image is a copyrighted and thus not suitable for commons per COM:LICENSE. mabdul 09:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please, read R.M.Stallman (http://www.gnu.org/doc/fsfs-ii-2.pdf) about free software and commerce: “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” Any people can sell free software if all license conditions are permitted. I change License on FreeOffice page to Free Software. Artwork FreeOffice8.jpg is distributed under cc-sa-1.0. What сlaims do you have to this artwork? --195.239.66.165 13:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Artwork FreeOffice8.jpg is distributed under cc-sa-1.0." - really? Can you provide any link which states the same? mabdul 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: While the software may be freely licensed, it is very unlikely that the packaging and logos also are -- that is the situation with most freely licensed projects, including WP/WMF . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence on the source website that the photographer has freely-licensed it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Original uploaders username is WillianJ so it could very likely be the photographer himself who uploaded it. -24.224.134.138 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at their user page I cannot find evidence that it is the photographer. Also, this user has a history of uploading copyrighted material that was later taken down. I must as I *hate* to admit it -- the image *must* be deleted. The only way to save it is for someone to contact the author to get permission. I'm too lazy to do it ~_~ Trfs (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked for permission from the author, hopefully the email address provided is still correct. --Bumjubeo (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked for permission from the author, hopefully the email address provided is still correct. --Bumjubeo (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at their user page I cannot find evidence that it is the photographer. Also, this user has a history of uploading copyrighted material that was later taken down. I must as I *hate* to admit it -- the image *must* be deleted. The only way to save it is for someone to contact the author to get permission. I'm too lazy to do it ~_~ Trfs (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is what the website has to say [[2]]. Not looking good... Trfs (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep relatively cute drawing that could be useful on userpages, in books, etc. even if it is obviously cartoony. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Inaccurate, homemade drawing, no educational value, not used anywhere since last discussion, thus out of Commons Scope. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Löschen per COM:SCOPE#Examples artwork without obvious educational use Teofilo (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep as I said earlier, I think this drawing could be useful in the context of wikibooks or elsewhere (though it is currently unused). I could imagine it as an analogy for something threatening, illustrating fears of children, etc... Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I personally think it's unlikely to ever happen, and that it's too crude. A better alternative could easily be made. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Löschen as above. Yann (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Löschen sorry, but if wiki is suppose to be serious then we cannot include pictures like that SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Flickr states: "© 2009 Michael Markos. All Rights Reserved. May not be downloaded or reproduced without permission." Ralgis 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The same Michael Markos released the image with a CC license on the very same flickr page, and this is what matters most. If there is a reasonable evidence that Michael Markos is not the copyright holder then I will reconsider, otherwise Keep. Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Löschen I think that the copyright holder hasn't realized what the Creative Commons license he chose means - Badseed talk 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is a far-fetched speculation. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Ysa-Gudule
[edit]- File:Croque sel.jpg
- File:Ailes Jehan.jpg
- File:Versatile Corti.jpg
- File:Passeport.jpg
- File:Terrain vague.jpg
- File:Konkman.jpg
- File:Mots terribles.jpg
- File:Griots.jpg
- File:Cigales.jpg
- File:Chez Leprest.jpg
- File:Fiorina.jpg
- File:Avril et vous.jpg
- File:Anawak.jpg
- File:Al Convoi.jpg
- File:Tout est calme.jpg
- File:Mon côté punk.jpg
- File:Ronchonchons.jpg
- File:Badaboum.jpg
- File:A l'attaque.jpg
- File:Étrangers familiers.jpg
- File:Fiancette.jpg
- File:Eric Philippon.jpg
- File:Loic Lantoine.jpg
- File:Joseph Doherty.jpg
- File:François Pierron.jpg
Most are copyrighted media covers. The few remaining are probably also copyrighted and/or lifted from somewhere given the uploader's misunderstanding of the term "own work". --– JBarta (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Boadicea61 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like a copyvio. See also the second file from this user without another contribs.
Kobac (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
most likely not own work
- File:MishaBryan.jpg aceshowbiz.com/events/Misha%20Bryan/misha-bryan-uk-premiere-breaking-dawn-1-01.html
- File:Belle amie girls.jpg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1326379/X-Factor-rejects-Belle-Amie-add-glamour-Due-Date-premier.html
- File:SophiaWardman.jpg
- File:GenevaLane.jpg http://www.sugarscape.com/main-topics/celebrities/645622/geneva-lane-zayn-maliks-heartbreaker
- File:RebeccaCreighton.jpg http://www.herald.ie/news/dont-snub-us-dubs-begs-x-factor-rebecca-2526920.html
- File:EstherCampbell.jpg http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/gallery/gallery-specials/30237/2/5/the-x-factor-finalists-hit-covent-garden/1
- File:Belle Amie performing live.jpg
- File:Rachel A at Pride Ball.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- delete all (speedy if possible), was blocked on en-wp in the meantime and has admitted his uploads there were copyvios too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: ok, deleted them, thanks for helping Fut.Perf. Polarlys (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Description explicitly says it is a photograph from a book; a search shows the book was published in 1997; user obviously doesn't understand that taking a photograph of a book doesn't change the underlying copyright of the material. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- My dear Mr. Qxyrxian! Of course this is a photograph taken by me from my book Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna (Part I), but I may also add here that this portrait of Murlidhar (father of Bismil) was also depicted by me. My signatures are still there on the lower right hand side corner of the portrait in Hindi as "क्रान्त" which can be easily viewed by enlarging the image on computer. Thus there is no violation of copyright at all. I am also the copyright holder of this book till date. I think I have explained everything here. Moreover the image was created and edited by me on my personal Nokia mobile using the multimedia software and the frame was added in the image to make it better looking. With all these explanations given hereinabove, I propose this this historic and rare image to be kept here on wikicommons. So please "KEEP" it here, many many thanks, Krantmlverma (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
- Löschen Low resolution and lack of metadata appear to contradict claims above and on the image talk page. User has previously uploaded copyvios claimed to be his/her own (e.g., File:Akhilesh Yadav2012.gif, File:Akhilesh Yadav.gif, etc.). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:S.N.Sanyal1424.gif for similar circumstance. May even be a COM:SCOPE issue; if this is indeed a self-created portrait of a person who died in the 1920s, how do we know it's an accurate deception (i.e., would projects consider it to be in violation of the principles of no original research, and thus decline to use it?) Эlcobbola talk 20:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kommentar User:Krantmlverma is a writer and if he used PD files in his books or if he has the copyright for the photos he used in his books he can also upload them to Commons.
- It is possible that User:Krantmlverma has good contacts and good access to (old) pictures.
- The problem is that some of the uploads was not sourced properly and some was not free. That makes users on Commons sceptic about the files. A bad source is "Photo from my book" and a better source is "This is a photo used in my book xxx. The original photo was taken in 19xx by N.N."
- We need to know (that goes for all uploads):
- Who made the original photo / drawing?
- When did he/she die?
- If that is not 70 years ago did he/she give a permission or why else is this photo free?
- If he/she gave a permission it should be forwarded to ORTS.
- I also suggest that User:Krantmlverma sends a mail to ORTS confirming that he is Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma the owner of http://www.facebook.com/people/Krant-ML-Verma/100002364992421 and http://krantmlverma.blogspot.com/ and any other relevant web pages. That way we have proof of the identity and it should help when it comes to the covers of the books. --MGA73 (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- My dear Michael! First of all I must pay regards to you for providing help to such an old author like me who still types on computer a letter by letter and the gentlemen wiki-users put a tag thereupon even in the seconds. I appreciate your spirit. As suggested by you, I have this day edited some of my files accordingly. You are earnestly requested to see them & yet you find any mistake, kindly help me. Thanks a lotKrantmlverma (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
- Just a question to clear things up. On the file page and on the talk page the text says:
- "The original photo was taken in 1927 by press photographers. It was published in most of the news papers in India at that time."
- "I am the creater of this portrait of Shri Murlidhar..."
- Is it a drawing made by you based on a photo from 1927 or how is this to be read?
- The talk page also says that "This book ... was released on 19 December 1996 by Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee." What does it mean that the PM released it? --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a question to clear things up. On the file page and on the talk page the text says:
Yes Sir! I have made this portrait. This portrait was also published in my book "Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna" which was released by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. You can see this file photograph viz. File:Release of Books By A.B.Vajpeyi.JPEG to verify the facts. Moreover I am the copyright holder of this book also. Now I think every thing is clear to you.Krantmlverma (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC))Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
Löschen The uploader has scant understanding or regard for copyright policies and laws as evidenced by contributions here and an en.wiki. At this point I'm unable to accept anything they say. Unless we have concrete third party evidence that this belongs in PD, it should be deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep A photo from 1927 would as I understand it be {{PD-India}}. And a drawing of a PD photo would be free if the creator of the drawing release it under a free license.
Even if uploader made many mistakes does not mean that all the files are not free. In this case I think we have a good reason to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Might be kept, but there is no license tag now. Please add one. Yann (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Author and license (re-)added / made more clear. --MGA73 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Who is the artist? The uploader/author is not, as he previously claimed that he just photographed the art work which he's used in his book, the responses keep changing both here and on en-wiki. Without knowing the info about the artist, it's difficult to say that this falls under PD-India. —SpacemanSpiff 08:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- My dear SpacemanSpiff! this is an image taken by me by my Nokia mobile from my book Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna (Part I) For your perusal I may also add this information here that this portrait of Murlidhar (father of Bismil) was exclussively made by me. My signatures are still there on the lower right hand side corner of this portrait in Hindi as "क्रान्त" which can easily be seen by enlarging this picture on computer. Moreover there is no violation of copyright at all. I am also the copyright holder of this book till date. I think I have explained everything here. Moreover the image was created and edited by me on my personal Nokia mobile using the multimedia software and the frame was added in the image to make it looking better. With all these explanations given hereinabove, I urge you and everybody to KEEP this image on wikicommons here. Thanks, Krantmlverma (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It says that this is a "late 19th century" photo taken by the uploader. Is the uploader more than 110 years old? Might be PD because of age but there is no way to prove that. Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Photo is from postcard. Gizgalasi (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but who took the photo and when did the photographer die? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Photo is from postcard. Gizgalasi (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-RusEmpire}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
