Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/26

"Permission" is not sufficient 77.23.215.24 03:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Clear copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image was used only in vandalism pages on en.wiki, claiming that man in photo is king of mexico italy california and a bunch of other nations. Image has no other use. DS (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It's Gustav VI Adolphus of Sweden, with a new face pasted over it. Tineye is very impressive!) DS (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Fake picture used only for vandalism Béria Lima ^msg 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is the "coat of arms" of a character from works of J.R. R. Tolkien (The Lord of the Rings, the Silmarilion or some other). Those are literary works, and a work based on a literary description may not be copyrigthable (see Commons:Fan art). However, I'm not sure whenever that's actually the case, or if the coat of arms has actually been drawn somewhere, as the famous maps of middle earth Belgrano (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is based on a verbal description, or based on a textual "blazon" according to the rules of traditional European heraldry, then there would be no copyright violation. However, if the image was closely based on a graphic by Tolkien, or on a graphic published in an edition of Tolkien's works, then there might be a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - I found quite different coats, but no duplicate of this one - Jcb (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've more information from Harmonia Amanda. This logo is the "coat of arms" of a character from works of J.R. R. Tolkien. The coat of arms has actually been drawn in

• Pictures by J. R. R.Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin, octobre 1992, isbn 9780395606483,
• J. R. R. Tolkien: Artiste & Illustrateur, Wayne G. Hammond & Christina Scull, 1995, Christian Bourgeois

~Pyb (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment And? Is it a copy of an illustration, or is it a new rendition based off the book, in which case it's okay?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copy of a coat of arms drawn by Tolkien. The drawing is strictly identical. Sorry for my bad english. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per information provided. Copyvio. --Coyau (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The doubtful file (no higher resolution) with the doubtful license from the doubtful user (User:Vidboy10 was blocked on en.wikipedia). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battle of Az Zawiyah.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victory.png. ~ Kobac (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Photo from The Associated Press, Hussein Malla. According to its size this file is grabbed from this website, larger versions can be found all over the internet [1][2] (google Tank Benghazi). Blatant copyright violation here. Martin H. (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States; as such, this is a derivative work. The uploader has not provided enough information for us in order to determine if this statue has perhaps fallen into the public domain (e.g., is there a copyright symbol on the monument? when was it built?) Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep sculptor en:Gaetano Trentanove died 1937, statue is PD-old. Category:Gaetano Trentanove was already added to the file, you really could have checked it yourself. MKFI (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• PD-old doesn't necessarily apply in the US, based off when the item in question was published [3]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on en-wiki article the statue was created in 1904 and it was erected in 1905 according to [4]. MKFI (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, great, we can  Keep then. Also, I did do my own search tyvm and didn't find the information you found. No reason to be snippy about it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new file 2000000ebooks (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader (and only editor) requested deletion short after upload and minutes after last revision upload, maybe a mistake with uploading. Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correctly named, newer version of this file: Cosmic Calendar.jpg Efbrazil (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Cosmic Calendar.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The doubtful file (no higher resolution) with the doubtful license from the doubtful user (User:Vidboy10 was blocked on en.wikipedia). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battle of Az Zawiyah.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victory.png. ~ Kobac (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This image is a composition of three other images. Unless the uploader was actually in Libya to capture these images, these cannot be his or her own work. Lacking any proof that the images are within the public domain, either by consent or otherwise, this image must be deleted. And there has been no showing at all as to this. I think it quite likely these images are not PD.Mtsmallwood (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Martin H. as a copyright violation (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^talk 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wanna have it online anymore. Noah Doersing (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^talk 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is missing evidence of permission and is overdue for deletion based on that. Aaaccc (talk), 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears to be a derivative of the third map from the bottom on http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/freemaps/. The only thing the site says about copyright is "The following map images have been made available for you to use and are intended for general reference or educational purposes." This is nowhere near specific enough for us to consider this GFDL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No year given so assume still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Item 54 years old so presumably still under copyright. Licence is probably wrong too. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Sri Lanka is 70 years PMA (added new section in COM:L)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No year given so may still be under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1957 work presumably still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any project. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nomination. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Photo of use only for uploader. Additionally, it appears to be a screen capture of a YouTube video of unsourced origin and is as a result of poor quality. – Adrignola talk 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nomination, unclear source. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any project. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 01:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nomination. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any of the projects. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nomination. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"medical excerpt" is a bit ambiguous/not clear. Who did photograph the picture? Or from where did you download it? Saibo (Δ) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, unclear source. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used for advertisment in articles as well as permmsion needed by the owner. Idon't feel this user is the copyright owner of this image Staffwaterboy (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Also not a particularly useful image -- trees, beach surf.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is not wikipedia. AnD: Permission by the photographer of the photos on the cover is needed. --Saibo (Δ) 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:L abf «Cabale!» 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image given as the original Flickr source[5] doesn't match this image. Kelly (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No educational value. Created by uploader for use on what was essentially a fan page on the English Wikipedia, since deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/House_of_Anubis_Couples Postdlf (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation. Given that every upload from this user comes from a different camera and that most of their other uploads are demonstrably copyright violations, it's rather obvious that the uploader either doesn't know or doesn't care what the word "author" means. The information template is mostly nonsense. What is "Permission: d" supposed to mean, for example? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom - very questionable at best. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Herby abf «Cabale!» 13:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation. Given that every upload from this user comes from a different camera and that most of their other uploads are demonstrably copyright violations, it's rather obvious that the uploader either doesn't know or doesn't care what the word "author" means. The information template is mostly nonsense. What is "Permission: v" supposed to mean, for example? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom - very questionable at best. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination abf «Cabale!» 13:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is own work, it is out of scope, if it is an actual log, then it is a copyvio.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unfree logo abf «Cabale!» 13:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

improper license - image consists of more than text and simple geometric shapes, and so does not qualify as public domain. 75.226.5.213 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to source is dead; no evidence of public domain claim Jsayre64 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I see no reason whatsoever to doubt PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Nor do I. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I found the new location of the image on the source website: [6], and the description page of the building: [7]. MKFI (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image : Commons is not an image hosting website Civa (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope, questionable copyright abf «Cabale!» 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

publication date is 1925, which is not before 1923 as stated in the provided license Crowsnest (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral If we can clearly state where it was first published, it's probably still PD; if it was in a local newspaper, for example, it would be {{PD-US-not renewed}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be part of the Bettmann/CORBIS Archive (see en:Bettmann Archive), so probably still copyrighted. At the English WP the image is used under fair-use rationale (en:File:Scopes_trial.jpg). -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we can prove it--we'll probably have to delete it--but I'm betting that it was published at the time--it's too good a picture not to have--and not renewed. In fact, I'm betting that CORBIS may have swept up the negative in a purchasing spree, but they never dotted their i's and crossed their t's on the copyright; notice they don't know who the photographer was, or when it was taken.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take Corbis claims on photos from this era with a grain of salt; Corbis has an unfortunate history of slapping their copyright claim on photos out of copyright or others work. Photo appears to the work of Brown Brothers photo agency, which is still in existence. Unless there is good reason to think the copyright holder either failed to file a copyright or failed to renew it (if so, reason and reference should be provided), it is not yet public domain. Infrogmation (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Too bad, but status is unproven.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value ; Out of project scope ; Image of very little educational interest Civa (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - no reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value ; Out of project scope ; Image of very little educational interest Civa (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an original work. And France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a creation until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it with the wrong name. More recently I have re-uploaded it, this time with the right name. Charles01 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: uploader requested deletion of unused file abf «Cabale!» 13:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value ; logo ATTAC copyrighted ; there is already too much photos of the eiffel tower Civa (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image : Commons is not an image hosting website Civa (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. and cropped. Yann (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value Civa (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Could be of use to depict en:Depth of field. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Herby. Jujutacular ^talk 19:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per herby abf «Cabale!» 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very low resolution, no EXIF, I highly doubt this is own work. –Tryphon^☂ 17:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: found the image here abf «Cabale!» 13:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No description ; place unknown ; file name generic Civa (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value ; Commons is not a hosting web site Civa (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission. No author in original file, source - site www.vkontakte.ru. Art-top (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential non-free image. The Cleaner 2010 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio--Motopark (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a a law, decree, regulation or official material. Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom, no indication the given license could apply abf «Cabale!» 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a law, decree, regulation or official material. Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom, no indication the given license could apply abf «Cabale!» 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a law, decree, regulation or official material Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom, no indication the given license could apply abf «Cabale!» 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its questionable if the used image is free. GeorgHH • talk   21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope - logo ? of unknown spanish music groupe from 2008 [8] Traumrune (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope and unfree abf «Cabale!» 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any project. Not in scope. – Adrignola talk 23:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope, questionable copyright abf «Cabale!» 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, no people visible, we have better pix of drum sets.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete also the other (similar) images by this user abf «Cabale!» 13:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per above. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.155.241 16:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.155.241 16:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file). It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No description ; place unknown ; file name generic Civa (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is La Place of Brutelles, France (see same view many years ago). Copyright concerns remain, for all uploads by Brutellois. NVO (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Place in now identified. I put a rename proposal. --Civa (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unfortunately the author is not the uploader and there is no evidence of permssion. Too bad, it is a nice image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not an amateur porn site Pablo huertas (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I would rather say that we donna need a blurry dick with so many alternatives given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep COM:PORN does not apply. Might be educationally usefull. Frenulum breve is in scope. Where do you see so many alternatives? Category:Frenulum breve is far from being overcrowded. Only five images of two different penises. -- Common Good (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete There are already enough images of frenulum breve in the category:Frenulum of the human penis. And they are close views. --Civa (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per above, there are others alternatives --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not an amateur porn site Pablo huertas (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I would rather say that we donna need a blurry dick with so many alternatives given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep COM:PORN does not apply. Might be educationally usefull. Frenulum breve is in scope. Where do you see so many alternatives? Category:Frenulum breve is far from being overcrowded. Only five images of two different penises. -- Common Good (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned it: all other pictures in that category clearly show the Frenulum breve, but not this picture (too blurry). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete There are already enough images of frenulum breve in the category:Frenulum of the human penis. And they are close views. --Civa (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per above, there are others alternatives --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the file does not appear to have been deleted. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't useful for an educational purpose/ bad quality Pablo huertas (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Bad quality, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Same advice than Yikrazuul --Civa (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an image from 1718. It is a drawing, made with information taken from an old watercolor painting, showing how this particular church in Heilbronn looked after it had been rebuilt in 1718. The book from which this image was scanned lies before me. The scan is incomplete, the section on the right was cut off, and there the image is signed by one Else Stroh. That would be the artist Els Daniel-Stroh (who was born in Heilbronn and lived from 1895 to 1990) before her marriage to a Mr Daniel in 1926. I'm not 100 % sure about about her being the artist, but quite certain that this image is not from 1718. If you take into acount that the image was scanned from a book published in 1952, it is quite likely that this image is still protected by copyright. If it was indeed done by Els Stroh-Daniel, it is protected until the end of 2060. --Rosenzweig δ 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me, the breadth of knowledge and resources that Commons editors bring to us. Thank you, Rosenzweig. Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

obviously irrelevant 87.150.41.35 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete this picture my friend ask me... it's yours

this picture is from my friend and he did not authorize the use of the photo, and asked me to mark for deletion, his mother is angry with it and fought with him, so I ask you to take this pic, thanks. - Shocker267 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 187.10.147.245 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Also small, out of scope.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture includes original copyrighted logos. Civa (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The logos may not be a problem, but the image is watermarked to a (C) source.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that this is "a law, decree, regulation or official material of a Republic of Serbia" - its neither of this. Martin H. (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An official portrait made by the Govermnent = official material. I do not understand where the problem is... --A1B2C3D4 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD as official material. James F. (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image has stubbornly refused to cooperate, plese delete at once. The Lord of the Allosaurs (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Er, what? Instead of deleting this volitionless thing, perhaps you can tell us what you were trying to do, and maybe we can help. And it would help if you uploaded a full-size image to start with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid deletion reason specified Jcb (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all images in Category:Images of Cairo to check they are low quality and were uploaded as part of batch upload by me.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Reasons for deletion request --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You forgot to add the delete template to all the files. --Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - files were not tagged, uploader was not notified - Jcb (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file was uploded by user Серега Ангарск in ru-wiki. In ru-wiki this user systematically violates copyright, so all files uploaded by him in ru-wiki was deleted as copyright violation or disputed licence. File:Gorky Street, Angarsk.jpg was first published here by Vitaliy Shtyrts (Виталий Штырц). Dmitry89 (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that files - File:Ангарск (16).jpg and File:Comintern Street, Angarsk.jpg loaded in ru-wiki by this user and then moved to Commons - are also copyvio, but I could not find their original source, so I have no proof of it. Dmitry89 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The SVG is not using a font for the characters, so I doubt this meets PD-textlogo. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete this isn't just words. It rips off text, an original font, colour scheme, sizes, placement and concept.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep According to COM:L#Fonts the rasterization of a font is not copyrightable, no mather how complicated the font is. See also Threshold of originality#United States. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which typeface is this? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is typeface. Doesn't matter if it is a recognizable font, or completely custom. The letters are not copyrightable, period. The background on the other hand... Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The rasterization of a font is not copyrightable, in this particular case the font isn't really special, so this is not an issue. Question could arise whether the background has enough creativity to be copyrightable. I tend to say no. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter if the font is "special" even. Typeface is not copyrightable. In the context of copying an entire font is only area where it gets risky. For a couple of example, this logo was denied copyright by the U.S. Copyright Office, and File:NY Arrows logo.png (custom, hand-written font) was ruled uncopyrightable by the courts. To me, the background is copyrightable though. Even just the arrangement of the stars or whatever those are in back is enough to qualify. On the other hand, that may have been original work by the uploader. How closely is this copying the frame of the movie? If this was a capture of the film, I'd say delete, but this is an SVG creation and not a straight copy, and odds are it is a separate expression of the same idea and not a derivative work. If the background stars are basically in the same exact places as the in movie... that is probably the one risky part to me, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Sofree 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted not by me -- Deadstar (msg) 13:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file). It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. Civa (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1914 work by Hermann Clemens Kosel (died 1945), not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About this one I do not know, I just uploaded a better version so if it really is copyrighted, I vote for deleting it. --A1B2C3D4 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was published prior to 1923, and as such it is public domain in the United States. There is no basis for deletion of this file, which is used on many sites, and so I vote against deletion. EthanL (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably not aware of Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law and that works on Commons must be public domain in both, the U.S. and the country of origin. Aditionally, you say that it was published prior to 1923 in the U.S. - where? Also in this case the file description fails to comply with Commons:Licensing#License information and not provides a publication where it was published before 1923. Created in Austria before 1923 not equals published in the U.S. before 1923. However, this is only of interest if you want to upload this file to English Wikipedia, there the copyright status in the country of origin is not of importance but only the copyright status in the U.S. but only if that copyright status can be verified. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware that there was such a difference in policy between Wikipedia and Commons, or that Commons went above and beyond the requirements of the law where its servers are located. I never said it was published in the US prior to 1923. I was going by the guidelines linked in the licensing section of the image in question, which for some reason links to an English Wikipedia policy page rather than to a Commons policy page. If indeed it was published in Austria prior to 1923, then it is public domain in the US. But apparently that's not enough for Commons.EthanL (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how images get automatically moved by bots from Wikipedia to Commons. But apparently the bot was in error. If the image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia but not on Commons because of more stringent standards for public domain works, then can it be moved back to Wikipedia?EthanL (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Claudia Romani Pink 2010.jpg
• File:Claudia20 (1).jpg

No evidence of permission. The Commons uploader has the same username as the person at the Flickrstream, but I cannot determine whether they are the same people. These photos are listed on Flickr as copyright all rights reserved. Barring some comfirmation there that they've been relicensed, they should be deleted.--Chaser (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom, and out of scope in that form. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, the owner of this photo I would like to delete it. ChrisZ (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently in use on another project. Could you provide a replacement image? Easiest would be the same photo in its native version. --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete this picture. Reason: overmanipulated (This picture was taken by me) I rely on your co-operation! ChrisZ (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted uploader requested deletion of globally unused file. abf «Cabale!» 13:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]