Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
uploader has had one image deleted as a copyvio already. this is a historical photo, likely not own work. Mangostar (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}} from http://www.yorku.ca/cerlac/recent03-04.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: http://www.yorku.ca/cerlac/recent03-04.html#rggs
uploader has had one image deleted as a copyvio already. this is a low-res professional-looking photo, likely not own work. also uploader has own work photos from both germany and chile (suspect). Mangostar (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, {{Copyvio}} from http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a178/l0/l0/F.html#featuredEntry. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a178/l0/l0/F.html#featuredEntry (C) DDP
author is unkown + age: ~100 years --Euku:⇄ 15:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Please don't be nit-picky. The age is at least 110 years and it is most likely that the images author died more than 70 years ago. --Eva K. is evil 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I had a little research about the image an found that Mackey's book "A history of freemasonary" was first published in the USA before 1923. --Eva K. is evil 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kept, due to PD-1923 I withdraw my nomination. --Euku:⇄ 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyright concerns. SchoolcraftT's original uploads deleted for same reason. No meta-data on this image, same size and general poor quality as others he claims were taken by a Stanley Anderson, but he claims this one is his. bmpowell (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unknown to you is that they are good quality,and they can be used as long as the co-author is given credit for it. They were original created by Dr Anderson and I just changed the format hence the author tag is like it is. No copyright concers this time. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Stanley Anderson has to provide his permission explicitly to Wikimedia Commons for the images to be used. You need to read the message and follow the instructions, SchoolcraftT.
- Further, I would like to comment that these images you are uploading are hardly high-quality. They are of low resolution and tend to be grainy or poorly focused. This image has a random person's back in the middle of the photo and some of your other images have similar problems. bmpowell (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll add that all of SchoolcraftT's uploads were recently deleted from en.wiki for precisely this reason: uploading images without evidence of permission and refusing to understand the idea that other's works (video screenshots, audio files, etc) are not his to claim copyright of. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Those images were deleted for all of the wrong reasons and these, even though It says it my own, were co-authored by Dr Anderson. Those images are of the best quality that I can get. There is no need to delete this image because of past history or quality. He gave that permission to me verbaly, and I just put it in writing. Previous comment by SchoolcraftT
- The images weren't deleted for "the wrong reasons." They were deleted because you failed to ensure you properly respected the image copyright and your comment here proves you still don't get it, Todd. Verbal permission is insufficient. Wikimedia Commons must receive written permission directly from the original author of the photo. You can't just write an e-mail claiming you received permission. Please make sure that you read Commons:OTRS and Commons:Licensing and actually follow what they say. bmpowell (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed; again SchoolcraftT chooses to ignore licensing requirements. As Bmpowell says, you cannot just say you've received permission, and you cannot claim the copyright is yours, as you've done with all of your recently uploaded images. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The images weren't deleted for "the wrong reasons." They were deleted because you failed to ensure you properly respected the image copyright and your comment here proves you still don't get it, Todd. Verbal permission is insufficient. Wikimedia Commons must receive written permission directly from the original author of the photo. You can't just write an e-mail claiming you received permission. Please make sure that you read Commons:OTRS and Commons:Licensing and actually follow what they say. bmpowell (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unknown to you is that they are good quality,and they can be used as long as the co-author is given credit for it. They were original created by Dr Anderson and I just changed the format hence the author tag is like it is. No copyright concers this time. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Non-admin closure; image already deleted as copyright violation. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced arbitrary map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulgarian Herald (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2010 February 2 (UTC)
- (Copied from the talk page →Spiritia 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
Hello, Wikiisunbiased. I don't know what sources have you used creating File:Velikabulgariacropped.png, but Bulgarian politics has NEVER claimed territorial pretences beyond the Bosphorus in Anatolia. Please, cite the sources you have used, otherwise this map shall be considered a personal fiction of yours, ungrounded on historical facts. Regards... --Пакко 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of copyright concerns (is it based on a free blank map, public domain data, ...?) –Tryphon☂ 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This map is pure fiction: at no point in modern Bulgarian history has either the government or any nationalist group claimed territory in Asia Minor. It's also notable that the map misses Bulgarian claims against Northern Dobrudja and Greek Macedonia, which were widespread among nationalists. The map is obviously original research, with dubious copyright information. It must be deleted as soon possible, to prevent it from spreading false information. Kostja2 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This mage appears on the website of Atlantykron.org (http://atlantykron.org/about.htm), and is therefore presumably copyright. Thiere is no notice releasing it per GFDL or Creative Commons --Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete You can't go off presumptions and assumptions. But to be on the safe side, its best to delete this image. Mr. C.C. (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, though this should have been tagged for permission. Blurpeace 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Converted by me to rfd from a speedy Roblespepe (Diskussion · Benutzerbeiträge) for "The logo is a copyrighted image of Asamblea Uruguay" as it might be too simple to be copyrightable, though it might be trademarked. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, a gradient and stylized text cannot be copyrighted. Relicensing as {{PD-textlogo}}. Blurpeace 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Converted by me to rfd from a speedy Roblespepe (Diskussion · Benutzerbeiträge) for "The logo is a copyrighted image of Alianza Progresista" as it might be too simple to be copyrightable, though it might be trademarked. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, above the threshold of creativity for copyright. Blurpeace 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. --myself488 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. :bdk: 22:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
unused, private image. ■ MMXX talk 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. :bdk: 22:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This image is styled like a printed picture; it would break down neatly in a four-color printing process. The large scale image is too low quality to pick out moire printing patterns from the JPEG noise. Given the creator's history with copyright violations, I'm really skeptical about the legitimacy of this image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't getted - printed picture? No, this is not a printed picture, and I know that some my images were deleted, but you must know that I have explanation for all and that we can deel this with conversation.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then how did you do it? What medium was used? It's not oil on canvas, colored pencil or anything else obvious; it looks like a multicolored engraving done specifically for a particular printing process. A higher quality picture might help clear things up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I fully agree. Not entirely own work but a photographic reproduction of something printed. Correct the author (who is the graphic designer, whatever methode he uses), correct the source (where and when was this published ) or this will be deleted. Same applies to File:World in Mesopotamian mythology.jpg, File:Marduk y Tiamat.jpg, File:Anzu bird.jpg: The 'entirely own work' claim is inaccurate and stupid, correct it! Additional it makes the images even out of scope because with this 'own work' claim it is your private artwork and not belong to an educational collection. --Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a photographic reproduction of printed goddess' image, but in that case, this image however really is my work in one way, because I use the camera and created the image. --Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a photo of a book, it's a derivative work of the book and thus illegal for us to use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Prosfilaes. You said that this is not an image of coloured picture or something like that. What's with, for example, Mona Lisa? Who is creator of her? Leonardo or a man with camera who take a picture of it?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The creator of Mona Lisa is Leonardo da Vinci. If someone takes a camera and makes an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, they do not have a copyright interest in the result. If someone takes a picture of the painting in a way that is creative and original, like have someone stand in front of the painting, then they would get a copyright in the result, but they would still have to worry about Leonardo da Vinci's copyright if the painting wasn't so old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I takes picture in the same way - for ilustrations - for an exact copies, and so I do not have a copyright interest in the result. I reapet, there is no any worning abot copy in the book, I checked out.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have a copyright interest in the book. The people who illustrated the book do, and the law prohibits you from making copies of their drawings without their permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way that those images can be here on Wikimedia? And what with a Free Art Licence?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If I print this image and then take a picture of it with camera, is that allowed?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please look category category:Amaterasu omikami. There you will find pictures showing this goddess in very similar way; the only difdference is that my image is rotated on the other side. So, maybe is possible that this picture is derivative work from Commons and is legal to use?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, No, and No (whatever you mean with your last question). The original author, the artist who created the drawing, painting or whatever, must have died 70 years ago or the image is not free. Any free license, including the Free Art License, is something the original author must agree too in written form! Taking photos of paintings or printing them has NO effect on the original creators copyright. Have you read Commons:First steps especially the licensing section? --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
So, when man who create original picture of goddess would die, then I should upload this image?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 70 years after his death, yes. --Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyrights violaton due to misunderstanding of certain issues. Masur (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Like File:Amaterasu.jpg, this is a claim of own work for something that's obviously a scan. You can see where it was a book illustration and the text was cut out. The composition makes no sense as an own work. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a photo of something what is printed.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a photo of a book, it's a derivative work of the book and thus illegal for us to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader does not have the rights; nuke all his uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
obvious copy of a printed page Prosfilaes (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - no clear source Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
obvious bad copy of a printed page Prosfilaes (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but this isn't so bad image. This is a photo from one book. On one way it's my work, really.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a photo of a book, it's a derivative work of the book and thus illegal for us to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I looks a book a minute ago and I saw this - text by Sylvie Baussier, idea by Emilie Beaumont, ilustrations - Marie Christine Lemayaeur, Bernard Alunni and Philippe Cande. Book is called - "Mytholgies" ISBN 2-215-063-33-5.
There is no any word abot that I can take a picture of book, and if I use true licensce, can these images be on this wiki project?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyrights violation. Masur (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess the ordinary case for {{Copyvio}} --D-Kuru (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- The file is on the homepage for press purposesand for download.--Werner100359 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- But is it freely licenced? --D-Kuru (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it,I don´t know.
- But is it freely licenced? --D-Kuru (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no permission :bdk: 20:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
not used, lots of other blue squares avalibale in Category:Blue squares --Amada44 (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Photoshop collage with photo of unknown not-notable person. MaxiMaxiMax (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Its not really a collage. Its just someone's face Photoshopped on this body. The body and the rest of the picture might be somewhat historical. But the face not so much. If some of the image has other images or art in it, you need to credit that artist or author of that work. Seeing as that wasn't done and he claiming it all as his work, then it needs to be deleted until more credit is given then just him. All he did was alter the face. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Very low quality picture (blurry) Abujoy (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we have enough cats shot with good quality. --D-Kuru (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Às vezes a minha máquina (Sony Cybershot) tira as fotos de forma tremida, mesmo eu não balançando ela... pode deletar essa fotografia sim, eu bati essa foto no dia porque a UFMG tem muitos gatos no campus Pampulha, eu só não sei a raça deles, mas vou ver se eu bato as próximas fotos de forma menos tremida. Abraços -- Andrevruas (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Shown Playboy is protected, definately no "de minimis". Yellowcard (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The file is claimed to be a self-made political propaganda to promote the Japanese perspective that disputed island, Liancourt Rocks are of Japan, not of Korean territory even though the latter is the "de capo" administrative government. This uncredential file is not used in any page to any Wikipedia project. The non-profit project Wikipedia Project should not be a place to tolerate such purpose. --Caspian Blue, 19:33, 16. Jan. 2010
- just a mark.and I only explaining the FACT! --Sisonori999, 16:56, 28. Jan. 2010
Question What's the translation of the text on the pink ring? --Valentim (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This picture is offensive, one-sided drivel from Japan's right wing lunatic fringe. Delete it!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.183.122.5 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Nationalism per se isn't the issue billinghurst sDrewth 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no educational value. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. --ZooFari 16:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. – Yestadae (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope, Commons is not a personal biography hosting site. --ZooFari 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. – Yestadae (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, COM:SCOPE. --ZooFari 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agree. – Yestadae (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, COM:SCOPE. --ZooFari 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – Yestadae (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, many better images at Category:Bellagio hotel (Las Vegas). --ZooFari 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused, useless and out of scope. --ZooFari 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – Yestadae (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No description, possibly personal image, unused. --ZooFari 18:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This image, see the record at http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=540150, is not created by the U.S. Government but seized enemy property ("Eva Brauns photo album", National Archives Collection of Foreign Records Seized). As the source link is not correctly working, here is a working one for this High Res, its #80. lot of other non-free images (e.g. the Hoffmann photos of Hitler in Paris) are listed there. Would be god to clearify the copyright status, PD-USGov is wrong. Martin H. (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to still be under copyright.
- I assume the local identifier 242-EB-7-35 refers to Eva Braun- "7 something"-album 35. Per the archive description, "These albums are attributed to Eva Braun... An attempt was made to match the prints with prints in other albums. Those that were found were numbered correspondingly and inserted loose between the pages of the appropriate album. Those not found were arranged roughly by subject and attached to the pages of the artificially created Album 35." Eva Braun died 30 April 1945 and the photo was taken in France, so we're still 5 years away from {{PD-old}}. - BanyanTree 06:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Photo by Hugo Jaeger, published in Die Soldaten des Führers im Felde. License and author wrong here, even if the NARA description gives all information at http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=559369. As seized enemy property this might be PD in the U.S. but clearly not in germany, it is supposed that the author died >1970. Martin H. (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Converted by me to rfd from a speedy Roblespepe (Diskussion · Benutzerbeiträge) for "The logo is a copyrighted image of ACYS" as it might be too simple to be copyrightable, though it might be trademarked. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Possible violation of copyright. The user has history (see User_talk:BWRBrett) of uploading infringing images. Keraunoscopia (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Though I cannot find the source this one seems clear. The uploader's other shots are amateur ones, taken with point-and-shoot camera's. This is a professionally taken image and is clearly not made by the same person. This image is posed, not a "performance photo" - Peripitus (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is further indicated by the lack of metadata in the image file. (and per above) NativeForeigner (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, it does appear to be a performance photo, but photoshopped a bit afterwards. It appears to be from an August 6, 2008 performance at Jones Beach, a photo by Kevin Kane available at WireImage (image #55441139 in that set). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, COM:SCOPE. --ZooFari 20:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
uploader has had one image deleted as a copyvio already. this is a low-res professional-looking photo, likely not own work. also uploader has own work photos from both germany and chile (suspect). Mangostar (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems awfully suspect to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyright anarchism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Raulcantu86
[edit]- File:Af march 2006.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Allied Forces august 2008.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:AFultimate.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Allied forces jan 2007.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Af march jul 2006.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images appear to be user-created and intended to portray Coalition forces in Iraq at various times. None are official insignia or are used. Since they are not official, these images have no encyclopedic value. Note that en:Multi-National Force – Iraq had a very different official insignia. BrokenSphere 05:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of 晴天女女
[edit]- File:宽中学生宿舍郑格如楼.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:宽中池塘.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:宽中校训.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:宽中校歌.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:孔子像.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:新山宽中路线图.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:宽柔中学校徽.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images are copied from a school website since I found exact sources for 3 of them. Therefore the copyright status of images by this user is doubtful.--Wcam (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Closed — all of them got deleted by Martin H. — Dferg (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why this image has a Creative Commons licence Avron (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The file File:Ouvrage La Ferté carte.png is an updated and PNG map which replace now this low quality image.Borvan53 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Very low quality picture Abujoy (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think its still interesting. Not so bad its unusable Andyzweb (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, the pictured cat is out of focus and very blurred 134.96.231.112 08:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I can see contexts where it's usable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Likely copyvio: derivative work of a 1978 postage stamp of unknown copyright status; PD claim based on Iranian law is irrelevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, indeed PD-Iran may be irrelevant but PD-Ru would be. It's likely a derivative of this stamp File:Persian Khwarazmi.jpg (any version of it should be PD). --Egmontaz♤ talk 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per the creator it is derivative of this stamp:
or one like it, which is PD-RU-exempt. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation, advertisement by Sears published in 1955.[1] The work was not authored by the Federal Government. Blurpeace 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment where was it published? As an American ephemeral work, 99 out of a hundred it was never renewed or quite possibly even copyrighted in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Let's go further; there's no chance this was renewed, and no evidence either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to see the exact text of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 so I can get a better understanding of it because anybody can just put that Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 is what this image falls under. You can link me by leaving a message on my talk page. If nothing is produced in a reasonable amount of time then delete this image. Mr. C.C. (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's called Google. Section 105 only applies to government works, and this isn't one by any stretch of the definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes, {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Kept per discussion Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
file was only used to cover pervious file version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/43/20061122212305%21L_avalee2.jpg --Amada44 (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I reverted. Is this a frame from the movie? Or did uploader make an own photo of the book. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea. But I guesed that the uploader wanted it deleted and didn't know how to so he just uploaded an other (useless) image to hide it. But the original picture is also of no great value. So personally I would delete it. (Also copyright is not clear!!) --Amada44 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted per discussion Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The file File:Ouvrage La Ferté carte.png is an updated and PNG map which replace now this low quality image. --Borvan53 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete I agree this is close enough to a duplicate, in a bad file format. --99of9 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Not from an official U.S. government website, no indication the picture was taken by an employee during their official duties. –Tryphon☂ 13:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think we have to assume good faith on this one. Perhaps an email to the site for more info? Andyzweb (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith would be trusting the copyright claims made by this website; but they're not claiming the content they publish is in the public domain, or produced by U.S. government employees. They say absolutely nothing about it. So we have to assume the content is copyrighted. If you wish to send them an email to clarify the situation, feel free. –Tryphon☂ 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, sending an email would probably be best. Until the website's copyright status is verified, delete. Blurpeace 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Are these official Air Force Public Domain Websites or not for this photo ????
http://www.peterson.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070108-N-7711J-001.jpg and http://www.peterson.af.mil/photos/media_search.asp?q=norad&page=2
Are these sources "good enough" for those who doubt ??? Tomsmith0002 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note, OTRS permission was apparently received for File:2009 - NTS Ops Ctr.jpg. This suggests we may be able to get OTRS permission for the other images in Category:NORAD Tracks Santa as well. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, from an official US Air Force website, almost certainly taken by an employee during their official duty. Kameraad Pjotr 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
