Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/13

Thats a bit more than just a common used stamp of the soviet post in 1966, thats a postcard with a stamp on it covering about <5% of the image. The post card is probably subject of copyright. Martin H. (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Good catch. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unused low resolution version of File:Juan1.JPG. Ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actually, it's not a lower resolution image, it is a duplicate of the listed image. Ceranthor 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lower color depth GIF version of File:Juan1.JPG. Sv1xv (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a lower resolution version of File:JohanTotterstrom1.jpg Ww2censor (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Low res. Ceranthor 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ray crowley's only flickr image on Commons and it failed flickrreview. No evidence his pictures were licensed freely. Moreover, it is also unused on Wikipedia. Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is not a valid license for Commons, it looks like all of his images on Flickr are licensed in the same manner.--Captain-tucker (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. unfree flickrlicense, no need to keep open. Huib talk 05:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non educational, personal image. Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It was in use at one point... that's why I slapped a "Wikipedian" cat on it... Tabercil (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it was uploaded only 2 days ago, there is no need to rush for deletion as she may want to use it on her userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Still not in use - Out of Scope - Huib talk 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of File:Sbh 11 7.jpg Andrei Romanenko (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of identifiable person, in private surroundings, uploader and subject both request deletion at Ticket:2009071310025509. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Not in use. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused private picture. –Tryphon^☂ 10:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, Agree with nom, out of project scope. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Also the duplicate upload File:Tinda Time.jpg which was used in the en.wp article Tinda (Praecitrullus fistulosus) in an nonencyclopedic context. Martin H. (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full of error Luca Fascia (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Uploader request, unused poor quality.Nilfanion (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No licence; also same photo appears on http://bravuraartist.com/2009/05/03/boogie-woogie-catches-jay-fever/ which indicates full copyright Dl2000 (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete This is a no brainer, the image is obviously stolen, hence an illegal copyright violation. JBsupreme (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Clear copyright violation. Hekerui (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a Derivative work (if you do not take for a big version of a toy) MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same object here File:Tivoli by night.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete because it is photo (i.e., derivative work) of a big version of a toy which incorporates original artwork. I don't understand what difference it makes whether this is a toy or a statue ? Toys are subject to copyright just as statues and other 3D artwork (see for example: [1]).Nillerdk (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The toys mentioned in the link (Darth Vader and Mickey Mouse) are of course protected but not because it is toys. I don't think, that "simple" toys are protected. See Category:Toys. We even have Category:Snow globes and noone seems to think, that snow globes are a work of art? --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted graffiti. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have my opinion in: [[2]]--Davidmartindel (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Spain as in "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.", since this is in the street, on Sevilla, Spain, as can be seen in this image Tm (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the actual work should be okay. The only problem I can imagine is character copyright, but I'm not familiar enough with this to decide whether this is a derivative work of a copyrighted character. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Spain like Chrisi, copyright problems with the person on the picture not specified Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, see file description. Needs permission by copyright holder. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple image. I think is imposible have copyright. --85.57.211.94 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a photographic image, thus definitely copyrighted. I think the flames alone would meet the threshold of originality, so it's definitely copyrighted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is all over the internet. Unlikely that the Flickr user is the original author, he has several more obvious copyvios in his stream. See also TinEye. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple picture. I think that it is imposible have copyrithg.--85.57.211.94 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-textlogo}}--85.57.211.94 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely reaches the threshold of originality. Not simple enough to not be copyrighted, let alone for PD-textlogo. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Definitely not PD-Textlogo. Look, there's a big face of a man above the text, which is not PD-Textlogo. Considering that the Tineye search gave 70 results, I just can't believe that all of them are freely available. It's just too unrealistic. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of copyrighted work on t-shirt. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request -Mblume (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Author: No use of image.[reply]

• •  Delete, looks like a corporate logo that does not meet the requirements of {{PD-textlogo}} so would be covered by copyright.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"publicity photo" is not the same as public domain. There's no proof that the copyright holder allows free commercial use and derivative works. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hoax --Poco a poco (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoney map / out of scope Tekstman (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image without description, showing unknown person, while using an attention-seeking filename; hardly usable. Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Personal photo, out of project scope. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom, especially the filename part. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope, unused personal photo. Captain-tucker (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - uploader requests deletion on the file page, no reason to keep it. Wikignome0529 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same picture as File:Malmöhuset Svedmyra Stockholm 001.jpg Jordgubbe (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious image. Looks like it has been stolen from the Internet and then blown up. Also suspicious is the lack of metadata. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low resolution and as a result, possibly out of project scope Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source site is copyrighted Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a Derivative work (if you do not take for a big version of a toy) MGA73 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same object discussed there: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tivoli jul 2006.jpg so I suggest the debate continues there. --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Abigor: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tivoli_jul_2006.jpg

he is not anti imerialist he is racist!!! check please 84.228.135.130 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered the image to be renamed to File:Kémi Séba 2007.jpeg. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:Kémi Séba 2007.jpeg

This is a duplicate of this image I uploaded here 1 week earlier. The uploader did not see my earlier upload: File:Anapji pavilion 2006.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very well aware of the other file's existence. The newly uploaded file was my effort to make a consistency with other files taken by the photographer on the same date. When I upload files, I carefully measure 'photographer', 'time', and 'image flow' in their belonged category. I've organized Korean related categories and images on Commons for years, so I actually intended to "request File:Anapji pavilion 2006.jpg to be deleted as a "bad name" or "duplication". When Magnus Flickr upload bot was broken yesterday, I requested an admin to delete the "unnecessary multiple upload history" User_talk:Túrelio#File:Anapji_Pond-Gyeongju-Korea-2006-07.jpg. I do not mind the file in question is deleted since the unnecessary upload file history should be cleaned up. I assume while Leoboudv wants to preserve the history of his contribution, since we can have the wonderful images taken by the photographer presumably as a a result of Leoboudv's hard work of persuading the photographer to release his works to Commons. However, I want File:Anapji pavilion 2006.jpg to be renamed with the current file's name, so that can have a consistency as well.--Caspian blue 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Yes luckily rinux was open to licensing his images as cc by sa. I have no objections to Caspian's request. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question Okay, so what is the final answer? Can I just delete File:Anapji pavilion 2006.jpg? Or do you really want a move done? Wknight94 ^talk 12:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Feel free to go ahead and delete that image file you mention Wknight94. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. File:Anapji pavilion 2006.jpg deleted instead. Wknight94 ^talk 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lissitzky died after June 22, 1941 and did work work during the Great Patriotic War. This image is protected by Russian copyright law and he was an Russian. Licence was chanded a few weeks ago PD-Russia -> Pd-Ukriane ([3]) just to avoid deletion. sугсго 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems most likely that this is copyrighted until december 2011, 70 years from his death, but is NOT PD currently -  Delete - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright vioaltion. Kameraad Pjotr 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant image with unclear copyright status. {{PD-USGov-Congress-Bio}} image that lists the Library of Congress as its source. The LOC listing for the image [4] shows the copyright status has not been evaluated. A suitable replacement is available on commons. --Allen3 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The license at the source, seen through the webarchive http://web.archive.org/web/20071023182643/http://www.morguefile.com/archive/terms.php says, that the license is revocable. This is not public domain and not a free license as required. Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Non-transferable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contemporary sculpture (erected after World War II) in Russia. But there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. See COM:FOP for details. Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need the page; creator requests deletion -Newportm (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]