Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
i have a new photo Seminarx (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
See EXIF in [1]. The image is credited to wenn.com, a photo-collecting agency. There is no evidence that user:Xclios is the author Materialscientist (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Agreed with above. Techman224Talk 04:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Clear signs of flickr license washing: no EXIF, low resolution; at the time of positing this, the flickr account had 2 images, both uploaded the same time as this upload. Uploads of this user deserve scrutiny because of his/her past uploading history. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
File apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Comedic likeness of Lary David SkyMachine (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Attack image Herby talk thyme 15:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I confused it with a sculpture in France. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I confused it with a sculpture in France. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Erreur dans le nom d`identification YB whybe (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Luke Ford does not have a model release for this photo. I am a private person. Please delete this photo!!! 76.94.83.215 05:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Photograph was taken by Luke who was openly photographing - see File:Nick East at Talent Call World Modeling 2.jpg where the subject is clearly posed. As stated in COM:PEOPLE, allowable photos of people include "Partygoers at a large private party where photography is expected" which is akin to how this photo appears to have been taken. Additionally, subject is a long time male porn star; entry exist on IAFD for Nick. Tabercil (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)- Keep, agree with astute analysis as provided by Tabercil (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per analysis by Tabercil - if you pose for a photo at a large party, don't be surprised when photos get published. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Luke Ford does not have a model release for this photo. I am a private person. Please delete this photo!!! 76.94.83.215 05:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Photograph was taken at a party where Luke was openly photographing - see the fact that the subjects are clearly posed for a photo. As stated in COM:PEOPLE, allowable photos of people include "Partygoers at a large private party where photography is expected". Additionally, both subjects are long time male porn stars; entries exist on IAFD for both Scott and Nick. Tabercil (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per analysis by Tabercil - if you pose for a photo at a large party, don't be surprised when photos get published. Denniss (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Scope Techman224Talk 02:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless, out of scope etc Bulwersator (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Techman224Talk 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from http://www.indycar.com/news/show/55-izod-indycar-series/51152-qanda-with-rahal-sato/ cobra bubbles (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- No need to discuss that over here, you could have used a speedy deletion tag from the beginning. Unambiguous copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Herbythyme Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Useless Loikandre.bourgeois (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - deletion requested by uploader; not usable for educational purposes. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use: uploaded for use in hoax article "Orlando Maroj", deleted both on :en and :es. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal image. Rapsar (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploader requested. ~ Fry1989 eh? 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, (e.g:http://anekadrama.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/miss-a-suzy-anybody-2540-jyp-nation-teamplay-101224-17.jpg) Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This image shows en:Leningradin ja Turun ystävyyden patsas in Finland. It was made by en:Antti Louhisto who died in 1989, so the copyright expires in Finland in 2060. It was constructed during 1967-68 but not revealed until 1969, so my assumption is that US law defines it as first published in 1969. This means that the copyright expires in the United States in 2065. The image file is named after the statue and it is obvious that the statue is the central element of the photo, so it can hardly be considered as de minimis. COM:FOP#Finland is limited to non-commercial use only. Stefan4 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I have to agree that the statue is the "the central element of the picture", as COM:FOP#Finland puts it, even though it takes only a small part of the image area. Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't say on the website that it is CC licensed, and it says that it can't be used for redistribution or sales, meaning it's not acceptable on Commons InverseHypercube 07:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind, it seems they changed the license, and CC is irrevocable. InverseHypercube 07:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
On Flickr, this image is under CC by-nc-sa license. ComputerHotline (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Checked by uploader. Hmm. Kobac (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Not appropriate. Colin (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete nc-sa not good. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- And yet again - please see Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images taken by Israel Defense Force. I hope this is the last time this issue is raised. matanya • talk 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Since it's an irrevokable licence. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per matanya and DR-Images by IDF. Jdcollins13 - chat 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo —Andrei S. Talk 09:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 21:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
not actually a work of the us government - see http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov//id/author.html Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good catch. Delete as copyvio. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Image is over the threshold of originality and copyrighted. Armbrust (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, this design is too complex. Delete. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Image is over the threshold of originality and copyrighted. Armbrust (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: the uploader claims authorship, so an OTRS email from either them or the club is in order. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of an Action figure. It is copyrighted by the producer. Please see COM:Derivative works. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of an Action figure. It is copyrighted by the producer. Please see COM:Derivative works. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of an Action figure. It is copyrighted by the producer. Please see COM:Derivative works. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of an Action figure. It is copyrighted by the producer. Please see COM:Derivative works. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of two Action figures. They are copyrighted by the producer. Please see COM:Derivative works. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work; movie poster High Contrast (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This Image was copied from this private Website, there is no sign, that it was free. The Uploader has also copied the websites text into the german WP, it seems as if he did not know about copyright. Liberaler Humanist (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio. De728631 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for this bad combo image which is not going to be used on wikipedia. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- IMO this file should be deleted. It was an experiment only, which was made by me. PawełMM (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's considered fair-use on Wikipedia English. I think it's too simple, and if it is, we should just bring Wikipedia English's SVG file down to Commons. If it's not, this one has to go. ~ Fry1989 eh? 21:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
cambie la licencia--EEIM (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, too simple for copyright. --EEIM (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks eligible for copyright to me, ergo derivartive work. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, this is too complex for PD. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Fernando Álvarez de Sotomayor (1875-1960) - Huwellijksmaal - Madrid Bellas Artes 21-03-2010 11-51-38.jpg
[edit]copyvio, wrong licence, author died in 1960, therefore not yet 70 years dead FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, this is still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--. HombreDHojalata.talk 09:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Same picte has uploaded here in 20 June 2006. Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Same picture has used several web sites before. Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The same image had been used in several website since 2001. Takabeg (talk) 07:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a valid license, source it comes from claims "Foto's en info Verzamelingen: Koninklijk Huis Archief. Met dank!, RVD." http://www.hethuisvanoranje.nl/Bronvermelding.html No evidence that this file was released under a free license by the Netherlands Government Information Service (RVD). BTW: it looks like it was photographed with a mobile phone or low resolution digital camera from what may be a photo in a book or magazine or at an exhibit. SpeakFree (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - OTRS received the mail. Why not wait for the results? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- DeleteThe OTRS note is from a hotmail account. I am not inclined to believe that it came from a person authorized to license this image, particularly since the uploader has a record of lying about the source of images:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tuki Brando.jpg
- File:Steven Seagal 2011.jpg
All of Mythic Writerlord's uploads have been deleted except this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I already had some serious doubts. After a private discussion with other users I come to the conclusion that it is indeed a false license. Trijnstel (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds intriguing, could you share the arguments of those private discussions? Those would in the end be the most valuable. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I heard OTRS has yet to respond to the last e-mail sent. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds intriguing, could you share the arguments of those private discussions? Those would in the end be the most valuable. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all I see on OTRS does not prove anything, but only adds more uncertainty. We now talk about an image that has no clear source, is available all over the web without a source, and suddenly someone steps up and shouts it is mine, but I have no proof. In case of doubt, the image is not free, and we can not distribute it under the licenses that are used by Wikipedia. We better wait for a good image, with a decent license, than to go with a bad quality image that has too many question marks around it. Edoderoo (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per all of the above. Trijnsteltalk 16:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
no permission was removed by uploader after he had changed the license tag to "Ukraine exempt". By a quick scan of the template it does not seem to apply. If it applies - please mention which bullet point does. Saibo (Δ) 18:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. I downloaded the file for the article "Ukrainian Falcons" [2] on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. This photo is distributed under a free license. I see no reason for his removal --Stanislavovich (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your comment! The photo is not under a "free license". Instead you claimed that it is in the public domain by adding the {{PD-UA-exempt}} tag. I just want to know why it is public domain? --Saibo (Δ) 01:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- In first I set for this photo free license, but still run into problems with its licensing . This photo made the pilot of the "Ukrainian Falcons" and it is was free loaded on site of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. I think that this file is may distributed with a free license, so i returned It to this status. if it still problems with these files, please help to solve them and do not delete this file. Thank you. --Stanislavovich (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Only the photographer can release photos under a free license - not everybody. So we need to know why you "think that this file is may distributed with a free license". You may want to read about Internet images and the intro of COM:L.
- Don't fear deletion - it will not be deleted very soon if there is still something not clear. --Saibo (Δ) 17:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide the exact weblink to where you found that file, so we can determine what kind of licenses and restrictions have been put on the original photo. The generic link to the website of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that you put on the file page is actually not enough. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to doubt that this image was originally posted by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They seem to have a habit of watermarking their photographs with their url, see this press release or that one. File:Ukrainian Falcons3.jpg however has no such watermark.
- And in related news, please check also Commons:Deletion requests/File:MiG-29-2008-UkrainianFalcons.jpg. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately to find this photo on the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine site I failed. It would be here http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=ua&part=multimedia&sub=2, but it is not. Notice, the photos on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did not have any links or information about copyrights. --Stanislavovich (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- In first I set for this photo free license, but still run into problems with its licensing . This photo made the pilot of the "Ukrainian Falcons" and it is was free loaded on site of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. I think that this file is may distributed with a free license, so i returned It to this status. if it still problems with these files, please help to solve them and do not delete this file. Thank you. --Stanislavovich (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your comment! The photo is not under a "free license". Instead you claimed that it is in the public domain by adding the {{PD-UA-exempt}} tag. I just want to know why it is public domain? --Saibo (Δ) 01:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparently taken from http://vaul.ru/089/slizov_s.htm. There is no reason to believe any of the uploader's various contradictory and ever changing claims that the file is licensed under {{Cc-by-3.0}}, {{GFDL}}, that is covered by {{PD-UA-exempt}}, and that he himself is the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
31.57.143.7 13:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Very probably FlickrWashing. 89.244.162.35 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why is this "very probable"? I have uploaded lots of images from a broad variety of Flickr users who chose to license their images with a CC license compatible with what Commons requires. Why should I steal an image from elsewhere, open up a bogus Flickr account to upload it to Flickr with a bogus CC license and then transfer it to Commons? Because that is basically what you are accusing me to have done, and it sounds rather grotesque to me. To make it clear: I have done no such thing. Why do you say I did? Do you have any concrete reason to do so, or is it just something you invented because you don't like the image in question? --Vydra (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per astute analysis in response by Vydra (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's not your fault, but the licence that someone on FlickR chose seems to be simply wrong. There's a watermark there that makes it look like a porn image from a professional site. And there's no way to check it because the "user is no longer active" on FlickR. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I just wrote at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shanon Cucumber 0415.jpg: The Flickr user (someone from the Netherlands) who took this had uploaded several hundred of images like this. That he chose to put a kind of logo (his own, not that of any website) in the lower right corner of those images does not make it any likelier that this is a copyvio. Would a copyvio come with a image size of several MB and even geodata? Apart from your dubious equation “watermark=professional porn image=copyvio”: Do you have any concrete reason why this image should be a copyvio? --Vydra (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- The alleged "watermark" is just some text and a smiley widely found on the web, for example here [3] or here [4] (animated gif version). A Google image search [5] shows many more. A commercial porn website would hardly have such a widely used smiley for their logo, would they? --Vydra (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept - no evidence of flickrwashing has been presented, and I'm inclined to take the uploader at his word. The image was free on flickr, and does contain meta/geodata, which I agree, is unlikely for a porn site image. That it has a watermark/logo is not at all unusual on Commons, or indeed on Flickr. That the flickr user has vanished is problematic, I grant you, but we have the review process for that very reason. Unless solid evidence is presented, rather than just innuendo and accusations, this should be kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
wish of uploader?
Otherwise it should be renamed but I cant tell what this is. McZusatz (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр_Малинин (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely by uploader: low resolution and missing EXIF, two files are old portraits that could be scans from 1960s/1970s print sources.
- File:Rivizky fragment karta.JPG
- File:Raykovo treha.JPG
- File:Raykovo Treha.JPG
- File:Raykovo DK.JPG
- File:Raykovo uliza.JPG
- File:Riviza Rivzavod.JPG
- File:Rivicky vyveska.JPG
- File:Mologa Fabrika.JPG
- File:Maksatichinsky rayon graniza.JPG
- File:Rivicky pojar.JPG
- File:Rivicky Bolnica.JPG
- File:Pochtovaya.JPG
- File:Rivicky Zentr.jpg
- File:Kovalev 05.jpg
- File:Kovalev 07.jpg
- File:Rivickiy.jpg
A.Savin 19:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Mudy12312300
[edit]- File:Alam (276).jpg
- File:Loc-m-1.jpg
- File:Alam (7).jpg
- File:Alam (343).jpg
- File:Alam (387).jpg
- File:Gergrg.jpg
- File:Alam (117).jpg
- File:197917 1864109724582 1296163390 2143869 204921 n.jpg
- File:Alam (25).jpg
- File:242176646.jpg
Probably copyrighted images, can be found on various sites --Smooth_O (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Beni2000
[edit]- File:2.TOP ©Bazzoli.jpg
- File:Hotel bar Saphir at Fairmont Monaco.jpg
- File:Chambre bleue.jpg
- File:Chambre bleue vue jardin.JPG
- File:Hall centre.jpg
Images can be found on various sites, probably copyrighted. --Smooth_O (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia.
- File:Dmitri Medvedev in front of the Boris Yeltsin memorial in Yekaterinburg, Russia - 20110201.jpg
- File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg 1 february opening 1.JPG
- File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg Medvedev and Misharin lay-flowers.JPG
- File:Церемония открытия памятника первому Президенту России Борису Ельцину.jpg
Kobac (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are we really going to be more careful about Russian law than the office of the Russian president...? Okino (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okino, the permission from the office of the Russian president is not a law. The Press Secretary to the President of the Russian Federation can't take away the rights of the sculptor or the architect protected by Russian civil law. Kobac (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, it is not a law, but I believe Russian president's office abides by the law. Do You think it does not? Okino (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the Press Secretary of the Russian president is not a Press Secretary of the Tsar. )) Kobac (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The more I think it abides the law, as in case of Czar's office the office would be the law itself. :-) Okino (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, it is not a law, but I believe Russian president's office abides by the law. Do You think it does not? Okino (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okino, the permission from the office of the Russian president is not a law. The Press Secretary to the President of the Russian Federation can't take away the rights of the sculptor or the architect protected by Russian civil law. Kobac (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. De minimis + in the spring of this year the law will be change and allow freedom of panorama. -- TarzanASG +1 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Move to Russian Wikipedia until the law will be change. Kobac (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also, does File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg Medvedev and Misharin lay-flowers.JPG qualify for a panorama? More over, according to this, I feel user Kobac is personally stalking me and isn't acting within spirit of the project. Anyway, I praise his overall work for Wikipedia, but discourage personal attacks, so this affects my voting and, I fear, this affects his work in a bad way. --ssr (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Shame that russian president's office is shamefully ignoring other people's rights. Fucking assholes. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This one clearly should be deleted. For the other three, we need to weight carefully whether they fall under the FoP provisions. I am personally inclined to think that File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg Medvedev and Misharin lay-flowers.JPG can be kept, since it only represents a small fraction of the monument, and does not infringe on the rights of the sculptor, and the other two should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we can keep this one, but not the other two, because there are 2 main objects on them: Medvedev and the monument. Kobac (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted second (monument is copyrighted, and clearly main object of the photo) and fourth (monument is main object along with Medvedev speaking) files; but kept two remaining (third file: just a crop with no copyrightable parts of the monument; first file: albeit a borderline case, I presume the main subject is rather Medvedev and the rest should pass de minimis, however, if there are doubts, the problem may be solved by cropping away the upper fourth). - A.Savin 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All images contain an artwork that are protected by copyright. Monument established in 2011. Not COM:FOP, see COM:FOP#Russia. Wrong licensing - all images is derivative works, see COM:DW.
- File:Dmitri Medvedev in front of the Boris Yeltsin memorial in Yekaterinburg, Russia - 20110201.jpg
- File:Ельцин Памятник Екатеринбург.JPG
Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let's change strange rules "COM:FOP#Russia". I'm sure that peoples are writing wiki, but not wiki is law for everybody. Many good photos already were deleted. We should change rules as soon as possible. Жабыш (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Здешним гражданам очень нравится уродовать другие проекты, поэтому правил они, конечно, не изменят. Но полезные фотографии я стараюсь сохранять. Если нужны какие-то конкретные, обращайтесь. --Alexander (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Другие проекты пусть решают свои проблемы самостоятельно, а не за счёт создания проблем Wikimedia Commons. Так будет честно. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Не волнуйтесь, в следующий раз свои проблемы с категоризацией десятков тысяч хаотично загруженных изображений вы тоже будете решать самостоятельно. Работаем по принципу полной взаимности. --Alexander (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Не я вас сюда звал, не мне вам предъявлять претензии. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Не волнуйтесь, в следующий раз свои проблемы с категоризацией десятков тысяч хаотично загруженных изображений вы тоже будете решать самостоятельно. Работаем по принципу полной взаимности. --Alexander (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Другие проекты пусть решают свои проблемы самостоятельно, а не за счёт создания проблем Wikimedia Commons. Так будет честно. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Здешним гражданам очень нравится уродовать другие проекты, поэтому правил они, конечно, не изменят. Но полезные фотографии я стараюсь сохранять. Если нужны какие-то конкретные, обращайтесь. --Alexander (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- File:Dmitri Medvedev in front of the Boris Yeltsin memorial in Yekaterinburg, Russia - 20110201.jpg Keep per section above. --Insider (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The files should be deleted. Monument is not de minimis. Please transfer the files into Russian Wikipedia, there are a lot of fair use photos. But A. Savin suggested to crop away upper part of sculpture – I agree, that case sculpture will become de minimis. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. Note also the similar case File:Monument to the heroes of the World War I. Vladimir Putin.jpg — discussion took place here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Moscow. Also the President at the opening of memorial, the same license, the same source. The photo was deleted. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- file:Dmitri Medvedev in front of the Boris Yeltsin memorial in Yekaterinburg, Russia - 20110201 (cropped).jpg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Russia. Cropped file kept. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dinozaurus (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these images was created by different authors and uploaded to the Commons by Dinozaurus from NAZVANIE.net website without any permission. We need OTRS for keep them here.
- File:Polonsky8.jpg
- File:Potok8.jpg
- File:Polonsky hunger strike.jpg
- File:Federation Tower 10-2011.jpg
- File:Nazvanienet.jpg
- File:Golden Keys 2.jpg
- File:Sergei Polonsky 2011.jpg
- File:Plonium snowboard.jpg
- File:Federation august2011.jpg
- File:Jkcorona.jpg
- File:Federation Tower 2011.jpg
- File:Polonskiy.jpg
- File:Nnet.jpg
Kobac (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There are many-many troubles with files uploaded by this user. Fake permissions, fake templates, no OTRS from the authors, no permissions from the unknown photographers, derivatives from copyright protected, no freedom of panorama in Russia...
We need to check them all and delete all unchekable.
- File:Russia Ekaterinburg Expo 2020 presentation in Paris.jpg
- File:A. Misharin meets Ekatrinburg bloggers 3rd time-1.jpg
- File:A. Misharin meets Ekatrinburg bloggers 3rd time-2.jpg
- File:A. Misharin meets Ekatrinburg bloggers 3rd time-3.jpg
- File:Bazhovskoe society.jpg
- File:Cincture of the Virgin Mary worshippers in Ekaterinburg night.jpg
- File:Cincture of the Virgin Mary worshippers in Ekaterinburg.jpg
- File:Russian Expo Arms 2011 T-90S fires.jpg
- File:Russian Expo Arms 2011 shootings.jpg
- File:Russian Expo Arms 2011 rehearsal Nizhny Tagil T-90S.jpg
- File:EKB keyboard fixing-keys.jpg
- File:EKB keyboard fixed.jpg
- File:2ES10 test run Europe-Asia border.JPG Direct link present
- File:Kirill Formanchuk.jpg
- File:Alexander Misharin in Sagra.jpg Direct link present
- File:Пухов, Владимир Игнатьевич.jpg
- File:Alexander Misharin.jpg
- File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg 1 february opening 1.JPG
- File:2ЭС10-002.jpg
- File:Elena Chechunova.JPG
- File:Citizen Journalism Center Yekaterinburg opening.jpg
- File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg Medvedev and Misharin lay-flowers.JPG
- File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg Medvedev and Misharin.JPG
- File:Terekhovo.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Saraswati-Laxmi-Ganesha murti at Delhi street.JPG
- File:Nastya Zadorozhnaya 3.JPG
- File:Nastya Zadorozhnaya 1.jpeg
- File:Runet investors conference at Marseille Cabaque in Moscow.jpg
- File:Andrey Lebedev (Russian musician).jpg
- File:Igor Vittel .jpg
- File:Igor Vittel.jpg
- File:Obama in Leesburg, VA st.jpg
- File:Obama in Leesburg, VA.jpg
- File:Samoded.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Siyskiy reserve Kholmogorsky District.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Goszakaznik Siyskiy.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Ostafyevo International Airport.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Russian Internet Forum — 2008.jpg
- File:Medvedev at RIF-2008.jpg
- File:Central mosque in Nouakchott.jpg
- File:Rainbow in Antananarivo.jpg
- File:Senegalians on street.jpg
- File:Antananarivo city heights.jpg
- File:Antananarivo street 2007.jpg
- File:Mauritanian bota bag.jpg
- File:Entrecampos train station.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Rossio train station in Lisbon.JPG Possible Own work
- File:0-382609-4 at Santa Apolónia.JPG Possible Own work
- File:A street in Novorossiysk.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Togo phosphates mining.jpg
- File:Togoville harbour.jpg
- File:Togoville, Togo view.jpg
- File:Sanaa, Yemen view evening september.jpg
- File:Sanaa, Yemen view.jpg
- File:Maputo, Mozambique view.jpg
- File:First Apple Center shop in Russia.JPG
- File:Olga Dergunova of Microsoft Russia.jpg
- File:RIF-2005 Russian Internet (Runet) Forum.JPG
- File:LEGO tower on Manezh Square in Moscow.JPG Possible Own work
- File:Sonya Sokolova.jpg
- File:Ramenskoye houses (rzhd pan2 b).jpg
Kobac (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The files should not be mass-deleted and need to be examined individually. For instance, I do not see the problem with this file: I do not see a reason to assume that ssr was not there in 2002 and was not available to take this picture. Some others, indeed, clearly need permission.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- He received permission request for File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg 1 february opening 1.JPG last May and when it was deleted upload this file again. So I think he was understood his actions. Anyway the admins will not delete the files before check them for licenses and author's names in descriptions. Kobac (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose mass deletion. Here is the list of these uploads sorted by use across wikis. Many files are heavily used. Some need proper OTRS permission. Going from top in my list, some are very plausible personal amateur photos, such as File:Aerial view of Tashkent, Uzbekistan.JPG File:Ilmen Lake.JPG File:Aerial view of Podolsk.JPG, File:Velikaya river in Pskov.JPG etc., all taken with a very primitive camera Olympus C-1Z,D-150Z, and their mass deletion would require a solid evidence they were taken by someone else (ugh, with this camera ..), or evidence of mass fraud. As a quick differentiator, I suggest mass keep all photos with EXIF containing C-1Z,D-150Z. Materialscientist (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, you convinced me. Let's wait the permissions. The debate is closed. Kobac (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No permission from the photographers and fake OTRS-tickets!!!
- See also deleted edit from this user.
- File:Леонид Казинец.JPG
- File:Sergey Boyarskiy.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 16.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 19.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 18.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 15.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 14.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 13.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 12.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 11.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 08.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 09.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 10.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 05.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 06.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 07.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 03.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 04.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 02.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 01.jpg
Kobac (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A set of promotional photographs of non-notable person, unused, out of scope (COM:ADVERT)
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 16.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 19.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 18.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 17.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 15.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 14.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 13.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 12.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 11.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 08.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 09.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 10.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 05.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 06.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 07.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 03.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 04.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 02.jpg
- File:Alexandr Jdanov (photographer) 01.jpg
Яй (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Veritas2233 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I've found enough copyright violations among this user's uploads that I doubt any of their authorship claims are true. The uploader appears to think it's okay to claim that they created anything that they were able to find on the Internet. There are also a few files that are outside of our project scope because they consist solely of JPEG'ed text or similar.
- File:Время намаза по тени 1.jpg
- File:Время намаза по тени 2.jpg
- File:Время намаза по тени 3.jpg
- File:Al Jaferia Palace in Spain (Mosque).jpg – http://karim74.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/al-jaferia-palace-in-spain.jpg (2009)
- File:Al Nour Mosque in Cairo - Egypt (Mosque).jpg – http://karim74.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/al-nour-mosque-in-cairo-egypt.jpg (2009); http://www.world-wallpaper.com/wallpaper/cairo-al-nour_w812.html (higher resolution)
- File:Al Zulfa Mosque in Seeb - Oman.jpg – http://karim74.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/al-zulfa-mosque-in-seeb-oman.jpg (2009); http://www.bia4pic.com/uploads/posts/2011-01/1296284177_islamic_www.bia4pic.com-27.jpg (January 2011, higher resolution)
- File:Ali Pasha Mosque in Sarajevo - Bosnia and Hercegowina.jpg – http://karim74.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ali-pasha-mosque-in-sarajevo-bosnia-and-hercegowina.jpg (2009); http://www.bia4pic.com/uploads/posts/2011-02/1298905419_islamic_www.bia4pic.com-30.jpg (February 2011, higher resolution)
- File:Amir Abdulkadir Mosque in Constantine - Algeria.jpg – http://dakwah.org/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=361 (2008)
- File:Amir Timur Mosque in Samarkand - Uzbekistan.jpg
- File:Amr Bin Aas Mosque in Cairo - Egypt.jpg
- File:An Nour Mosque in Malaysia.jpg
- File:Anadolu Hisari Fortress in Istanbul.jpg
- File:Ar Rahman Mosque in Baghdad - Iraq.jpg
- File:Ar Rifai Mosque in Cairo - Egypt.jpg
- File:Badshahi Mosque in Lahore - Pakistan.jpg
- File:Bai'tul Islam Mosque in Canada.jpg
- File:Banda Aceh Main Mosque in Indonesia.jpg
- File:Bayezid Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Blue Mosque in Herat - Afghanistan.jpg
- File:Buyuk Majidiye Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Caravanserai in Capadocia - Turkey.jpg
- File:Central Mosque in Erbil - Iraq.jpg
- File:Cifte Minareli Madrassah in Erzurum - Turkey.jpg
- File:Citadel in Aleppo - Syria (interior).jpg
- File:Citadel in Aleppo - Syria.jpg
- File:Cyristal Mosque in Kuala Terengganu - Malaysia (night).jpg
- File:Cyristal Mosque in Kuala Terengganu - Malaysia.jpg
- File:Emperor's Mosque in Sarajevo - Bosnia and Hercegowina.jpg
- File:Fatma Mosque in Kuwait.jpg
- File:Great Mosque in Xian - China.jpg
- File:Grand Mosque in Cordoba - Spain (night).jpg
- File:Hadhrat Khidir Mosque in Samarkand - Uzbekistan.jpg
- File:Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - Turkey (interior).jpg
- File:Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - Turkey (exterior).jpg
- File:Haj Bahaa Mosque in Lebanon (night).jpg
- File:Haji Ali Mosque in Mumbai - India.jpg
- File:Humayun's Tomb in Delhi - India.jpg
- File:Ibraham Mosque in Hyderabad - India.jpg
- File:Imam Mosque in Isfahan - Iran.jpg
- File:Ishak Pasha Palace in Agri - Turkey.jpg
- File:Jakarta in Indonesia.jpg
- File:Jamie Asr Mosque in Brunei (night).jpg
- File:Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta - Indonesia.jpg
- File:Jamie Asr Mosque in Brunei.jpg
- File:Kalon Mosque in Bukhara - Uzbekistan.jpg
- File:Kabud Mosque in Tabriz - Iran (panorama).jpg
- File:Kalon Mosque in Bukhara - Uzbekistan (arches).jpg
- File:Klang Mosque in Malaysia.jpg
- File:King Hussain Mosque in Jordan.jpg
- File:Khan Mohammad Mirdha Mosque in Dakha - Bangladesh.jpg
- File:Koutoubia Mosque in Marakesh - Morocco.jpg
- File:Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia (night).jpg
- File:Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia.jpg
- File:Kul Sharif Mosque in Kazan - Russia (sunset).jpg
- File:Kul Sharif Mosque in Kazan - Russia.jpg
- File:Lahore in Pakistan (panorama).jpg
- File:Lahore Fort in Pakistan.jpg
- File:Maidan Al Jazair Mosque in Tripoli - Libya.jpg
- File:Larabanga Mosque in Ghana.jpg
- File:Makkah in Saudi Arabia.jpg
- File:Manjali Mosque in Atyrau - Kazakhstan.jpg
- File:Mardin in Turkey.jpg
- File:Masjid Al Haram in Makkah - Saudi Arabia (door of Kaba).jpg
- File:Masjid Al Haram in Makkah - Saudi Arabia (Kaba).jpg
- File:Masjid Al Haram in Makkah - Saudi Arabia (night).jpg
- File:Masjid Al Kabir in Kuwait (night).jpg
- File:Masjid Al Nabawi in Madinah - Saudi Arabia.jpg
- File:Mecca Mosque in Hyderabad - India.jpg
- File:Mehmed Pasha Bridge in Visegrad - Bosnia and Hercegowina.jpg
- File:MOAB Mosque in Baghdad - Iraq.jpg
- File:Mosque in Akhaltsikhe - Georgia.jpg
- File:Mosque in Bangladesh.jpg
- File:Mosque in Ethiopia.jpg
- File:Mosque in Fatehpur Sikri - India.jpg
- File:Mosque in Gujarat - India.jpg
- File:Mosque in Gauteng - South Africa.jpg
- File:Mosque in Kazkhstan.jpg
- File:Mosque in Kyrgyzstan.jpg
- File:Mosque in Matara - Sri Lanka.jpg
- File:Mosque Kota Kinabalu in Sabah - Malaysia.jpg
- File:Mosques in Cairo - Egypt.jpg
- File:Mosques in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Mosques in Konya - Turkey.jpg
- File:Mostar in Bosnia and Hercegowina (night).jpg
- File:Mostar in Bosnia and Hercegowina (panorama).jpg
- File:Muhammad Al Amin Mosque in Beirut - Lebanon.jpg
- File:Muhammad Ali Mosque in Cairo - Egypt.jpg
- File:National Mosque in Abuja - Nigeria.jpg
- File:Nefta Mosque in Tunisia.jpg
- File:Old City of Sana'a in Yemen (panorama).jpg
- File:Old City of Sana'a in Yemen.jpg
- File:Omar Ali Saifuddien Mosque in Brunei (night).jpg
- File:Putrajaya Mosque in Malaysia (nightfall).jpg
- File:Omar Ali Saifuddien Mosque in Brunei.jpg
- File:Putrajaya Mosque in Malaysia.jpg
- File:Qutb Shahi Tombs in Hyderabad - India.jpg
- File:Red Fort in Agra - India (Lahore Gate).jpg
- File:Red Fort in Agra - India (view to Taj Mahal).jpg
- File:Rumeli Hisari Fortress in Istanbul.jpg
- File:Rustem Pasha Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Saddam Place Mosque in Baghdad - Iraq.jpg
- File:Saint Petersburg Mosque in Russia.jpg
- File:Sankore Mosque in Timbuktu - Mali.jpg
- File:Sehzade Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey (courtyard).jpg
- File:Sehzade Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Selimiye Mosque in Edirne - Turkey (panorama).jpg
- File:Shahi Mosque and Pari Bibi's Tomb in Dakha - Bangladesh.jpg
- File:Shakhi Zindeh Mosque in Samarkand - Uzbekistan.jpg
- File:Sokullu Bridge in Visegrad - Bosnia and Hercegowina.jpg
- File:Sinan Pasha Mosque in Prizren - Kosovo.jpg
- File:Sultan Ahmed Fountain in Istanbul - Turkey.jpg
- File:Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey (exterior).jpg
- File:Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul - Turkey (night).jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque in Muscat - Oman (arch).jpg
- File:Taj Mahal in Agra - India (garden).jpg
- File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque in Muscat - Oman.jpg
- File:Taj Mahal in Agra - India (sunrise).jpg
- File:Taj Mahal in Agra - India (sunset).jpg
- File:Taj Mahal Mosque in Agra - India.jpg
- File:Tengku Tengah Zaharah Mosque in Kuala Terengganu - Malaysia.jpg
- File:The Underground Mosque in Malaysia.jpg
- File:Tomb in Allahabad - India.jpg
- File:The Floating Mosque in Penang - Malaysia.jpg
- File:Ulu Cami in Bursa - Turkey (night).jpg
- File:Wadi Al Husein Mosque in Talomano Narathiwat - Thailand.jpg
- File:Ulu Cami in Diyarbakir - Turkey (night).jpg
- File:Wazir Khan's Mosque in Lahore - Pakistan.jpg
- File:Wilayah Persekutuan Mosque in Malaysia (courtyard).jpg
- File:Zahir Mosque in Alor Settar - Malaysia.jpg
- File:Abu Derwish Mosque in Amman - Jordan.jpg
Out of scope
[edit]Most of these are plain text that would be better represented as an editable table rather than as lossy JPEGs.
- File:Фатиха.jpg
- File:Salawat.jpg
- File:Tahiyat.jpg
- File:Kto ne moget.jpg
- File:Ihlyas.jpg
- File:Опора.jpg – a solid colored (#eedd83) 294×10 rectangle
Audio clips
[edit]It's obviously harder to discover whether audio clips were taken from some other site compared to images, but I see no reason to think that the uploader was more truthful about these than about their other uploads.
- File:2 auzu biLLyahi.ogg
- File:4 Ihlas.ogg
- File:5 s azim.ogg
- File:6 samialla.ogg
- File:7 s aalya.ogg
- File:8 rabbi gfir li.ogg
- File:9 tahiyat.ogg
- File:10 salawat.ogg
- File:11 taslim.ogg
- File:12 ne moget.ogg
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
PGPirate
[edit]- File:East Carolina Heart Institute at ECU.jpg
- File:East Carolina University Facilities Administration.jpg
Per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PGPirate at en.wiki, these images uploaded by a known copyright violator have not been sufficiently authenticated as {{own work}}. This determination has been by analysis of upload trends and EXIF analysis. See Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/PGPirate#Background for more analysis.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wizardman 05:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PCP Courcelles (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
low quality image Akshayindulkar (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sufficient quality to use Bulwersator (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use: uploaded for use in hoax article "Orlando Maroj", deleted both on :en and :es. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use: uploaded for use in hoax article "Orlando Maroj", deleted both on :en and :es. Previously nominated on 18 Feb, but nothing happened. Its companion File:Orlando Maroj y Su Hermana1.jpg was deleted. ~ JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins_of_Canada
[edit]The design of Canadian coins are the copyright of the Royal Canadian Mint, so images taken of coins from 1961 and after (Crown copyright is 50 years) cannot be hosted on Commons.
Kobac (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Kobac, why is it that that images of coins that are copyrighted by the Royal Canadian Mint can not be hosted on the Commons? And do you know if there is another place to host them on Wikipedia? Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, read, please, the Commons:Licensing firstly.
- Probably you can move them to local Wikipedias, but I'm not sure. Kobac (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per nom and Commons:Currency#Canada--ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the coins with a design first published after 1961, per Commons:Currency#Canada. Keep the coins with a design first published before 1962 in the category, unless the photo is not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. We already went through this last year at Commons:Deletion requests/Coins of Canada. We have to have another debate about it? Zap the things already. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted, as even the one with an OTRS-ticket had a "permission" from a private email address. Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Canadian coins are copyrighted. See COM:CUR#Canada.
- File:1-cent-2006.jpg
- File:Canada $100 Gold Coin 1983 Newfoundland. KM 139..jpg
- File:Canada $100 Gold Coin 1983. Obverse by Arnold Machin. KM 139.jpg
- File:Image-1-dollar-1988.jpg
- File:Image-10-cents-1968.jpg
- File:Image-2-dollars-1996.jpg
- File:Image-25-cents-1966.jpg
- File:Image-5-cents-1968.jpg
- File:Image-50-cents-1965.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Per COM:CUR Canada, currencies of Canada are copyrighted unless they have been published for 50 years.
- File:1972 Canada 1 cent (5195373568).jpg
- File:1976 Canada Cent (5197699637).jpg
- File:1977 Canada 10 cents (5198403999).jpg
- File:1982 Canada 1 cent (5645627003).jpg
- File:1987 Canada 5 cents (5222830658).jpg
- File:2006 Canada 25 cents (5203940648).jpg
- File:2019 $50 Silver Maple Leaf in Motion - REV - Glen Loates.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-1-dollar-common-loon-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-1-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:50centreverse.png
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS O.jpg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (78774181).jpeg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (79225889).jpeg
- File:JN4.jpg
- File:Loose Change (4806711541).jpg
- File:Terryfoxloonie.jpg
- File:Treasure (11578075).jpeg
- File:Treasure (11578079).jpeg
- File:Treasure (11578081).jpeg
- File:Керлінг на монеті.png
A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep
- File:1972 Canada 1 cent (5195373568).jpg
- File:1976 Canada Cent (5197699637).jpg
- File:1977 Canada 10 cents (5198403999).jpg
- File:1982 Canada 1 cent (5645627003).jpg
- File:1987 Canada 5 cents (5222830658).jpg
- File:2006 Canada 25 cents (5203940648).jpg
The nominator doesn't even bother to read the description pages. Read the description: design used in 1937. Count: 1937+50=1987. 1987<2021. This DR is sloppy, like other recent DRs. Other users put effort, time and care into uploading files, researching the information and describing the files. The least the nominator could do is read the descriptions. The indiscriminate nomination of everything without research is harmful.
Delete
- File:2019 $50 Silver Maple Leaf in Motion - REV - Glen Loates.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-1-dollar-common-loon-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-1-800x800.jpg
- File:2019-canadian-2-dollar-polar-bear-toonie-coin-2-800x800.jpg
- File:50centreverse.png
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS O.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 50 CENTS O.jpg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (78774181).jpeg
- File:Canadian Bullion Coin (79225889).jpeg
- File:JN4.jpg
- File:Terryfoxloonie.jpg
- File:Керлінг на монеті.png: Recent (post-1970) designs, which is reason enough to delete, although many of those files also look possibly copied from other sites.
Delete
- File:CANADA 1 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 10 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 25 CENTS A.jpg
- File:CANADA 5 CENTS A.jpg
The nomination reason is wrong. The designs are ok. But most of the images uploaded by this user look suspiciously like copies of images from official websites or from numismatics websites. For example, the 5 cents is there, the one dollar is there, etc. Probably not the own work of the uploader.
Delete
Mix of coins with old and recent designs, but the coins near the front of the pictures have recent ones.
Neutral about File:Treasure (11578075).jpeg: No apparent copyright problem but not really a useful image. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Kept and deleted per discussion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Canada
[edit]Failed de minimis. Canadian coins are main object in these images.
Ox1997cow (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: kept 1st because coin images are blurred, deleted 2nd as out of scope and 3rd per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously copyvio VIGNERON (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Images of a purported social network whose article in pt.wiki already been deleted four times. Jardel @lves talk 01:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Jardel @lves talk 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Images of a purported social network whose article in pt.wiki already been deleted four times. Jardel @lves talk 01:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Jardel @lves talk 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status is unclear. At the template, the uploader states that this picture was took in 2005, but its metadata indicates that it was took in 2003. The same pic with better contrast was available at least since august 2004 at http://web.archive.org/web/20040813063832/http://www.nossosaopaulo.com.br/Reg_12/Reg12_Sorocaba.htm. Due its bad quality and small size, I suppose this file is a derivative work. Giro720 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
image is presented as a realistic portrayal of a martial arts masters technique. no educational use possible for this manipulated image. (the use of it for artistic purposes is outweighed by its potential for abuse) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No permission from Paul Bonet. Kobac (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Kobac (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Jomini Antoine-Henri.jpg ShinePhantom (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative. Kobac (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The booklet to the right is very complex and without any doubt copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Likely not the uploader's own work. Reason: low image resolution and no valid EXIF information High Contrast (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete agree Boseritwik talk 06:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The fuel discount voucher is above the theshold of originality, isn't it? Stefan4 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from http://asifaliactor.blogspot.com/2012/01/unnnam-promotion-meet-website-launch.html. Razvan Socol (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
got a new one setup now D821greyhound (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not an exempt in Croatia nor in Bosnia and Herzegovina Smooth_O (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the image, I think it is out of scope, has no educational value. The author in his user page says: "Sometimes I appear - to shit a bit". Looks like he knows this image is far from Commons needs. Titles as "fence", it hardly shows any fence. I just cannot poit out its subject. PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No educational value, extra low quality. The author in his user page says: "Sometimes I appear - to shit a bit". Looks like he knows this image is far from Commons needs. PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Does this interface, with 4 icons and 4 other widgets, meet the originality threshold? Dereckson (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Foto from: [6] - "I used a public domain NASA image" but "You can find the unedited original here:" with "Downloadable versions (see NOAO Conditions of Use): " http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html states that (images) "are not intended for commercial use" and "For copyrighted materials, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner, NOAO/AURA, prior to use." Bulwersator (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This logo is tagged text-only but the T&Cs on the source website imply that copyright is claimed - "All Intellectual Property Rights in all associated logos …." . The company are UK-based, where the threshold of originality is low. January (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. One could indeed argue that the globe in the background is more than a simple geometric shape. On the other hand companies like to claim copyright for each and everything on their homepages even if such works are clearly not eligible for copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The logo is substantially more complex than the Edge logo which a UK court upheld a copyright claim for, and I think it may even be too complex to be PD in the US. January (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly not PD-textlogo. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-text FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Support Soy el autor y quiero eliminarla--Neropock (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: author request FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
cpv Svajcr (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
False licence. User:Jo0doe is not a copyright holder. Ymblanter (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, "ironically" implies WP:SYN --Lvivske (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Meganoticias screenshots uploaded by Tattofalconi
[edit]User:Tattofalconi uploaded several screenshots from an interview or a news story that was broadcast in the Meganoticias show:
- File:Conciertos tatto 455.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 446.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 439.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 444.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 438.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 456.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 440.PNG
- File:Conciertos tatto 441.PNG
Even if the uploader represents the band (the subject of the news story), the copyright of those images belongs to the broadcaster. --Razvan Socol (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Kloster Dambeck Kirche.jpg is the better version of this object. This version only remained due a mistake because of the ending JPG instead of jpg. --Vanellus Foto (Diskussion) 19:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Vanellus Foto (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Linked image Bulwersator (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Original contains EXIF data, we may keep both images Bulwersator (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploader's request. Badseed talk 17:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The text at this file page on en-wiki says "Larco Museum Collection. Free Use.". Do we have permission of that? Other files have a similar text. The uploader does not seem to be active anymore. A few of the uploads by this user has been deleted as copyvios - I did not check why. I think a few of the files uploaded as own work should be safe to keep. See discussion on en-wiki (en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_18#All_images_uploaded_by_User:Lyndsayruell) for full list of images. MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The files on Commons that could be a problem
_Mevlüt_Kılıç.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_-_Huwellijksmaal_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-51-38.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Mevl%C3%BCt_K%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C3%A7.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Mevl%C3%BCt_K%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C3%A7.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Mevlüt_Kılıç.png){kind=link}
_Mevlüt_Kılıç.png){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_-_Huwellijksmaal_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-51-38.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Huwellijksmaal_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-51-38.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[3]](http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3246/buddyicons/938173@N22.jpg?1223755933){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.yabrium-radio.net/bilder/WeblogSmileyCamera.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Forum.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_19.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_18.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_13.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_17.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Discussion
I suggest that the discussion take place here on Commons since the files should all be moved here if the result is keep. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is certainly nothing on the museum's website to suggest the images are free to use. MeegsC (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Send a mail. The comment above gave me the idea to send a mail to the museum and ask for a permission so I just did that via http://www.museolarco.org/icontactenos.shtml. Lets hope for a "yes" so we can get a permission to OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Got a mail. I received a mail 2 days ago from the museum confirming that she worked for the museum and had a permission and that they are interessted in providing us with more pictures. I will send the mail to OTRS so we can get a formal permission stored there. --MGA73 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ticket OTRS:6463518 #2012022410003783. --MGA73 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as there is confirmation on file of what was agreed in 2007, and it is only final release wording and OTRS verification templates that need tidying up, there is no complaint or copyright issue here to discuss further. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Brandmeister (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS confirmation is a good reason for a speedy keep. Geo Swan (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep permission of museum in reference above.--Yearitems (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
QUERY: I came here specifically about the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg that was nominated for deletion in February. It's also pictured above. Was it included in the permission the Museo gave - the "OTRS ticket" (my first exposure to this term)? If so, when does the warning on the image page come off? If it's not included in the permission granted, when will it be removed from WP? Please abundantly thank the MuseoLargo.org for their generosity with the images they have provided, as these are beautiful objects worthy of being seen. Yours in curiosity, 69.118.118.181 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep confirmation of permission of MuseoLargo.--Spanchrash (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Status
What's the status of these images and the OTRS permission? I'd like to close this DR but I don't have access to OTRS and there's not really sufficient info posted here.--Denniss (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS confirmation is a very good reason and is enough for keeping these excellent files.--Boatduty (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There is still nothing new on the OTRS. They confirmed that it is ok but not in the formal way that we would prefer. I would find it ok to close as keep but will prefer that someone else than me close the DR because I startet it and was involved in the OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Right then. Closing as keep per discussion. Great work everyone, especially MGA73, great images. Badseed talk 18:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
improper Akshayindulkar (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: please explain what exactly is improper about the flag. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
improper Akshayindulkar (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: please explain what exactly is improper about the flag. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If the author is unknown, how the image could be in public domain? Especially when the photo has been taken in 1979. Dereckson (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Info This photo is from http://www.prh-international.org/arochais/pages/home.php?lang=fr It seems PHR published it on WMC without authorisation from A. Rochais (who died in 1990). So : public domain is impossible nowadays, in 2012, (I doubt A. Rochais thought to give the right on his pictures before he died). Smurfely TiboQorl (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Be careful when you calculate public domain dates, the copyright holder isn't the picture subject, but the picture photographer. --Dereckson (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Toys are legally a form of art and are thus copyrighted by the producer, see COM:Derivative works. This LEGO space shuttle is from a pre-fabricated kit (LEGO Discovery 7470 - Space Shuttle) so even if the photographer put it together the copyright rests still with LEGO. As a derivative work we can't host the image. De728631 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Not all of toys are legally form of art. For example here on Commons we have Category:Toys. Toy is any object that can be used for play. Toys are as a rule useful articles when it comes to growing up and learning about the world around us, so I just think that pictures of they, can't be reasonably considered as derivative work of copyrighted objects. Of course there are exceptions: Action figure designs are considered form of fine art, so pictures of Action figures are considered derivative works and are subject to copyright restrictions and not allowed on Commons. About LEGO toys, Bionicle are similar to Action figures so Commons can't hosts their images. Coming back to this picture I think that for the object depicted, as an utilitarian object, instead of copyright protection, it is probably protected by design patent. Furthermore is depicts an object at first made by NASA, so i can't see enough originality and/or creativity to considerate the object design as copyrightable. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Lego design was inspired by NASA's original spacecraft but the derivative work was made by Lego's designers. Lego sets have previously been registered as sculptures with the US Copyright Office, e.g. Lego adventure sets, so they are being treated as fine art. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't agree with you. Lego adventure sets have threshold of originality so they are copyrightable. This Lego Space Shuttle can be considered as a derivative work of the original NASA Space Shuttle Discovery with Hubble Space Telescope as payload, so I can't see threshold of originality. It is a derivative work made with Lego bricks. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it's pretty obvious. The original work here was converting the design of the space shuttle into a sculpture that can be made with a limited number of Lego bricks. An all derivative works are copyrighted on their own because they are something new. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't an "original" artistic work. There is not enought originality to claim this work as copyrightable. Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lego's lawyers will disagree with you. There's much work involved in designing such a toy kit. And for that matter, even taking a photograph of the original space shuttle is by legal definition a copyrighted original work. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the concept of derivative works. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand the concept of derivative works, but I understand if you are right we'll have a lot of pictures about Lego sets to delete! Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, the original space shuttle is utilitarian and not subject to copyright. Anyone making a model of it though, at least if it's not intended to actually fly itself, is making their own original work, I'd think. I think Lego would have to intend the set to be constructed in a particular way, and they could only get a copyright on that particular way (i.e. they don't get any rights over something that someone else makes out of Lego bricks). But I have seen some Lego registrations of "sculptural" works, which do indicate they were able to register a copyright on the actual, physical set. I did not see a registration for this particular set, but that may just mean they didn't bother to file a registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- If Lego did not file copyright registration for this product is this image is allowable on Commons? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lego is a Danish company, they don't need to register copyright in the US to have their works copyrighted. They're already protected by Danish law. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- If Lego did not file copyright registration for this product is this image is allowable on Commons? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, the original space shuttle is utilitarian and not subject to copyright. Anyone making a model of it though, at least if it's not intended to actually fly itself, is making their own original work, I'd think. I think Lego would have to intend the set to be constructed in a particular way, and they could only get a copyright on that particular way (i.e. they don't get any rights over something that someone else makes out of Lego bricks). But I have seen some Lego registrations of "sculptural" works, which do indicate they were able to register a copyright on the actual, physical set. I did not see a registration for this particular set, but that may just mean they didn't bother to file a registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I don't understand the concept of derivative works, but I understand if you are right we'll have a lot of pictures about Lego sets to delete! Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lego's lawyers will disagree with you. There's much work involved in designing such a toy kit. And for that matter, even taking a photograph of the original space shuttle is by legal definition a copyrighted original work. Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the concept of derivative works. De728631 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't an "original" artistic work. There is not enought originality to claim this work as copyrightable. Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it's pretty obvious. The original work here was converting the design of the space shuttle into a sculpture that can be made with a limited number of Lego bricks. An all derivative works are copyrighted on their own because they are something new. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't agree with you. Lego adventure sets have threshold of originality so they are copyrightable. This Lego Space Shuttle can be considered as a derivative work of the original NASA Space Shuttle Discovery with Hubble Space Telescope as payload, so I can't see threshold of originality. It is a derivative work made with Lego bricks. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Lego design was inspired by NASA's original spacecraft but the derivative work was made by Lego's designers. Lego sets have previously been registered as sculptures with the US Copyright Office, e.g. Lego adventure sets, so they are being treated as fine art. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete. FASTILY (TALK) 04:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sports in the Philippines
[edit]en:Arellano University says that the university was established in 1938. It is likely to assume that the buildings were constructed at that time or later. There is no source indicating that the architect(s) died before 1942. File:Arellano U Plaridel Hall.jpg has been overwritten and cointains two very different images. The current one might be fine (it mainly shows the sky and the house might be de minimis) but the earlier image looks like an issue. See COM:FOP#Philippines.
- File:Arellano U Plaridel Hall.jpg
- File:Arellano University Rizal Hall.jpg
- File:Arellano University.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Magog about TOO, but given the uploader's problematic history, there is significant doubt about whether the photos are his own work. Small files, no EXIF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per KoH; different resolution for each image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I've found some copyvios on English Wikipedia by this user and I suspect that there may be more copyvios around. A warning: the user has sometimes overwritten images with a different photo of the same building. Even if this user's image is a copyvio, the file history might contain other photos uploaded by other users which are not copyvios. I am not sure if the user knows what "own work" means. A good example is en:File:PUP Lagoon 2000s.jpg which was listed as {{self|cc-zero}}. I tagged it as copyvio and got a reply on the file talk page which clearly indicated that the image isn't an own work. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Galley fan art 2
[edit]- File:FNR.Triremis.RomanEmpire.BCE31.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg
- File:FNR.Triacontoris(Moneris).EastRomanEmpire.CE450.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg
- File:FNR.NavisOneraria.Corbita.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg
- File:FNR.NavisOneraria.Corbita.ShipsBoat.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg
- File:OnerariaCorbita-SvenLittkowski-20110821-11AM06.jpg
- File:NR-1-XX-XX-SvenLittkowski-20110820-02PM00.jpg
.EastRomanEmpire.CE450.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Galley fan art, basically. These images are all simply original research in artistic form. They are self-published interpretations of ancient sea vessels which are at best fanciful. They are all quite ambitious and interesting as forum art go, but I can't see that these have are educationally useful in any of our projects.
Peter Isotalo 13:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment by Sven[7] moved from talk page.
- The problem is, that most ships which were subject in ancient Roman art, were never researched and reconstructed. My imagesare a first attempt of a reconstruction, at the same time they are done in a way that these reconstructions show the ships as lively as in their real life.
- Wikipedia is, beside some archaeological forums, the first site which has them.
- If it is thought that my reconstructions (I study Roman ships since 25 years) are wrong, simply point to a correct reconstruction of that particular ship. Otherwise please allow me to support Wikipedia with brand new material. Thanks.
- I am asking to have restored all deleted ships. SvenLittkowski (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your motivations for adding these pictures and I don't doubt your good intentions. The problem is that your artwork is not in the least bit reliable as illustrations of historical sea vessels since you're not a recognized expert in the field. You're a self-published non-expert and you're using Commons as a way to promote what amounts to original research. Keeping your images here would mean promoting a highly personal view of history, and I can't see any practical use for that kind of content in any of our projects.
- There's plenty of research about ships based on Roman art, by the way. If you want some works for further reading on the subject, take a look at the list of references in en:galley. You're definitely not the first to present ideas on how ancient ships looked like. Your reconstructions have the overall correct shape of ancient vessels, but they're extremely exaggerated when it comes to size, purely conjectural in terms of decoration and simply inaccurate when it comes to technical details like oar arrangements. If you claim to have 25 years of experience when it comes to Roman ships, you should know that Roman "triremes" 70+ m in length (or is it closer to 100 m?) with battle towers 8-10 m high (complete with ballistae) and a single bank of oars is a pretty fanciful notion.
- Peter Isotalo 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope as original personal art. Also, the source site has an explicit (c) notice. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of projet scope and possible copyvio (who's the copyright holders of the maps?
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 10.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 14.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 01.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 06.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 12.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 13.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 11.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 07.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 05.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 08.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 09.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 02.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 04.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER Page 03.png
- File:OCEANOGENIC POWER.jpg
- File:Curpapengcat.png
Kobac (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The uploader Ocharpen has declared that this was created by himself ("Es de mi propiedad, Osmand Charpentier"). And as a work that combines engineering and oceanography it is in fact within the project scope. Whether it may be used for original research publications on any Wikipedia is not for Commons to worry about. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]See COM:VPC#Dimension of derivative works: photos of copyrighted toys are derivative works of the toys. This leaves only a few photos in the category which I believe are either de minimis or ineligible for copyright. Some of the photos are actually not toys but packaging with complex art.
- File:Barbie 1959 First Editions.jpg
- File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG
- File:Barbie nudism.jpg
- File:BarbieAntes1997Despues.jpg
- File:Barbieswaistwidens.jpg
- File:Dior New Look.jpg
- File:Dye decolourisation at labscale and microscale SOPHIED.jpg
- File:Early Barbie doll en suite 01.jpg
- File:Early Barbie doll en suite 02.jpg
- File:Elch01m.jpg
- File:JjcobwebbBarbie.jpg
- File:Ken Carson.jpg
- File:Mattelno1br.jpg
File:Polaroid Barbie Pink Instant 600 Film Camera.jpg- File:Study of a murder on a Barbie figurine.jpg
- File:Sunning (2179966897).jpg
- File:Whitney Houston Barbie I Wanna Dance 1.jpg
- File:Whitney Houston Barbie I Wanna Dance 2.jpg
- File:Álbum+da+barbie.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- With reference to File:Early Barbie doll en suite 01.jpg and File:Early Barbie doll en suite 02.jpg (admittedly not among my better photos), and possibly some others here (I haven't looked through the batch) I would guess that the only elements here that were copyrighted and had their copyrights renewed are Barbie and Ken, who make up a pretty small portion of the pictures, albeit arguably constitute its main interest. But I'm not weighing in either way on the issue, you're welcome to delete these if people think it actually raises a copyright problem. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- So dollhouses aren't copyrighted? In that case, those two pictures are probably fine. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- But note COM:FOP#United States: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." I'm not sure if a dollhouse is permanent, stationary or designed for human occupancy. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Searching all the copyright renewals would be a pain, but RE0000280638 and RE0000280637 are renewals for 1958 Barbies, which seem to protect all later Barbies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Polaroid Barbie Pink Instant 600 Film Camera.jpg -- where do you see a "toy" or "complex art" there? Trycatch (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think I must have ticked that checkbox by mistake. I don't see any problem with that photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you don't think the flower pattern sticker is copyrightable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep that one. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Dior New Look.jpg -- The appearance of the doll is totally unrelated to the purpouse of the photograph, which is to illustrate the New Look stetic trend created by Christian Dior in 1947. This is the only illustration of such work which appears in Wikipedia, thus this photograph existance is justified and required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.52.50 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-19T18:54:30 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia and it still looks like a copyvio. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Stefan, delete that file. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all but File:Polaroid Barbie Pink Instant 600 Film Camera.jpg. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all. --Guil2027 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? --Guil2027 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- delete - there can be no question that dolls are protected by copyright under US law and that Barbie is covered by that. de minimis aside (eg a picture of a child's room or a shelf full or mixed toys) we can not keep any images of Barbie. --h-stt !? 11:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - indeed, these images constitute derivative works of copyrighted material. According to Commons:Derivative works, "action figures do not have utilitarian aspects and are therefore generally copyrighted as works of fine art." These images (barring the ones pointed out above) seem no exception. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- keep - I dont understand why you would want to delete these.(File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG). It is not copyright violation if you use the image of an item that is copyrighted in a creative commons sense, especially if that image was taken by an individual (such as the one I quoted, which I took). Memory Alpha does that all the time with respect ot screen caps from various Star Trek shows/movies - which are all copyrighted materials. With that regard, you might as well then delete all pics on wikiepdia because what they photograph is copyrighted in one way or another. Image File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG was modified by me in terms of how the doll's hair is done and how she is dressed. The original dolls wasn't even dressed like this or looked like this. By that account, every person who uploads a picture of a fashion doll on flickr, let's say, would be prohibited from doing so. And everyone taking a picture of a barbie they want to sell on ebay is also also violating copyright? SOFA and PIPA havent become laws yet. This just doesnt make sense. --CarrieBee (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, those people are violating copyright, unless it qualifies as fair use. However, Commons doesn't allow fair use. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all. The main problem I see here, and with these kind of multiple nominations, is that none of the pictures were taken by the same person in the same place. Multiple countries permit a total freedom of panorama—including 3D and 2D art, somes with the condition that should be taken in a public place (File:Sunning (2179966897).jpg), but public place is not necessarily a park or street; or even if the toy still copyrighted in the country of origin. If you want to delete them you have to investigate where they were taken, if the toy still copyrighted and then nominate them onr-by-one. Tbhotch™ 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Other example of what cannot be considered a copyvio or fair use is File:Study of a murder on a Barbie figurine.jpg, where the toy is not visible at all. Tbhotch™ 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- The sculpted details are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- With rare exception, countries with FOP only include permanently installed works. File:Sunning (2179966897).jpg was taken in Hawaii, and FOP doesn't apply at all for sculpture in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unless tagged with {{FoP-Israel}} or anything similar, I think that we have to assume that photos of dolls are unfree per COM:PRP. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of these images qualify for Commons (for reasons stated by others above). However, several of them would most definitely qualify as "fair-use" for use on Wikipedia. That being said, most of these aren't exactly "first-class" images and I believe most could easily be removed without much detriment to their respective articles (no offense to any of the photographers, but many appear rather "amateurish"). The remaining images that appear to be well-done could be reuploaded to their repsective Wikipedias with "fair-use" rationales (although I admit that will create a lot of "busy work" for the editors left to do the "clean-up"). I'm not a "professional" photographer, but I have access to a large assortment of Barbies (from various eras) and could easily take some nice professional looking photos to fill in some of the "gaps" that may result after the majority of less-than-steller images are removed. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all, for the reasons that Tbhotch mentioned above. Acdx (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It would appear that the copyright on Barbie dolls was renewed, making the vast majority of these non-free derivative works, which are strictly prohibited on Commons. There does seem to be consensus to keep File:Polaroid Barbie Pink Instant 600 Film Camera.jpg, so I've done that. FASTILY (TALK) 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]See COM:TOYS.
- File:Barbie Dolls.jpg
- File:Barbie Drawing.JPG
- File:Barbies.jpg
- File:Boneca Barbie.jpg
- File:Expozice sběratelských panenek Barbie v Galerii DollsLand.gif
- File:How to lose weight.JPG
- File:Ken.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]Derivative works per COM:TOYS.
- File:'hole in a halter' top and wrap dress in leso.JPG
- File:'hole in a halter' top and wrap dress in Nigerian.JPG
- File:'kikoi' wrap skirt and halter top.JPG
- File:'kikoi' wrap skirt and side tied top.JPG
- File:1950s Inspired Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:2 piece maasai style wrap of tetron and lace.JPG
- File:3 piece maasai style wrap of tetron and lace.JPG
- File:AFRICAN - AMERICAN.JPG
- File:Alvin Ailey inspires Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Ankle lenghth apron, back skirt and halter top.JPG
- File:Ankle lenghth apron, side slitted back kirt and wrap top with leso edging.JPG
- File:Apron and slit skirt front view.JPG
- File:Apron concept with extended back tie sash.JPG
- File:Apron concept with leso edged bodice.JPG
- File:APRON CONCEPT.JPG
- File:APRON DRESS & BACK SKIRT.JPG
- File:APRON DRESS.JPG
- File:ARMLESS KANGA.JPG
- File:BACK TO NATURE.JPG
- File:Bantu hem skirt and halter top.JPG
- File:Barbie1.jpg
- File:Barby blond.jpg
- File:BASICALLY.JPG
- File:BLACK & WHITE.JPG
- File:BLUE KANGA CLOAK.JPG
- File:Bob Mackie Inspired Barbie Dolls at Expo Barbie Montreal Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Brides maids in leaf print kanga wraps.JPG
- File:Bustier apron and back skirt.JPG
- File:Bustier apron dress elaborated with hanky cut leso train.JPG
- File:Bustier apron dress hyphenated with ribbon.JPG
- File:Bustier apron dress with lace sash -back view.JPG
- File:Bustier apron dress with lace sash-front view.JPG
- File:Bustier apron in american denim.JPG
- File:Bustier apron style evening dress.JPG
- File:Bustier apron style wedding dress-back view.JPG
- File:Bustier apron style wedding dress.JPG
- File:Butier apron dress and hanky cut train-back view.JPG
- File:Byron Lars designed Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Byron Lars designed Cinnabar Sensation Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Cabaret Dancers Dolls at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:CHIC ETHNIC.jpg
- File:Christian Dior inspired Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:CLOAK & WRAP DRESS.JPG
- File:CORPORATE IN THE JUNGLE.JPG
- File:Costumes Inspired by France at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Couture Wedding Bob Mackie Inspired Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:CROP TOP WRAP.JPG
- File:Crop top, skirt and maasai style wrap with modesty waist cover.JPG
- File:Dance Til Dawn Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Disney inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Disney Mouseketeer inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Eiffel Tower inspired Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:EMPIRE KANGA.JPG
- File:EMPIRE.JPG
- File:Escada Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Faberge inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Faraway Forest Elf Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:FIT & FLARE APRON.JPG
- File:Formal Dress Barbie doll at Expo Barbie Montreal Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Foundation wrap dress and beaded sash.JPG
- File:Foundation wrap dress and cloak in Nigerian.JPG
- File:Fulla 2016 Present doll.jpg
- File:Goddess of the Galaxy Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:HALTER DRESS.JPG
- File:HALTER TOP & TROUSER.JPG
- File:HALTER TOPS & APRON LINE SKIRT.JPG
- File:Hanae Mori designed Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:INDIA - KENYA.JPG
- File:India Inspired, Princess of India, and Diwali Inspired Barbies at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Inuit Legend and Venetian Opulence dolls at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Joan Jett inspired Inspired Barbie Dolls at Expo Barbie Montreal Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:KANGA MIX & MATCH.JPG
- File:KANGA SLIT.JPG
- File:KANGA.JPG
- File:KITENGE BACK SKIRT.JPG
- File:Kitenge foundation dress of a wrap top and wrap skirt accessrized with a sheer cloak.JPG
- File:KITENGE THREE PIECE.JPG
- File:Lalka Barbie - Audrey Hepburn w roli księżniczki Anny z filmu Rzymskie wakacje Williama Wylera z 1953. Muzeum Sztuk Użytkowych w Poznaniu - styczeń 2018.jpg
- File:Laurence Xu Inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:LEAF & STARS.JPG
- File:LEAF DRESS.JPG
- File:Leso one shoulder foundation dress and matching solid cloak.JPG
- File:Leso one shoulder foundation dress and sash.JPG
- File:Leso one shoulder foundation dresses.JPG
- File:Leso print bustier and skirt-back view.JPG
- File:Leso print bustier apron and skirt-front view.JPG
- File:Leso print cloak and solid foundation dress.JPG
- File:Leso under arm wraps worn with matching skirt and strapless dress repectively.JPG
- File:Leso wrap skirt and backless halter top.JPG
- File:Leso wrap skirt with solid yoke and cropped leso wrap top.JPG
- File:Leso wrap skirt, solid and leso wrap top.JPG
- File:MAASAI CROP TOP.JPG
- File:MAASAI HOUND TOOTH.JPG
- File:Maasai style wrap in leso and solid tetron.JPG
- File:Maasai style wrap of solid black and black lace.JPG
- File:Maasai style wrap of tetron and textured fabric.JPG
- File:Mistress of the Manor Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:MODERNIZED APRON.JPG
- File:MONDAY & FRIDAY.JPG
- File:Morning Sun Princess and Evening Star Princess Barbies at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:MULTI SLIT.JPG
- File:NYAYO PHILOSOPHY.JPG
- File:One shoulder dress with front overlay that falls down back.JPG
- File:Pantone Inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Parisienne Pretty Barbie Doll at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Part kanga part tetron wrap top and tetron skirt.JPG
- File:PATY STYLE.JPG
- File:Peace and Love 70s and Benefit Ball Barbies at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:PEACOCK KANGA.JPG
- File:PINK KANGA.JPG
- File:Print kanga wrap top and solid wrap skirt with hem detail.JPG
- File:Promenade in the Park Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Provencale Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Puppe alone.jpg
- File:Queen of Hearts Bob Mackie Inspired Barbie Dolls at Expo Barbie Montreal Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Renaissance Faire Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Rest and relaxation. Priya, Honey,Andy,Tina and Isabelle at the beach.JPG
- File:Sanrio inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:SLIT APRON SKIRT & HALTER TOP.JPG
- File:SLIT APRON.JPG
- File:Spirit of the Sky and Spirit of the Water Barbies at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Star print leso wrap and halter.JPG
- File:Star print leso wrap and matching shoulder throw.JPG
- File:Star print leso wrap and shoulder throw-back view.JPG
- File:Suiting in the apron concept.JPG
- File:Sumatra Indonesia Inspired Barbies at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:Sydney Opera House Inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:TAUSI CLOAK.JPG
- File:Tetron and lace apon concept.JPG
- File:Tetron wrap dress and kanga shoulder wrap.JPG
- File:TEXTURE MIX & MATCH.JPG
- File:THE MODELS.JPG
- File:The Starry Night Inspired by Vincent Van Gogh at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:THE TWO MODELS.JPG
- File:Tie and dye 2 piece foundation wrap dress.JPG
- File:TROUSER AND WRAP LESSO MIX & MATCH.JPG
- File:Victorian Barbie at the Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:WATER FALL.JPG
- File:Wedgwood inspired Barbie at Barbie Expo Les Cours Mont-Royal.jpg
- File:WRAP & WRAP.JPG
- File:WRAP DRESS & TRAIN.JPG
- File:Wrap dress and embroidered sash.JPG
- File:Wrap dress of kanga print right over solid tetron left.JPG
- File:Wrap top and trousers that has train attached along apron lines.JPG
- File:Wrap with train extension.JPG
— Racconish 💬 09:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]Per COM:TOYS
- File:Beauty, queen of the jungle.JPG
- File:Bustier apron dress without sash.JPG
- File:COLOUR MIX.JPG
- File:Tie and dye foundation dress and matching cloak.JPG
- File:Toys 2007-118-079 (15407001390).jpg
- File:Toys 2013-056-023b (15590189541).jpg
- File:Toys 2013-056-035d (14972104864).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Racconish 💬 09:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]Copyrighted 3 dimensional figure, violation of COM:TOYS.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(Oinkers42) (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, the image is not a violation and is used as the lead image of a major article. Go rain on some other parade. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn, on what basis do these pass COM:TOYS? Why do you think it's at all relevant that it's currently in use? Cakelot1 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously fails COM:TOYS. As with all the previous DRs above, these are Derivative works of a copyrighted work. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Barbie dolls
[edit]Per COM:TOYS, Barbies are copyrighted by default. Excluding an advertisement that would need its own copyright notice and a few de minimis cases.
A few have tags indicating there was not copyright notice, but every box I've found from the relevant time period includes a copyright notice (for example [8] [9] [10]). It's hard to dig up the box for exact models, but the burden for that is likely on those claiming there was no copyright notice rather than the other way around.
Nominating photos from an exhibit in Italy, which does not have COM:FOP. Excluding museum exhibits in places with FOP (like those in Category:Barbie Expo), but I suspect those should be nominated, too, as temporary exhibitions rather than "permanent displays". Leaving those for someone else, though.
See also: the many other nominations on this page for the same reasons.
- File:Barbie and me.jpg
- File:Barbie e skipper con vari outfit anni '60 (coll. baldi bellavia) 01.jpg
- File:Barbie e skipper con vari outfit anni '60 (coll. baldi bellavia) 02.jpg
- File:BARBIE ON A BLACK CROSS.jpg
- File:Barbie's Operation (3284254974).jpg
- File:Black Barbie from 1980 in the box.jpg
- File:Catwoman Barbie.jpg
- File:Vintage Malibu Barbie (cropped).jpg
- File:Vintage Malibu Barbie 2 (cropped) green background.jpg
- File:Vintage Malibu Barbie 2 (cropped).jpg
- File:Vintage Malibu Barbie 2.jpg
- File:Vintage Malibu Barbie.jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_green_background.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Rhododendrites talk | 20:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator and past DRs where the same or similar images were deleted. Not to mention at least a few of these are questionably in scope to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:Catwoman Barbie.jpg We have been through this before with sculptures of artworks. The image is okay in Australia due to it being a free country (ie one with FoP). It is CC in the US because I took the image and licensed it as such. WMF legal has fought and won cases on this basis before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- FOP is typically just for things situated permanently in a particular location (The exception generally applies only to works on permanent public display.). The idea is to exempt things like buildings and major public art. I'd be surprised if Australia were different in that regard, but I'd be happy to be wrong. — Rhododendrites talk | 01:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've never heard about any WMF legal battles over FoP. If you cite the case, then we can be edified by the details, the arguments, and the resolution.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both for the obvious reasons and because it would indirectly kill the ridiculous debate currently going on at w:talk:Barbenheimer Dronebogus (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience, exporting disputes from enwp to Commons is unhelpful, and might even push annoyed Commons admins to lend more credibility to the other side. If you opt to remove that part of your comment, you're welcome to remove this response, too. — Rhododendrites talk | 15:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the image being used on Barbenheimer for page relevance and out-of-copyright information on the image page. Please do not remove the comment above (you can strike words out) as an example of bias pertaining to the RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn, as you did in the last vote, you've used the argument that the image shouldn't be deleted because it's in use. But that's completely besides the point since we don't keep copyright violating works just because they are used. The argument is that the "out-of-copyright information" is incorrect, and you have not engaged with those arguments made in the nom. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per the well argued nom. It is possible that some of these are public domain but without evidence (and per COM:PRP) we can't keep them based on a possibility Cakelot1 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- At least think out of the box and leave the image that's on the Barbenheimer page alone. You don't think if Mattel wanted it taken down they would have contacted someone? The page has had 1.4 million plus views since a photo of Barbie has been up-front, and of those views I would think that the Mattel company, its attorneys, its law clerks, its board of directors, and its secretaries would have clicked on the page and know that one of their dolls is being featured. They all know it, yet nobody got on the horn or filed a complaint. Mattel is perfectly happy having it up there! That's obvious, and because the copyright is still being questioned, and literally nobody cares to legally contest its use, at least leave it until this unique film-combination period moves along a bit and the page goes back to normal viewing. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Nobody has complained yet" isn't a reason for keeping anything. Images on Commons must be usable and modifiable by anyone for any purpose. Our policies are in place to protect not just Wikipedia, but everyone who uses the content. If someone would be opening themselves up to litigation by taking our Barbie photos, putting them in a book or on a poster, and selling them, we cannot host it. People need to know when they go to Commons that the license is reliable. "But it's used in an article" is irrelevant. If you would like it to be used in an article and not hosted on Commons, that's what en:WP:NFCC is for (for local uploads to Wikipedia). There's probably a good case for NFCC when it comes to the main Barbie article. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Would you or someone please add the Vintage Barbie 2 cropped to the Wikipedia files (The one being used on Barhenheimer now)? I'm not computer savvy enough to add it and yes, the Barbie page could argue for it for sure and the Barbenheimer page could have a good case. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't there's much chance you'd get an WP:NFCC Rationale for the Barhenheimer page. As to the main Barbie page Wikipedia would probably want a clearer and up to date image than "Vintage Barbie". Best to leave it until/if this deletion happens. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- ^^ If you're going the en:WP:NFCC route, you can pick an ideal photo (like one from an official Mattel website, even), then just upload it locally to wikipedia and follow the prompts to explain why it qualifies for NFCC. Actually, it looks like the main Barbie article already has a couple non-free images: en:File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg and en:File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg. If you wanted to upload another one, you could use the templates on those pages as a template. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can't do uploads on my computer, which is why I asked. The image used on Barbenheimer fits that page well and serves as a counterpoint to an image of Oppenheimer within a double-image. The reasoning for its use at Barbenheimer would be as representative of the portrayed character per the use of the Oppenheimer image. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn, it "fitting" or looking good isn't enough to get for WP:NFCC unfortunately. Even in the main barbie article I can't think of any non-free justification (the section doesn't say anything about the barbie in question). representative of the portrayed character, simply isn't a strong enough reason. And non of this is a reason for keeping it on commons, which is what we are discussing here. (I have the original flikr upload bookmarked so if there is suddenly an extremely good WP:NFC based reason I can always upload it to wp, although this sort of discussion should really be happening at w:Talk:Barbenheimer) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can't do uploads on my computer, which is why I asked. The image used on Barbenheimer fits that page well and serves as a counterpoint to an image of Oppenheimer within a double-image. The reasoning for its use at Barbenheimer would be as representative of the portrayed character per the use of the Oppenheimer image. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- ^^ If you're going the en:WP:NFCC route, you can pick an ideal photo (like one from an official Mattel website, even), then just upload it locally to wikipedia and follow the prompts to explain why it qualifies for NFCC. Actually, it looks like the main Barbie article already has a couple non-free images: en:File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg and en:File:Oreo Fun Barbie.jpg. If you wanted to upload another one, you could use the templates on those pages as a template. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't there's much chance you'd get an WP:NFCC Rationale for the Barhenheimer page. As to the main Barbie page Wikipedia would probably want a clearer and up to date image than "Vintage Barbie". Best to leave it until/if this deletion happens. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Would you or someone please add the Vintage Barbie 2 cropped to the Wikipedia files (The one being used on Barhenheimer now)? I'm not computer savvy enough to add it and yes, the Barbie page could argue for it for sure and the Barbenheimer page could have a good case. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment FYI, this and this. Nyxaros (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- As the nom noted there doesn't seem to be any evidence of Pd-no-notice, and non was provided in those DRs. The user asserting no-notice doesn't seem to be the photographer so it doesn't seem wise to take that without evidence. Mdaniels5757 (and the closer IronGargoyle), if there's some obvious evidence of there not being a copyright notice on this particular barbie (when others at the time had them), it would be much appreciated if you could point it out. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, we'd need evidence of no copyright notice on the original boxes to justify keeping the images. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Barbie on a black cross as transformative and de minimis. The rest are probably unjustifiable, unfortunately. David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but whether it's transformative is a consideration of fair use, which Commons doesn't accept, and the doll is the focal point (and title) of the image. — Rhododendrites talk | 02:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I already nominated one of the files for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black Barbie from 1980 in the box.jpg. Should I request that DR to be closed for this one? (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)