Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
It seems a copyrighted photo or scan --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Scan from 1986 sport card [1]--Justass (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)- Delete clearly copyvio. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Martin H.: Copyright violation
Out of project scope. Also, unfree Windows Vista logo can be seen at right. ·×α£đ·es 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: private picture out of project scope
A better version of this image is here. --Tomaxer (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, low quality, the other file name is more informative. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. See Pieter Kuipers arguments Mbdortmund (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a pretty low resolution image which failed flickr review. I'm sure Commons has many other replacement photos of this bird. Leoboudv (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The person died 70 years ago... but thats not the smallest evidence that the author died 70 years ago (I think thats the intended licensing, the pd-ineligible license is wrong). Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- PD-ineligible is clearly wrong, but the image could be pd-old nonetheless. However, since not even the age of the photo is known, we don't know. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, but willing to restore if age of photo can be established. J.smith (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted material: http://musicaenlibertadtv.com/tapa_c.gif --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're probably right, but how can they claim Copyright (c) 2009 when the picture is from the 1970ties? --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that the point isn't the text that says "Copyright 2009" but that was uploaded to Commons from a web page which doesn't clearly specify a free license. Besides, the uploader added an Own Work licence which is not valid. --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, right. I was only wondering whether claiming (untruthfully) copyright over something or dating it wrongly is on itself punishable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, not punishable, unfortunately. Copyright text like that is actually fairly meaningless anyway, since it's not required in any way. J.smith (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, right. I was only wondering whether claiming (untruthfully) copyright over something or dating it wrongly is on itself punishable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, looks like banner ad or book cover or something. Also, how is this useful? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete unclear, useless, tentative copyrights violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No source, no nothing. Very similar to the person's facebook picture (http://www.facebook.com/profile/pic.php?oid=AAAAAQAQ6TjXLe_2Ig2lsFq6kfE-jQAAAArHsH_TXp5VpUCX_eur0Cqj), likely copyvio. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: insufficient information provided to show that image is freely licensed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The {{Cc-by-3.0}} license at http://change.gov/about/copyright_policy does not cover this high resolution variant which has been copied from somewhere else. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment This upload is associated with an update request of this official portrait which has a lower resolution. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
advertisement with phononumbers and adress data Havang(nl) (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused advertisement - propably not notable - out of scope, copyright questionable Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a WWE broadcast. Oakster 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that this is, as claimed, the uploader's own work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if it is "own work" - it's not in scope. J.smith (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Schlechtes Bild S 400 HYBRID (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The proposer's reason translates as "bad image". It looks OK to me and is in use on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, since reason given isn't specific enough to be a deletion criteria. Feel free to re-nominate if you can clarify the reasoning and it falls within policy. J.smith (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, possible violation of personality rights Athenchen (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted; out of scope personal image. J.smith (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
possible copyvio: source is coyrighted site http://www.achievement.org/ Havang(nl) (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be identical to the image on this page, credited to "© Karan Kapoor/CORBIS". The last modification date of the image at achievement.org is 1 February 2005, while it uploaded here on 27 February 2007. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
probably wrongly assigned PD-art licence and copyvio from referenced source Havang(nl) (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - wrong copyright declaration Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There's too much graphical artwork to fit the simple text regulation in PD-textlogo Denniss (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. PD-textlogo inapplicable here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Do it. Are there any other licensetags for logos? --Der Messer (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not here, please upload it local to the german wiki - there seems to be a special license tag for them. --Denniss (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality, totally unclear (members of an unnotable band) unused until 2006 Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
joke, unused, low quality - unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete unlocalised and useless --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
not used, not described. Seems to be a private photo, so not in scope Avron (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Private joke, unused and unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Out of project scope
joke, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
File indicates this was published before 1923, however it lacks source information which is needed for confirmation. --Thirdship (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've done a little research and I've not been able to determine when the photo was taken. It's conceivable that it was taken before or after the 1923 cut off date. Lois's prime was from 1915 to 1929, so who knows? It does, however, appear that this image was "Published without a copyright notice" and that would make it PD. J.smith (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-no-notice. Kameraad Pjotr 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad SVG; it is a wrapper around a bitmap, which itself was not embedded, so the SVG itself is empty and obviously any attempt to render only results in errors. The same is true for the earlier upload attempts. File:US-DefenseTechnicalInformationCenter-Seal.svg is a vector version of what this was presumably intended to be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Does not render. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the author information too this image to improve the poor sourcing the file initially had. However, I dont think a skywarn spotter is an employee of the U.S. federal government but an volunteer. Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I have changed the license template for this image. There is fine print in the NWS pages that allows for this particular image, and this newer template describes this. WxGopher (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per new license template -- Common Good (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Release from IMASTE software copyright holder not sufficient since images, design and other logos would be copyright to their respective owners. Design too significant to qualify as de minimus. Shell babelfish 06:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most of those logos are ineligible for copyright. Are you talking about the Monster stuff? -Nard the Bard 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, some are, my concern was more the website design itself. Copyright to these designs are generally held by the designer or the company the work was performed for. Compare IMASTE to w:Drupal or w:Joomla; while they hold the copyright to their software, I doubt this transfers any ownership over the websites produced on the software. I understand IMASTE may do some of the rendering of characters and other bits in house; I've asked them to clarify what agreement, if any, they have with Monster and who ultimately holds the copyright to the design, characters and images used. Shell babelfish 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. unused screenshot with several copyrighted parts (photo of a person, building etc.) --:bdk: 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
PD-RU-EXEMPT not applicable Avron (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
wrong license Avron (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
wrong license: srcreenshot? Avron (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a professional marketing design... so unlikely own work. Yann (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt 00gym00 is the real author. His/her Flickr account shows 2 pictures only, both of Comaneci and from 2 different periods of Comaneci's life. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Apparently the other picture on his Flickr account had already been uploaded on Commons then deleted --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Too often people presume that because the uploader on Flikr says it's free, it is free. I seriously, seriously doubt the uploader on Flikr is the rights holder. Image was uploaded to Flikr 30 December 2008. It appeared on a blog posting 12 November 2007 [2]. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not to mention it looks like a professional photo. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
belongs to non-encyclopedic article at nl.wiki; image description is certainly false --Simeon87 (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unable to determine the PD status --Chanueting (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
unused, bad quality, unknown person, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
very bad, selfpromotion of a band (?!) - unused, unusable for others Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio suspect, see: http://www.tineye.com/search/c5f71af5fdd81503a52b63fd4674fbb5c618626f ■ MMXX talk 21:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://serbal.pntic.mec.es/~jlacas1/agreda.html Cameta (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the image is in the public domain. --J.smith (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- We don't know who is the original designer of this Coat of arms. By the way, we don't know if the designer is alive or has passed more than 70 years after his death. --Xavigivax (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
See File:Vepr.jpg Avron (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Justass (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The picture itself is probably copyrighted. May we create a version of the picture showing the autograph only? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- in the page http://www.mustav.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=464 will be read that picture are sold, so delete--Motopark (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Nadia was a great woman and the picture is beiutiful. Plus, you have no proof of the image bing copyrighted. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.34.208 (talk • contribs)
- Lol. That doesn't work like that, man! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Images are copyrighted by default - the burden is on the uploader to prove the photograph is not copyrighted. Plus, it appears to be the photograph that was used for this Sports Illustrated cover, which is definitely copyrighted. --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This may be a more appropriate, legal image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eye2eye/14805558 --LVB
- Unfortunately, it has a non-derivative license, so not quite free enough as is. --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just changed the Creative Commons license on my photo, so feel free to use it if you wish. -Dave Gilbert (eye2eye) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/eye2eye/14805558
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
belongs to non-encyclopedic article on nl.wiki (which has been deleted by now); plain nonsense --Simeon87 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a simple textlogo but a 3D-shaped version Denniss (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that makes it eligible for copyright. It's just a form of text. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Extrem simple shadows and lights, styles which you can even apply with a simple Wordpad application. This is never eligible for copyright. --Fleshgrinder (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. We have plenty of Google's logos that have this same exact styling, I don't see why the German one is special. The wordmark itself is PD-ineligible. Rocket000 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work => copyright violation. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep On second thought, probably a 3D work, thus passing FOP. What does everyone else think? Jarry1250 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- In seems to be FoP-UK --Avron (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: yes, FoP-UK. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dubious whether it is a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, FOP-UK. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
