Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/31

http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html is conflicting with 6. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in http://www.filmitadka.in/static/terms-a-conditions.html ("Content on the Site is for personal use only. ...") Saibo (Δ) 05:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have some (many?) other images form the same site.. hmm.. --Saibo (Δ) 05:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should note what is stated under 7.5 at the terms and conditions [1]. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow- that is good hidden and not nicely done but probably not "conflicting" then. And another (compare your talk page) reason for a custom license template... Thanks! --Saibo (Δ) 14:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: my own misinformation (didn't read enough) was clarified. Saibo (Δ) 14:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of picture? SustainableMobile (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Kept: "Pornographic" as nom on image page states is not a reason for deletion, and this could be used in relation to (oh my god) vaginas. No reason for deletion given. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source only given as wikipedia; I had tagged as "no source" but ALE! removed the tag without improving sourcing. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the necessary information on the source is there. So please give us all a break and do not use deletion request as a way of revenge for unfulfilled requests to unblock a user. --ALE! ¿…? 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps require good sourcing, otherwise one cannot know whether they are free. Please make the origins of this image easier to find in the file description. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Speedy closed. Source is OK. Yann (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not from a real source. May be copy right of others Sridhar1000 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: derivative work Denniss (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting any of the requirements by this PD-MD-Exempt template, not a work by the government of Moldova but of a private citizen. It is a copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. russavia (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ramesses II on chariot.png - derivative of above.

It doesn't look like a faith reproduction of a 2d work (e.g. photo of a wall painting or something similar). Most probably it's a modern impression, based on an original drawing but not the copy of such per se (certainly not a faithful copy). Therefore it is a subject to copyrights and cannot be claimed PD. Masur (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Work of Ippolito Rosellini, (August 13, 1800 – June 4, 1843). P.D. Tarawneh (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 pages of Google Images hits - looks like a screencap from a copyrighted TV show Tabercil (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete copyvio. Beta M (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbed from the internet: http://www.businesscol.com/empresarial/personajes/david_luna_junio_2010/images/David%20Luna.JPG http://www.jetset.com.co/galerias/mod_1351/f1.jpg  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Mmxx. Yann (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have the read the policies correctly, I think that even a photograph of a copyrighted fictional character is not allowed on Commons. Please correct me if I have made a mistake. Fangusu (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It's not a photograph of a fictional character; it's a picture of a person. COM:FANART and Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay are a bit unclear here, in light of a lack of clarity in the underlying law, but I think this case is fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a screenshot from a copyrighted anime. I am not trying to vandalize, I'm only trying to help. Fangusu (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It's an awesome anime, it's called Shaman King. Not only is this from it, but it's from the unofficial translation which was done by some release group (you can see from the subtitles). I watched it like that. So it actually violates more than one copyright. Beta M (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely not own work of the uploader, 1) per watermark (Photo by N. Madhaya Rao), 2) uploader never answered to my question whether he is identical to the person mentioned as author of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not own work, per watermarks, http://bharathadarshini.blogspot.com/ Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely not own work of the uploader, 1) per watermark (Photo by N. Madhaya Rao), 2) uploader never answered to my question whether he is identical to the person mentioned as author of the image. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commons is no auction house. see other uploads from user. blurred image. AtelierMonpli (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete far too blurry to be useful --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not exists, Invalid license Vssun (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, del on DE Nolispanmo 13:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

web-address shown in the picture, are uploader also owner of background picture Motopark (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Slightly larger, but otherwise identical version can be found at dpsfamily.org where it appears on a page which says "© The Delhi Public School Society 2010". —RP88 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, {{Copyvio}} by persistent copyright violator. http://www.dpsfamily.org/schoolthumb/large/United-Arab-Sharjah.jpg is the larger version. It's harder to get to, which is probably why the uploader used the lower resolution version. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a photograph of a document. No evidence the photographer is the copyright holder. Whpq (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Covered by FOP in India. Yann (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating. IMO, COM:FOP India as it stands today applies only to 3D artistic works like architecture and sculptures. 2D artistic works like texts aren't covered. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#France abf «Cabale!» 18:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fontaines Wallace were designed by Charles-Auguste Lebourg, who died in 1906. They are therefore in the public domain. No other work of art or architecture is recognizable here.--Ordifana75 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Ordifana75. Yann (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

definetely fails COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nomination Beta M (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope, no educational value. Photo of non-notable subject, used for self-promotion on nl.wikipedia (now deleted). See File:KevinKoschutnig.jpg as well. Mathonius (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope, no educational value. Photo of non-notable subject, used for self-promotion on nl.wikipedia (now deleted). See File:Kejoko.jpg as well. Mathonius (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously can't take a picture of yourself abf «Cabale!» 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Copyright OK. Yann (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work. Scanned from magazine "Tempur". NoCitNeed (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here (last picture of the top post). --NoCitNeed (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image is a collage of company logos Whpq (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image used only in spam userpage deleted from enwiki DS (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too blurry to be useful. Copyright on medals uncertain. Kramer Associates (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete too blurry --AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

promotion material, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, same opinion--Motopark (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grfgtg. Rufbu 24.136.32.226 20:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I already reverted the template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Yann (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No educational purpose: I can't make heads or tails of the diagram, and I doubt anyone else could, either. Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in use at wikiversity. There's a rough description of it there. Not certain the world needs a napkin sketch of the uploader's brilliant idea for an electric tea-making machine, but that's wikiversity's problem, not ours. --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this, delete wikiversity.

More practically, is there any sort of {{Dump on Wikiversity}} tag, like {{Move to Commons}}, that we can use to get rid of nonsense images like this, even if Wikiversity is too badly compromised to notice? We don't need this, we don't want this. If Wikiversity has no quality standards, then that's their problem, not Commons' Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use, therefore in scope. Yann (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stolen from http://identidadescaucanas.blogspot.com/ (which was published in 2007) JeanBono (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, customer service number JeanBono (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, customer service number JeanBono (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, customer service number JeanBono (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same as http://segasiliconvalley.org/images/image3.jpg JeanBono (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, ad JeanBono (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been anle to find this image on the website claimed (not at a cursory look anyway), but haven't seen a copyright notice anywhere on it that would make this CC-BY-SA-2.0-DE as claimed. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the :de userpage of the uploader, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Leonce49, it seems he is actually identical with the alleged photographer. Actually on his external website, http://www.pass-weingartz.de/hw.htm, he also has a link "Fotos für Wikipedia" to his Leonce49 userpage. Also the background in this photo is identical to the one in several photos in this gallery. Therefore,  Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, unknown author is possible if older than 70 years only, this file is ca from 1970/1980's Gumruch (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, unknown author is possible if older than 70 years only, this file is ca from 1950's Gumruch (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official Fraternity coat of arms. No evidence of legitimate fraternity-sanctioned CC-BY release GrapedApe (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
I'm in the fraternity, I used this with permission of the Alpha Delta Phi international president at the time, Howard Schaffer. GTFO.
Also it appears you went to some peasant nameless university. Enjoy being useless.

Then why did you state that this was your own work? If the official of the fraternity actually allowed it, then it needs to be confirmed and the image kept (while possibly converted to PNG). Otherwise it should be deleted. Beta M (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we need confirmation from the Alpha Delta Phi Grand Exalted Master Paddler, Howard Schaffer, through the WP:OTRS confirmation process.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whois indicates that this IP is from Cornell University. Is this Andy Bernard?--GrapedApe (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No link to the original image was ever provided, the cc-by-1.0 license is invalid as well, image not available in the photostream of the alleged photographer Denniss (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP or Freedom of Panorama in Denmark applies to buildings only, not to public art painted on buildings sadly like this example. Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is from 1943, but it says that in Japan, copyright expires 38 years after the creator's death. The director of this anime died in 1988, so this movie will enter the public domain in 2026. It has been only 23 years so far. Fangusu (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Template in the article. This picture was in public domain before the law you cite existet. So it remained in the public domain, which was also confirmed by a court decision in Japan. --Don-kun (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, I'm sorry. Please don't block me. Fangusu (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Fangusu, I think you're largely correct. Kumo to Chūrippu was published in 1943, directed by Kenzō Masaoka (1898-1988). According to Japanese copyright law in effect until 1970, a film's copyright extended until 38 years after the original copyright holder’s death (if the copyright holder was an individual). So originally it would fallen into the public domain on January 1, 2027. However, in 1971 the law was changed such that a film's copyright term extended until 50 years following publication (in 2004 it was modified to 70 years following publication). As {{PD-Japan-film}} discusses, Japan's Intellectual Property High Court has since clarified that despite the fact that the 2004 law extending a film's copyright term to 70 years following publication can't be applied retroactively (and hence any film published pre-1953 (2003-50=1953) might be in the public domain), Japanese films from 1970 or before are protected for the longer of the term under the old Copyright Act and the term under the current Copyright Act. Thus in order for a Japanese film to be in the public domain, it must have been published before 1953 and the author must have died before 1973 (2011-38=1973). Since Kenzō Masaoka died in 1988 the {{PD-Japan-film}} tag does not apply, his works will not be in the public domain until January 1, 2027. —RP88 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fangusu, in the latter half of your last edit to this DR you edited my comment. Please refrain from editing other's comments even if you're correcting what you believe to be an error. I've restored the content of my comment. If you're curious, I intended January 1, 2027 in my comment above (copyright terms end on the last day of their year of expiration, so the first day such content is in the public domain is January 1st of the following year). —RP88 04:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DW since there is No (commercial) FoP in Japan for artistic works. The sculptor of this sculpture Ando is still living. Saibo (Δ) 05:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about wikimedia non-commercial policy, so I agree this photo to be deleted. StelePrezer

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is two copyrighted logos. A simple image normally has one logo. 14.96.56.202 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A weak  Keep. Since the logo only consists of writing of word Pokemon and then While logo or Black logo in the specific font, won't that fall under public domain as non-copyrightable? And the shading for black and white logo doesn't add much artistic value to it. It is definitely a trademark, but i don't see anything to copyright. Beta M (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion that this is even the work of the Moldovan Government and if it is, it doesn't fall into one of these categories for this template. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work by living artist Anish Kapoor, exhibited in 2009; hardly covered by FOP as being non-permanently installed. Even the photo itself is not by uploader, but by Dave Morgan.--Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work by living artist Anish Kapoor, exhibited in 2009; hardly covered by FOP as being non-permanently installed. Even the photo is not by the uploader, but by Dave Morgan. Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work by living artist Anish Kapoor, exhibited in 2009; hardly covered by FOP as being non-permanently installed. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work by living artist Anish Kapoor, temporarily exhibited at the Grand Palais (Paris) in 2011; not covered by FOP as there is no FOP-exemption in France and anyway not permanently installed. Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use this image has been given from Anish Kapoor studio who own the copyright.Akalethia

Then send this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org please. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrongly titled, it should be St Peter and St John Healing the Cripple (No. 16) and is already on Commons as such Ringpicker (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete File:Albrecht Dürer - St Peter and St John Healing the Cripple (No. 16) - WGA7311.jpg is a much better version. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - in addition we have File:Dürer, Kupferstichpassion 16, Goldene Pforte.jpg as high-res version of the same engraving. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a scan from a book. The students in the Wikiproject India have been notorious for copyvio, this is no different from their other contributions. Biker Biker (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a scan from a book. The students in the Wikiproject India have been notorious for copyvio, this is no different from their other contributions. Biker Biker (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work of living artist, located obviously inside a museum[2] in Hattingen, Germany; thereby not covered by FOP-exemption of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate File:Flickr - Erfgoed in Beeld - Arnhem, KNIL Monument (1).jpg Rob K. aka pa3ems - erfgoedfotografie 09:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep not a duplicate, different archive fotonummers -- SFA003012904 vs SFA003012897. Trycatch (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Trycatch may be right, but they appear to be the same photo -- same size, angle, flag shape, shadows, etc. and the sky is much better in the other image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that photographer died before 1941, need to know date of death or evidence that photographer identity is truly anonymous 84user (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that photographer died before 1941, need to know date of death or evidence that photographer identity is truly anonymous 84user (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that photographer died before 1941, need to know date of death or evidence that photographer identity is truly anonymous 84user (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that photographer died before 1941, need to know date of death or evidence that photographer identity is truly anonymous 84user (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that photographer died before 1941, need to know date of death or evidence that photographer identity is truly anonymous 84user (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that this painting is original own work of the uploader, who has already 2 uploads of photos from works of living artists claimed as own work. Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate, with an identifiable person without specific permisison from the person on the picture. Also there is a more appropritae drawing illustration at File:Suitcase-Piercing.jpg Teemeah (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep , crop the face out, have the original deleted. Identifiable person problem solved. File:Suitcase-Piercing.jpg isn't better, as it doesn't show the relation of the piercing to the anus. --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep (for if the proof of authorship is provided) This is definitely a superior picture, but i would like to comment on the fact that it provides no date, no metadata, and nothing else. The user has no other contributions and i would have to say that we need proof of "own work". Beta M (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: uploaded new version without face, hid original version. Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i do not know what it ist. probably i would propose to delete the theory of everything because i would not recognize it. however, do we need this picture? AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete source is "a free ebook". no evidence of proper licensing --Kramer Associates (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Anhdung86. Same series. --Saibo (Δ) 23:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image and useless because of File:GPL+FE (GNU GPL with Font Exception).svg mabdul 11:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Mark with {{Vector version available}}, since having SVG is not a reason to delete the other file. Beta M (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Beta_M Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Commons:OTRS permission from Aurelio A. Heckert for FAL license. See Special:Diff/258121878.

CSD F6 (license laundering).

File:Heckert GNU white.svg is tri-licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/FAL/GFDL 1.3-only of choice. CC0 is not a compatible license with any of these. Whether this work exceeds a threshold of originality and if CC0 could be applicable is… tricky, to say the least.

Author's rights to redistribute this work:

1. Under CC BY-SA 2.0 have been automatically terminated per section 7(a) indefinitely.
2. Under FAL license have been terminated per section 8 indefinitely.
3. Under GFDL 1.3-only has been automatically terminated per section 9, and would usually provide an option to reinstate rights automatically.

For #1 or #2, Commons needs Commons:OTRS permission from Aurelio A. Heckert to reinstate copyright and redistribution. #3 isn't so certain, because CC0 is an irrevocable license and GFDL 1.3 terminates automatically if attempting to sublicense. OTRS permission is needed for all of these, it seems…

• See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:GPL+FE.svg. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:GPL+FE.svg - Jcb (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Jcb. Ruthven (msg) 11:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned file and totally useless because there is File:GPL+FE (GNU GPL with Font Exception).svg which is already in use mabdul 11:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Mark with {{Vector version available}}, since having SVG is not a reason to delete the other file. Beta M (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Beta_M Courcelles (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original copyvio speedy deletion nomination was declined by @Jcb with reason Not a copyright violation. If you disagree, nominate for deletion.

CSD F6 (license laundering).

File:Heckert GNU white.svg is tri-licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/FAL/GFDL 1.3-only of choice. CC0 is not a compatible license with any of these. Whether this work exceeds a threshold of originality and if CC0 could be applicable is… tricky, to say the least.

Author's rights to redistribute this work:

1. Under CC BY-SA 2.0 have been automatically terminated per section 7(a) indefinitely.
2. Under FAL license have been terminated per section 8 indefinitely.
3. Under GFDL 1.3-only has been automatically terminated per section 9, and would usually provide an option to reinstate rights automatically.

For #1 or #2, Commons needs Commons:OTRS permission from Aurelio A. Heckert to reinstate copyright and redistribution. #3 isn't so certain, because CC0 is an irrevocable license and GFDL 1.3 terminates automatically if attempting to sublicense. OTRS permission is needed for all of these, it seems…

•  Keep - OTRS is definitely not needed in this case. The licensing was easy to fix, which I just did. All modifications were clearly too simple to be copyrightable and the original file has irrevocable licenses that allow derivative work. Uploader attributed the work properly in the upload log, this was never license laundering. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry @Jcb, I still oppose this. I wasn't as obvious as I should've been: I never claimed the author (uploader) of this work to have created a derivative work. Your statement is self-contradicting.

    Okay, it wasn't license laundering? You're right about the the licenses are irrevocable, but in this case I believe you have misinterpreted what it means and what the termination clauses are. The issue is not with the depicted subject itself, but with the work being distributed and previous attempts to sublicense. The uploader claimed FAL afterwards without seeking permission from Aurelio A. Heckert first to reinstate the terminated rights to redistribute under FAL, but this may be irrelevant. Gladly, the uploader has taken actions to remove the CC0 license from these files and you've added the appropriate licensing information. Thus, Commons itself may no longer be in a position of contributory infringement. Great!

    That's not all. Sourcing the original work in question – while a good gesture and what should've been done in first place by the uploader – doesn't automatically fix the violation of #1 and #2 committed by the uploader, hence OTRS. Even an attempt to sublicense (by the uploader, excluding any possibility of obvious and swiftly reverted vandalism) has created a violation, and the uploader is primarily the first point of contact for questions about the upload. I find it troubling you decided to vote to keep before the uploader removed CC0 notice, and collectively Commons may still be liable for infringement of File:Heckert GNU white.svg in this work if kept. I notice a pattern here across DRs.

    Thinking for the best of Commons, this file should be deleted to avoid contributory infringement. Removing the uploader's claim of FAL and keeping the tri-license may be possible, because of threshold of originality. I don't know what country the uploader lives in and what the threshold of originality rules may be there, creating a situation where redistribution or removing the uploader's FAL notice may be legally difficult.

    Bleh, I wrote all of this and it sounds so confusing it makes me want to rewrite it. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • For clarification, it is not a derivative work. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • At upload, uploader stated: "GNU Heckert is licensed with a Free Art License." Everybody can verify that. So there was no violaton in the first place. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • That's correct, and I'm aware of this (and sorry for forgetting it all the time).

          I recall @Codename Lisa may have previously evaluated the applicability a of "crop" test to FAL images at Commons:Deletion requests/Screenshots of Inkscape with car.svgz. Do you agree the section 4 of FAL applies here? I could agree with that section, to support your argument of no infringement.

          Change of argument for deletion: Unfortunately, the revision you linked may have failed to comply with various conditions of FAL section 2.2 (attributing the original author named Aurelio A. Heckert, URLs to the originals, include a copy or link to the FAL license). So the rights have already been lost, even if it was otherwise and previously possible under FAL with a combination of CC0.

          I still reckon Commons:OTRS permission would be required today, if kept. I considered threshold of originality again, I find it irrelevant at the moment. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          • If the argument about FAL section 2.2 is better for a new and seperate deletion request (I'd say so), I'm ready to withdraw this request on CC0 compatibility for organization and simplicity. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 00:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Hello! My assessment is that File:GPL+FE.svg is a derivative work of File:Heckert GNU white.svg; the former adds two words and two simple shapes to the latter. Neither the two words, nor the two simple shapes are eligible for copyright protection. Hence, the license of the former is exactly the same as the license of the latter. The deriving author need not be attributed. What can be fixed with a simple edit need not be deleted. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Jcb. Ruthven (msg) 11:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a recent work of art by a living artist, located likely inside[3] a church in Bielefeld, thereby not covered by FOP exemption of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The same problem with File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Franz Stock.jpg, File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Franz von Assisi.jpg, File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Maximilian Kolbe.jpg, File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Mutter Teresa.jpg, File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Pauline von Mallinckrodt.jpg, File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Rosa Stein.jpg and File:HGBI-Kreuzweg Johannes Paul II..jpg. Images would be o.k. with a permission from the sculptor. --Túrelio (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

supposed copyright violation: uploader claimed to own rights for the photo of this painting without any mention about the painter and his or her rights Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unlikely to receive the permission from the painter. Of course, if one does arrive count my vote reverted. Beta M (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building (see better photos on the website of the European Court of Justice) is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[4]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo violates this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 13:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this particular building's architecture copyrighted? Beta M (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is the relevant question here. I fear it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[5]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo violates this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 13:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This says in German "Unfortunately, there is no panorama freedom in Luxembourg." Not quite sure what this means, this is a photo of a building, will the Boogeyman come and get us for taking this photo and uploading it to Commons?--Ianmacm (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building (see better photos on the website of the European Court of Justice) is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[6]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo violates this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Built in the 80s see: http://www.hochtief.lu/en/references/public-buildings.html, therefore this infringes the architect's copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 13:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building (see better photos on the website of the European Court of Justice) is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[7]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo violates this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is clearly a scan from a book. The students in the Wikiproject India have been notorious for copyvio, this is no different from their other contributions. --88.77.218.41 14:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete copyviolation Beta M (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion by User:Vejvančický for the following reason: "The uploader (User:Earlymen, now renamed to User:Netknowle) asked for deletion at my talk page on English Wikipedia with the following rationale: 'I uploaded them as a practice of uploading pictures during my early days in wikipedia and so i did not give much attaintion to their copyright licences.' See en:User_talk:Vejvančický#Hello_Vejvan.C4.8Dick.C3.BD.2C." Unless it's not actually the uploader's own work, that's not a reason for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it up here instead. The file was uploaded more than a year ago and is in use at several projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I think the file is not the uploader's own work and the copyright licence is invalid. My interpretation is that User:Netknowle has apparently realized his careless mistake and now wants to make a clean up. We can consider this as creator's request for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Pic Magpie.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{ffd}} Ngaleonardo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incomplete DR without any reason stated by nominator, but nominator is uploader as well. If we have other image of th same painting delete it. (I didnt checked that) --JuTa 18:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We have the same painting with much more information, but much poorer quality as File:Van Gogh - Selbstbildnis 34.jpeg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really notable persons. GeorgHH • talk   16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak  Keep, but definitely rename. Beta M (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Out of scope: no encyclopedic value. Note: the image is not used on any Wikimedia project. --High Contrast (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, out of scope. Already at upload, the uploader tagged it with "dead band of dark metal gore Venezuela" (per Google translat.). --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been superseded by another version. Pipcallas (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which other image supersedes it? --Kramer Associates (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably File:Earth Flag Alt-0.svg... AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as no version superseding it was actually provided. Beta M (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pipcallas -- just put {{Badname}} on the image description page, and you won't have to go through the whole formal deletion process... AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date of publication for this photograph is not mentioned on the source, which is a requirement for this template to apply. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same can be said to these files:

• File:Boy ray.jpg
• File:Sukumar Ray.gif
• File:Sukumar.jpg
• File:Satyajit Ray is Not Creepy.jpg (nominated for deletion in an other DR)

--MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough evidence. Hekerui (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work of copyrighted packaging label, sufficiently complex to meet threshold for originality. Warfieldian ^(talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work of copyrighted packaging label that is sufficiently complex with a picture to meet the threshold of originality. Warfieldian ^(talk) 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please write reason for deletion request in English. I do not speak German. user:Khaan 21:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama in Luxembourg. Dura lex, sed lex. --84.62.204.7 17:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building (see better photos on the website of the European Court of Justice) is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[8]. If the building is under copyright, then - due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg - this photo may violate this copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building is under the copyright of the architects. Though I think it is, this image might stay as per de minimis, as it is a sort of panorama shot and the building in question not clearly visible. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[9]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo may violate this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is, though I wasn't able to find any information about the building and its architect(s) on the courts website[10]. If the building is under copyright, then this photo may violate this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here is whether the depicted building is under the copyright of the architects. I think it is. If the building is under copyright, then this photo may violate this copyright, due to the missing FOP exemption in Luxembourg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the photo shows a modern-looking building, which is likely still under the copyright of the architect, the image violates this copyright as Luxembourg has no FOP exemption. --Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File with false lisence from advertisment article about tourism speedy deleted in ru-wiki. Shakko (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

files from same user from same article:

• File:9kvartira.ru.png
• File:9kvartira.ru-gostinica.jpg
• File:9kvartira.ru-restoran.jpg
• File:99kvartira.ru-Onkelresidence.jpg
• File:9kvartira.ru-Proday.png

--Shakko (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too blurry to be useful; only in a category exhausively showing the contents of museum, which doesn't really make it in scope Prosfilaes (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per low image quality. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, no valid description/source/authorization JeanBono (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per missing scope. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, no valide description (o) JeanBono (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person who uploaded it en:User:Rebert is depicted in the picture. The metadata names Mark Von Holden/ DMI as author (who is a professional photographer based in New York City: http://www.markvonholden.com/bio.htm). No permission by him is stated. S_peakF_ree (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I would tend to give Roger Ebert a bit more benefit of a doubt as having proper license/permission than average random user. I note that this image has been in prominent use in Wikimedia since 2004 with no complaint. You should probably alert the image's uploader, en:User talk:Rebert, of this discussion (though he doesn't seem to have been active on Wikimedia since 2009). You might also wish to contact Mark Von Holden as to if he does/does not consent to the license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • One should not be overawed by celebrity. Whether an image was uploaded by an Average Joe or a famous person shouldn't matter (they often have too busy lives to spend time learning the intricacies of copyright law). I'm not too familiar with the OTRS process so maybe someone who is could e-mail Mark Von Holden and ask him for permission in the proper form. S_peakF_ree (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing for being "overawed by celebrity". I'm just noting that it was uploaded by a known person who is generally intelligent and media savvy, so has a known record outside of Wikimedia beyond their few and occasional contributions in Wikimedia. Certainly that doesn't mean they are beyond questionging-- nor is anyone else; smart and experienced Wikimedians can make occasional mistakes too, and we strive for accuracy through multiple people second guessing. My point is similar to that which Night Ranger expressed as "Let's not be hasty here." I think this one is worth a bit of extra effort to try to contact both the uploader and the listed photographer before making a determination on the case. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rebert probably uploaded the photo as a well-intentioned gesture after he received it from the photographer but unless the photographer transferred the copyrights to the photo to him he doesn't have the right to donate it under a free license. Especially because the photo was taken by a professional photographer and they are often are very protective of their work as its their bread and butter. He might not even be aware that the photo is on Wikipedia. Regardless there should be full clarification of the photo's copyright status. S_peakF_ree (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the original history on en:W, I note that it was uploaded in the pre-template era, with no claim of authorship nor license statement. I asked about licensing myself early on. en:User:AaronSw was the one who tagged it as GFDL; you might wish to ask them about it; the user is still active. (I recall that some other users were in contact with Ebert at the time and confirmed the account identity, but I have no further info about it myself.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the person who was in contact with Ebert. Yes, he's in it. Yes, he uploaded it. For the other image he uploaded (of himself and Russ Meyer), he specifically agreed to release it under the specified free licenses and in the same e-mail acknowledged that he uploaded this one as well. This was a few years ago. Unfortunately, I'm a couple of cratered hard drives past that time and no longer can access the e-mail he sent me (and I don't care to give out his e-mail address in a public forum), but if you look at the OTRS info for the Russ Meyer image, it may have the additional statement about this one. If not, I can give an administrator here the e-mail address I have for him offline if you'd like to contact him. Let's not be hasty here. Night Ranger (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment COM:PRP seems to apply. I've encountered this policy in an earlier deletion request regarding a file predating the present permission request system. A user in that debate said "An image lacking permission is an image lacking permission. Copyright in many countries lasts 70 years past the creator's death. No one's going to cut us slack just because we didn't adhere to best practices at the time. Precautionary principle is policy.". So it would be best to get a response from the uploader and/or photographer. S_peakF_ree (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if someone wants me to give them the e-mail address I have for Roger then I can do that, but I would prefer it be a trusted administrator. I don't want to bother him myself. Night Ranger (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's better to e-mail Mark Von Holden instead as he is the photo's creator and his e-mail address is public (studio AT markvonholden DOT com, as listed on his website). Still it would be better if an administrator or experienced OTRS team member mailed him. S_peakF_ree (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one responded I decided to e-mail MVH myself. S_peakF_ree (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been away for a few days. That's probably fine, just so he knows that the image was uploaded by Roger Ebert. That info may be the difference between whether or not he lets us keep it. It's been so long now, but I think Ebery originally uploaded it to en-wiki and I subsequently moved it here, but again, it's been years. Night Ranger (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's always been our policy to grandfather in images that predate our permissions process. If you're paranoid that a Pulitzer Prize winner would violate copyright on a well-known website, read Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_21#OTRS_permissions_required_for_old_cases.3F. Roger isn't Jimbo Wales, but he's probably better known overall. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I received a response from Mark Von Holden by e-mail on November 5 in which he wrote:

"Thank you very much for writing me. I just read the correspondance online and very impressed at how much discussion has gone into this one photo. I am also grateful as a professional photographer that you care about the copyright laws. The truth of the matter is I did take this photo. However I was staff at the time with DMI photo who owned the copyright. The company DMI was sold to Wireimage in 2006. Wireimage was sold to Getty images. Therefore Getty images owns the copyright and all images taken by DMI photographers. I emailed a few photos to Roger years ago during the Savannah School of Art and Design Film Festival as I was the house photographer and he was an honored guest. He asked for some photos from the festival for personal use. Thank you for contacting me and I hope this helps."

If you want a copy of the full e-mail please ask (allowing that I don't check Commons as much as English Wikipedia so you may leave a message on w:User talk:SpeakFree). S_peakF_ree (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I sent the mail to the OTRS team so they have it now. S_peakF_ree (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this is correct: the OTRS ticket number is 2011110710011595. Therefore, this file should be deleted. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete Go to the site of the FilmMagic photo agency (a division of Getty Images), search for "Roger Ebert Peter O'Toole Jason Patric" (without the quotation marks) and you will find this image together with two other images from the same occasion crediting M. Von Holden as creator. I think there is enough evidence now that this image is not a free image and Mr. Ebert just didn't realize that when he uploaded it.

BTW: forgot to add this, the three images which were derived from this one (File:JasonPatric(larger)_by_Roger_Ebert.jpg, File:Roger_Ebert.jpg and File:Peterotoole by Roger Ebert.jpg) should be included in this discussion because if this one is deleted the other ones should be treated the same. S_peakF_ree (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per the above, looks like a misunderstanding between Ebert and Von Holden. Von Holden (the copyright holder) understood that he granted Ebert "personal use" of the photo but not the copyright, which was subsequently purchased by Getty, so neither Von Holden nor Ebert currently has authority to grant a free license on this. Too bad. Thanks for your work, SpeakFree. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I just noticed there is another derived image, which I nominated also: File:JasonPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg. S_peakF_ree (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I have purged English WP of all versions of this image and replaced them with a different image. I don't see how this could be maintained. S_peakF_ree (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per OTRS ticket, this image is copyright by Getty Images, and unfortunately we do not have permission for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD claim unconvincing, see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2004002132/ which warns user that Rights assessment is your responsibility. To be acceptable to Commons needs evidence of photographer's date of death and or publication date; in any case the CC license cannot be correct 84user (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comment This image is part of the Bains collection and http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/ggbain/ describes this as part of the Bains News Service agency. Commons:Licensing#United_States states "Anything published[48] before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain" but this assumes the image was first published in the US, and if so could we use {{PD-US}} ? Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain also has "year and location of publication is essential". -84user (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep with {{PD-Bain}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept as {{PD-Bain}}, license tag updated. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was taken in 1908, so it is possible that the photographer is not dead 70 years to ensure that the image is free. It should therefore be deleted. SteMicha (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: same photography is available here, http://www.lasker-gesellschaft.de/partien/2008/42/42KW.html, on the website of the "Emanuel Lasker Gesellschaft". Could somebody ask them[11] about the source/photographer? When they confirm it to be anonymous, we might accept that reasoning. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hab sie mal angeschrieben. --Bjs (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Been a month, no evidence of anonymity or author death date is forthcoming. Deleting withour prejudice for recreation in case more info is uncovered. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leider gibt es keine Panoramafreiheit in Luxemburg. 84.62.204.7 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might remain per de minimis in this panorama shot. --Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is not on a single building or work of a single artist, thereore as far as I understand "Panoramafreiheit" is not an issue here. Could someone review this one too? As I can no longer view the image I cannot tell whether any particular building was in the focus Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luxembourg City Kirchberg2 fromBock.jpg.--Caranorn (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the deleted file showed only the modern building on the right in the image discussed here. This was clearly not de minimis. --Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that building by the way belongs to the European Parliament, but I assume freedom of panorama also affects such public buildings.--Caranorn (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is a photo of Kirchberg as a whole, individual building designs are de minimis. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

same for:

• File:Example sth kor stamp.JPG
• File:Sth Kor Gov questionable.JPG

Nothing mentioned why the depicted Korean Animation Film Poster is free (it may be). S. Korea seems to have "50 years after the death of the last surviving creator" for most works. How old is the poster? Saibo (Δ) 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Saibo, these images are of the South Korean government's censor approved stamp. This is for an article I intend to write on the subject of identifying legitimate posters. They are not images of the whole poster... and I'm quite sure the film distributors won't care as the films have never been released outside of Sth Korea and are long forgotten! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batusfinkus (talk • contribs) 2011-10-31T05:27:28‎ (UTC)

Thanks! If you just want to show the stamps (which is probably not a problem) I think the crop must be tighter (→ less poster to see, more centered on the stamp) to be able to regard the poster as de minimis. Maybe there are some special law rules for s. korean works which I do not know. It would help if we now the age of these posters - so you know?

Wait for other comments here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 06:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I cropped it to focus on the stamp, to the point where the poster elements are incidental. The resulting image is unfortunately very low-resolution, but still shows the stamp. If you have a higher-resolution photo, please crop that and upload it instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cropped the two others of this DR per this decision. --Saibo (Δ) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really 2D, PD-Art does not apply, source page says "courtesy David M. Rubenstein". Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rubenstein is the guy who owns the last privately held copy of the document, but is not a rights holder to it. Still need to find out if the photo was taken by the National Archives, since that document was donated by Rubenstein to the Archives. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had assumed he was a photographer. So this could be {{PD-USGov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If cropped to focus on the paper portion, it's definitely 2D and eligible for PD-Art. Consider as an alternative to deletion. I think this is probably taken by a US federal employee but don't have evidence. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In order for Rubenstein or the National Archives to have copyright, we would have to believe that there was significant creativity involved in the specific orientation of the minimal 3D element. That creativity is the only thing a photographer could claim copyright over. This is in essence a straightforward photograph of a 2D work with, at most, a de minimis element of 3D layout for photography.

out of scope - non-notable self adverts - or confusion of wikipedia and myspace/facebook

• File:Djrkali.jpg
• File:Theexquisiteposter.jpg

Saibo (Δ) 03:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete myspacey. --Simone 21:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Shirelles - I Met Him on A Sunday 1966.jpg
• File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png
• File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg
• File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg

These photos of records by The Shirelles are sourced to various third-party web sites that don't have free licenses. If these phonographic labels are indeed public domain, then as photos of original two-dimensional work of art, these photos too would also be public domain in the US (i.e. no license from the photographer required). However, I'm not sure that the uploader has correctly determined that the original phonographic labels are in the public domain. The uploader of these images has not included a rationale for why he or she believes that there was no copyright notice associated with these phonographic labels. I took a quick look at these images, and it's true that there isn't a visible copyright notice on these labels, but that isn't sufficient. We also need to know that there wasn't notice on the record's jacket, liner, and notes (as well as the rear of the record). It would be best if the uploader had linked to a reputable third party who said these records lacked a copyright notice. Absent that, if the uploader owned these records and personally photographed them, I'd be inclined to accept an assertion from them that they had examined the aforementioned and determined that they lacked notice. Since the uploader indicates various web sites as the source of these images, I don't think the uploader is in a position to verify that these phonographic labels truly lacked a copyright notice. However, it's possible that two of these images (namely File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png and File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg) could be public domain even if they were originally published with notice. As works first published in the U.S. before 1963, they would have needed to have their copyright renewed (someone would have to do a search of Copyright Office's copyright records to determine if these renewals did not occur). —RP88 10:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From my understanding of "inclusion of notice", the inclusion of notice would have to be on every separate item that is copyrighted. If my understanding is correct, even if the album sleeve is copyrighted (and Scepter has been quite diligent in marking things for copyright, based on my search for a promotional image of the girls) the records themselves may not be. For promotional discs, such as File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg, do they even have sleeves like regular LPs? Also, wouldn't this apply to most items in Category:Vinyl records? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to take each of your points in turn:

• inclusion of notice — Yes, you are correct, typically separate items require separate notices (unless they qualify as a collective work). However, the U.S. copyright law is pretty liberal about the location of the required notice. The general requirements are "acceptability of a notice depends upon its being permanently legible to an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use, and affixed to the copies in such manner and position that, when affixed, it is not concealed from view upon reasonable examination." and "Where, in a particular case, a notice does not appear in one of the precise locations prescribed in this section but a person looking in one of those locations would be reasonably certain to find a notice in another somewhat different location, that notice will be acceptable under this section." I don't know of any case law that clarifies what the specific notice requirements are for a graphic label attached to a phonographic recording, but U.S. copyright law says that for works reproduced in machine-readable copies it is acceptable if a legible notice is securely affixed to the copies themselves or to a box, reel, cartridge, cassette, or other container used as a permanent receptacle for the copies. But that might not apply, since it's only the phonographic recording that is reproduced in machine-readable form, not the label. However, for pictorial and graphic works of a two-dimensional nature, the notice must be attached durably to the work itself (or other material on which the copies are durably attached), or if the work is permanently housed in a container, such as a game or puzzle box, a notice reproduced on the permanent container is acceptable. By analogy, I think if a copyright notice on a puzzle box is acceptable for a puzzle, a notice on a record sleeve would be acceptable.
• promotional discs — If you have personal knowledge that File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg was distributed without a record sleeve, or a reliable third-party says so, then we'd only need to know if the back of the record lacks notice. Do you have an image of the other side of this record?
• does this apply to other items in Category:Vinyl records — Yes, if census on Commons is that copyright applies to the graphic label's affixed to a phonographic records, it might well be the case that many of those photos are not correctly licensed.

—RP88 14:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You were completely correct in assuming that I do not have any of the albums myself (I live in a place where such things would be hard to find), so I cannot verify what's on the other side; haven't seen any images either. I am not big on case law, so I cannot comment on whether or not there have been any decisions regarding such a situation. Regarding the third point... I pity the editor(s) who have to nominate them and the admin(s) who have to delete them, if it is decided that the sleeve copyright notice applies to the vinyl disc inside. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if the Commons community agrees and this deletion nomination succeeds, it's likely that a significant portion of images in that category would also fail if similar criteria were applied to them. It would indeed not be much fun to deal with the fallout from applying uniform criteria to those images, many which have been around quite a while (much like FoP). I only waded into this issue since these four images are used in an article being reviewed for GA status on English Wikipedia. —RP88 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed It's my GAN Thanks for the discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - no-notice, or even PD-ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - These are {{PD-ineligible}}. They consist entirely of a small amount of text and maybe one shape with a trivial, uncreative layout. The fancy font used for "Scepter" doesn't matter either. The notice issue is moot. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - As I've explained above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: As Dcoetzee explained, the quantity of text is minimal, reflecting only factual information; there is no creativity to the layout. These simple labels would be ineligible for copyright, even if it was asserted (which we can't know without better access to the originals and their packaging). -Pete F (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baned pic of my frd Bhanuprakash0501 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. REDIRECT [www.google.co.in]

•  Delete copyvio. ps what is this redirect to google? Beta M (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Clear copyvio. History also contains an out of scope personal image. Kramer Associates (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baned pic Bhanuprakash0501 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright is listed as (C) Rob Rich at the Flickr site with no evidence that owner of account is Rob Rich, uploader replaced Flickr review tag after it was already reviewed manually and removed no permission tag. Warfieldian ^(talk) 03:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Flickr uploader contacted via Flickrmail; I will alert here if any reply. Infrogmation (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: still present at Flickr with a free license Jcb (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image deletion was previously closed without adequate explanation. Of course, it exists at Flickr with a free license. The deletion nomination was because no permission exists to document the Flickr uploader has permission to publish under this license. The image is credited to Rob Rich at Flickr and at other sites. No e-mail confirmation was obtained after contacting Flickr account holder. Author is listed on the image as Viva Vivanista which is not correct source. Warfieldian ^(talk) 15:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Apparently a case of unintentional flickrwashing - Kramer Associates (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Flickr user clearly marked photo as someone else's so we would need evidence of permission from that person. We can't assume that Flickr's permission checking is sufficient for us. Wknight94 ^talk 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baned pic of my frd Bhanuprakash0501 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. REDIRECT [www.google.co.in]

•  Delete copyvio. ps what is this redirect to google? Beta M (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Clear copyvio. History also contains an out of scope personal image. Kramer Associates (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baned pic Bhanuprakash0501 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file is not being used by anyone and I don't want to retain this image here. NmurthyG (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file is not being used by anyone and I don't want to retain this image here.

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No clear info on author or date. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As a work first published in 2000, it is copyrighted until 31 December 2047 or later if PMA+70 is later. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing indicates this is PD old. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of 1925 you can't understand? Béria Lima ^msg 18:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "life of the author plus 70 years" do you not understand? 1925 in itself doesn't explain when the author died. If it had been 1890 or something, yes, the author would most likely be dead more than 70 years ago, but this case is too recent to be certain. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteWe are told by the source site "Credit: Family of Captain George L. Anderson, C&GS", which says that it was not taken by a government employee, but by a member of the family of the government employee in the picture. If this sat in a family scrapbook until recently, it will be a while before it is PD, depending on when the family member died. Of course if it was published in 1925 and not renewed, then it is PD. So we must delete unless we can get more facts.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - of course this circulated at the time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Teofilo in the previous deletion request. A photograph first published in 2000 in the US in copyrighted until 2047, regardless of when it was taken (see [12]). Even if it were first published in 1925 in the US, it would still be in copyright if it complied with all formalities. User:Beria's unilateral restoration of the image was in error and out-of-process, and I advise them to use Commons:Undeletion requests in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single pages (page sections) from an ebook ("|Source= free ebook") - the oldest uploads also have an author ("|Source= free ebook |Date= 20/12/2007 |Author= Gs Dương Hiếu Đấu |") which is apparently not the uploader. The uploader user:Anhdung86 seems to be named "Nguyen Anh Dung" (compare the newest uploads). Not really in scope (as Commons is not intended for text) and copyvio / no permission by the author. Two ebook files already were deleted.

• File:Chuong214.gif
• File:Chuong213.gif
• File:Chuong212.gif
• File:Chuong211.gif
• File:Chuong210.gif
• File:Chuong209.gif
• File:Chuong208.gif
• File:Chuong207.gif
• File:Chuong206.gif
• File:Chuong205.gif
• File:Chuong204.gif
• File:Chuong203.gif
• File:Chuong202.gif
• File:Chuong200.gif
• File:Chuong199.gif
• File:Chuong198.gif
• File:Chuong197.gif
• File:Chuong164.gif
• File:Chuong163.gif
• File:Chuong162.gif
• File:Chuong161.gif
• File:Chuong160.gif
• File:Chuong159.gif
• File:Chuong157.gif
• File:Chuong181.gif
• File:Chuong219.gif
• File:Chuong104.gif
• File:Chuong229.gif
• File:Chuong228.gif
• File:Chuong227.gif
• File:Chuong225.gif
• File:Chuong222.gif
• File:Chuong221.gif
• File:Chuong218.gif
• File:Chuong236.gif
• File:Chuong233.gif
• File:Chuong230.gif
• File:Chuong180.gif
• File:Chuong156.gif
• File:Chuong155.gif
• File:Chuong154.gif
• File:Chuong153.gif
• File:Chuong152.gif
• File:Chuong235.gif
• File:Chuong234.gif
• File:Chuong231.gif
• File:Chuong232.gif