 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
|
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
|
It gives my personal information which I don't want. Privacy reason Meghana Thantry k (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy kept: Mistake DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
No more requirements as of now Youngbuds (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Nonsense. --Achim55 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation (Twitter profile picture) Kattenkruid (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, per nomVera (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
very blurry image that tells virtually nothing Cosal (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
poor interest Lasthib (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
add / publicité Shev123 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Housekeeping -- Gallery without images. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dietamalyshevoy.ru/ Petrov Victor (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: complex logo, speedy deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
poor quality, apparently no educational purpose DCB (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality Derbrauni (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy. I don't want everyone to know about me. Meghana Thantry k (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A user remixed the original version into this nonsense and replaced the original version for this on nl.wikipedia Myr (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Clear vandalisme. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a logo of an annual event, I highly doubt that it's uploaded here by its author under CC-BY-SA. 193.219.81.24 07:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: complex logo, speedy deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source file does not exist Elisfkc (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Non-admin close, source file copied over from English Wikipedia Elisfkc (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No photogrpaher credited, so to claim it's PD is not necessarily appropriate ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn' Per logic expressed in a related DR. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: per comment. --Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution images, no EXIF data, not Own work. Images from other websites.
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 23:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no educational purpose Joschi71 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COM:NUDE Commons is not a porn site ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this picture fulfilled the policy of "Commons is not censored" and the sensitive part had already covered. John Kagan (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. The resolution could be higher. --jdx Re: 02:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Should administrators delete this one [1] if File:China@Matsuoka.jpg is erotic ? 176.20.190.153 07:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the mentioned photo used enough and acceptable mosaic are within scope. 202.67.106.162 02:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Copyvio. Published elsewhere before upload. If you are the copyright holder, please read COM:OTRS and COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, and the nature of the images.
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, immediately after the expiry of their previous block, persistent copyright violator Jars carab has nicked the works of SajoR and presumably others and passed it off as his/her own.
—LX (talk, contribs) 22:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution copyrighted image with no EXIF. Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 08:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: obvious copyvio. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source http://147company.com/1452 is clearly marked COPYRIGHT © 147 COMPANY. ALL RIGHT RESERVED. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The file was already License reviewed, and, like Tistory, the sets of images are licensed separatelly, in this case, the CC-BY-4.0 license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Speedy kept: License is valid and already reviewed. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
Seems to be a screenshot instead of a free work. Antigng (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, can be found in the web, speedy deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted material. Recreation after speedy deletion. Antigng (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of the claimed PD release. The source website http://usa.yamaha.com/terms_of_use/ doesn't indicate this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'll be honest, I straight up lied about it being PD assuming no one would ever notice it much less care. I already knew the Yamaha TOS claimed full ownership of the images on their site. Looks like someone really cares about copyright law over a generic image of a musical instrument... Honestly it's just a trumpet. Anyone could take a picture like that. I'll probably just take a desent picture myself since there aren't any anywhere else online that I can find that are explicitly PD. On an off note, how did this picture of a Yamaha Mellophone get permission? Who did they contact and how does one do this kind of thing? Adamhallmc (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: speedy deleted as per copyright violation. --Daphne Lantier 06:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image is too dark and serves no educational purposes - Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 17:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small dublicate of [2] Codc (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of the Naruto manga, which is copyrighted.
MCMLXXXIX 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: speedy close as nominator is unable to respond the doubts; can be renominated by an active user. --Ankry (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely no indication image is freely usable; comes from photographer's professional site with no listing indicating Wikimedia-compatible licensing is present Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of File:Flag of Italy.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: User's uploads nuked, egregious numbers of obvious copyvios. - Reventtalk 23:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
el escudo contiene un error Jars carab (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC) {subst:delete2|image=File:Escudo arzo.png|reason=el escudo contiene un error}} Jars carab (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope; not a personal photo repository
TJH2018talk 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope; not a selfie repository TJH2018talk 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False licensing Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proabable copyvio; not a selfie repository TJH2018talk 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False licensing Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False licensing Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and File:Riesgos en Internet -.pdf
Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope; not a selfie repository; no educational value TJH2018talk 03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Autopromocional; Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False licensing. Need proper licensing to determine copyright status (Template:PD-GE-exempt?).
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly identified chart. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]بی معنا و فاقد محتوا Arianet95 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's userpage was speedily deleted in June 2016 as spam. Commons is not a place to advertise and out of project scope.
ℯxplicit 03:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not a place to advertise and out of project scope. ℯxplicit 03:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in July 2015 as non-notable. Out of project scope. ℯxplicit 03:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This photo is not on flickr under a free licence Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This photo is not on flickr under a free licence Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This photo is not on flickr under a free licence Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This photo is not on flickr under a free licence Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, and no license. --Yann (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, and no license. --Yann (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. rather small-sized format and missing exif - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
potentially copyright protected logo, hence, out of scope Wikimedia commons, Roland zh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started as per File:Paraykkal.jpg (et al)to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnal format and missing EXIF data to very own work - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started as per File:Paraykkal.jpg (et al)to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. thumbnal format and missing EXIF data to very own work - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started as per File:Paraykkal.jpg (et al)to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. rather small-sized format and missing EXIF data to very own work - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started as per File:Paraykkal.jpg (et al) to verify claimed 'own work' since potentially copyright protected content, here, imho showing a silhouette obviously not showing a rural Kerala settlement - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DR started as per File:Paraykkal.jpg (et al)to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. Full-HD format and missing EXIF data to very own work - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map and monkey images are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
suspected not own work, used at least here. TherasTaneel (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paintings drawn on these tickets are copyrighted works.
G I Chandor (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description plate is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality photo; we have plenty of other photos of the New Haven Line of vastly better quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too bad quality. Taivo (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope Commons is not a social media site ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope Commons is not a social media ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only used on the German Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in May 2016 as non-notable. Out of project scope.
ℯxplicit 02:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy needed. I don't want everyone to know about me. 223.186.46.169 04:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're not the uploader. --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: Out of Scope. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted CD cover. G I Chandor (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
poor quality Lasthib (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The game screen is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright vio - This picture is not PD. There is an unknown photograph from 1939, maybe he is still alife. - Rlbberlin (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC) And artist of the artwork died in 1963! --Martin Sg. (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims it as own work, but has a username very similar to the subject of the photograph. The metadata is not helpful either and the only two other uploads by the user have been deleted previously. This should go as per COM:PRP. Rahul Bott (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All thoses files seems to have been previously published without a free license in one on these albums https://vk.com/albums-58941243. E.g. for File:Г. Чалба.jpg [3]
Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph of artwork. Copyright questionable. I think this is the USA, so there is no Freedom of Panorama, but I could be wrong. Themightyquill (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright violation, Helen Keiser († 2013) Frze > talk 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC), and all the others:[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright violation, Helen Keiser († 2013) --Frze > talk 07:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Frze > talk 07:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Zayed Mosque build 2007, no FoP in UAE Ralf Roleček 09:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi Ralf Roleček 11:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FOP in UAE Ralf Roleček 06:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates 203.56.188.14 07:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]no FoP in Abu Dhabi - Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates --203.56.188.14 07:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, Commons is not a personal web host. ★ Poké95 08:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously published at http://www.funda.nl/koop/verkocht/ohe-en-laak/huis-49076253-walburgisstraat-33/ on February, but of smaller resolution. I have doubt that the uploader is the photographer of this image. OTRS permission is needed. ★ Poké95 08:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures were made when buying the house a month ago. Other pictures I just uploaded. This is a monument in the small village. Therefor it's also nice for putting it on the frontpage of the village were the pictures of the church also is standing and at the monument page.
Greetings Rogér van Helden owner of the monument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger1987wal (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, Commons is not a personal web host. ★ Poké95 08:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, and COM:DW. ★ Poké95 08:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Daphne Lantier 00:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, please post it instead as text in the help desk. ★ Poké95 08:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I already posted a text version of this image on the help desk, so this image would be completely useless. ★ Poké95 01:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS permission is needed, since this SVG was published elsewhere. ★ Poké95 08:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The animation was my original work published on Preloaders.net in 2009. It can be seen in web archive (when clicked on "select your preloader", third animation from top) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratamishus (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PRP, likely that this image is also a copyvio, considering the history of the uploader. ★ Poké95 08:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope, Commons is not a personal web host.
★ Poké95 09:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that these are out of project scope. Kalbbes (talk)Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a prominent watermark that cannot be removed easily that it makes the image useless for others Wouter (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a prominent watermark that cannot be removed easily that it makes the image useless for others Wouter (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No derivatives allowed 2003:45:5C3B:BC01:C04E:52A4:F1E6:8C68 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a prominent watermark that cannot be removed easily that it makes the image useless for others Wouter (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a prominent watermark that cannot be removed easily that it makes the image useless for others Wouter (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Castillo blanco (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
probable copyvio of Uderzo etc. not own work Pippobuono (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
probable copyvio of Asterix pirates' ship, cf Uderzo and co Pippobuono (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These images are found on many places on web possibility of copyvios
✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selfie. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for personal images. Takeaway (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted movie poster, very unlikely to be owned by said author & shared with CC. There is no usage as of the time of deletion nomination. Dargasia (╯ˊ_>ˋ)╯✉ 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selfie. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for personal images. Takeaway (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for personal images.
Takeaway (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Mahesh Babu at 61st Filmfare awards south (cropped) again.jpg must be moved to this file name. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of File:14 - ITALY - Stair drawing - Scale disegno con note.svg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image non libre de droits Léodras (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
image non libre de droits Léodras (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no freedom of panorama in Italy for modern buildings. Taivo (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photos - out of project scope.
XXN, 10:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Logo of company hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 10:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too dark, no educational use Derbrauni (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Depicted person Fahad bin Abdul Aziz Al-Ghafili Fahd Al-Ghafili isn't mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion. Not used. No other contributions from uploader. DavidIvar (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion for non notable band. Not used. No useful contributions from uploader. DavidIvar (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no freedom of panorama in France. The balloon design surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No FOP in France (for structures and architecture) which covers the balloon design. --AntonierCH (d) 14:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private image/Self-promotion of non notable musican. Not used. DavidIvar (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
useless picture Derbrauni (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion of non notable band. Not used. DavidIvar (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private image/self-promotion on non notable band. Not used. No other contributions from uploader. DavidIvar (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image is watermarked and clearly belongs to the T1 Trust. No evidence of permission. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons is not to be used for a personal image collection. 2.247.255.62 11:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File from https://osmaviation.com/employee/espen-hoiby/ probably copyright violation Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons is not to be used for a personal image collection. 2.247.255.62 11:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons is not to be used for a personal image collection. 2.247.255.62 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Commons is not to be used for a personal image collection. 2.247.255.62 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted advertisements. G I Chandor (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted object. G I Chandor (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted object. G I Chandor (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description board is a copyrighted work. G I Chandor (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused personal bad quality file, out of scope. --AntonierCH (d) 14:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small unused personal photo without metadata, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad quality Derbrauni (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
useless picture Derbrauni (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. This user has no contributions to Commons other than his user page. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lower resolution duplicate of File:Bahnhof Crottendorf - geo.hlipp.de - 67584.jpg Schlosser67 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of video. Thibaut120094 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taken off the Internet without a copyleft license. Probably not below threshold of originality. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/File:MTR Lightrail icon.svg which was very similar and was deleted.
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Figuet Castillo blanco (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No other source than "own work". Maybe the coat of arms is wrong. Taivo (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small photo without metadata and the uploader's last remaining contribution. Probably not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self promotional and without EXIF meta data !! doubtful educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 14:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to be opinion polling for the Turkish constitutional referendum. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photos and sound recordings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://a1-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/4/b1427fb52694424087df36fe2b2306fc/600x600.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused fiction maps of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Not used. No other contributions from user. DavidIvar (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
image tirée du site http://www.cercle-des-eleves.fr qui précise bien en bas de page Copyright 2014 – Cercles des Élèves – All Rights Reserved ce qui est incompatible avec la licence Wikimedia commons. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical photo and documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a picture of myself and would like for it to be taken down. I am the owner of this picture. I look weird too. Patricrivas (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not own work, missing EXIF. See [4] ✎kovox90 15:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted models.
G I Chandor (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:Model of Golden Cloth from Saint Seiya in Rainy Day 20160827a.jpg was Personal Hand made wearable Model for Cosplay, Not Official Product. --玄史生 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, not Official Product has also copyright. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images on game cartridges are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image looks like a screenshot from a YouTube video. It comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXx-RgCkMtw
At least it looks like one, but I may be wrong. Check the video and proceed from there.
-Davidng913 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be from 50 seconds into the video. The original uploader's claim of own work is, it appears, false. @Mackensen: figured you should be aware of this since you've had to deal with them on enwiki. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Delete As I indicated at en:Talk:Siemens Charger#File:Amtrak cascades siemens charger.png I was dubious about the image's source but I didn't have any proof. It's clearly the same image at 50-51 seconds. What's more, although this is a matter for en.wp and not Commons, the uploader made a direct claim of authorship when challenged about the source. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Delete Of course it is a copyright. Glad I caught that, as well as learning my lessons for the past. I still feel guilty about it... Davidng913 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]That video is from my youtube account so dont delete
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last remaining files, small size, no EXIF data, + logo, unlikely to be own works.
Yann (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear copyright violation, image includes the name of the source (New York Post) in the margin. MShabazz (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image, doesn't seem to be notable, poor quality, out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://static.wixstatic.com/media/7e6f4e_6bbaddb138584b35b9feeb3162556b11.jpg/v1/fill/w_386,h_386,al_c,q_80,usm_4.00_1.00_0.00/7e6f4e_6bbaddb138584b35b9feeb3162556b11.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal image, out of scope. Previously deleted. Yann (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyright mapy.cz RomanM82 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of user's own work on this small black and white, apparently older photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FBMD in metadata shows this came from Facebook. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
La foto è mia personale, come dimostra già la pubblicazione sulla mia pagina di Facebook il 6 agosto 2016:
Inoltre dalla stessa mia recensione di Tripadvisor del 23 agosto 2016 si capisce che la foto l'ho caricata io:
https://www.tripadvisor.it/ShowUserReviews-g2167961-d2243571-r409417721-Ristorante_La_Tana_dell_Isolino-Biandronno_Province_of_Varese_Lombardy.html#UR409417721 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea Ganugi (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three smaller than facebook images appended to https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87:Punisher10/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0, which is a little out of scope due to the Wiki projects not being social media. There's no indication for 2 of these 3 photos that it was self created, and all three are out of scope due to self-promotion/or/promotionalism.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional image without EXIF meta Data. - Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by FenikalsasSpeedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Scope needs discussion. Sanandros (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: unused personal image. Ruthven (msg) 13:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a fictionnal drawing with no use on any project. Therefore out of com:scope. Kathisma (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No information has been provided as source and image without EXIF meta data | could be under OTRS tag - Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 17:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fictionnal and not use => out of com:scope Kathisma (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fictionnal + not in use => out of com:scope Kathisma (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enough Source information has not been provided and also FXIF meta data is not present - Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant and self-admitted Copyvio from FT.com Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False grant of arms. Fictionnal + Not in use => out of COM:SCOPE Kathisma (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fictionnal + Not in use => out of COM:SCOPE Kathisma (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook size, no EXIF data, smaller copy uploaded earlier here: https://farm1.static.flickr.com/736/20272322754_b4c74f5e3d_b.jpg Yann (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been a joke, derived from File:Usama Fayyad pic.jpg, out of scope. Achim (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont need this anymore. Zunter (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to be own work: [5]. Yann (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small images without EXIF data and logos, unlikely to be own works. Probable sock of User talk:Spartak Pleven.
Yann (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is a copyright 1991 on the bottom of the image Kathisma (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be a not use child drawing => out of com:scope Kathisma (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted as File:MaximeFeriFarzaneh.jpg. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Eugenia. Yann (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio : this file come from http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/File:Apor.svg where it was uploaded under by-nc-sa-3.0 Kathisma (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal logo, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio : this file come from http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/File:Csapy.svg where it was uploaded under by-nc-sa-3.0 Kathisma (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio : this file was abusively transfered from https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%C3%ADmerhat%C3%A1roz%C3%B3/Baksa_c%C3%ADmerwhere it was uploaded under a NC license Kathisma (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio : according to https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:Osl_nemzets%C3%A9g.svg, this file come from http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/Kingdom_of_Hungary , where it was uploaded under by-nc-sa-3.0 Kathisma (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio : this file is made with elements from Wappenwiki (http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/), where files are licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 Kathisma (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Company logos, not "own work", no source, no permission
Wcam (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Art with not enough information. So either copyright violations or personal art, so out of scope.
Yann (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Une version améliorée de la photographie de la peinture a été chargée. A better quality picture of the painting has been added recently. Foxandpotatoes (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Picture published on this website. No authorization from the author. Titlutin (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of licencing under Creative Commons terms. Al-Douri (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of holding the rights on this image. Al-Douri (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NoFOP in France Elisfkc (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This photo get linked with the name of Bounding Main on Goole and appears on the right side of the results page. This is an old picture and does not represent the group as it stands now. 167.83.210.27 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: File uploaded to Wikipedia in 2009 and clearly stated as Own work. Please provide a valid proof of copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Image of a band as it was is useful for historical purposes. That is no reason to delete it, but you may want to provide a more up to date image if you can find one that is properly licenced for use here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: as per keep votes above. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request by subject at ticket:2017032210028893 - as COM:IDENT - images published without subject's permission.
Ronhjones (Talk) 20:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange that all three images have been uploaded by different authors, not making any other edits at all. Co-incidence...? Ronhjones (Talk) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously used on the Mastercraft website. The image has been replaced but Google has it in its cache. See https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mastercraft.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fintro%2Fimage_divider_2_us.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mastercraft.com%2F&docid=lNEzkhNoyXp8UM&tbnid=6kjIrEwIlv75EM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiH9uLQvu3SAhVV4mMKHZAEAgAQMwhHKCEwIQ..i&w=1920&h=640&client=ubuntu&bih=892&biw=1743&q=mastercraft%20water%20ski&ved=0ahUKEwiH9uLQvu3SAhVV4mMKHZAEAgAQMwhHKCEwIQ&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=640&imgrc=6kjIrEwIlv75EM:&vet=10ahUKEwiH9uLQvu3SAhVV4mMKHZAEAgAQMwhHKCEwIQ..i&w=1920 Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
====THIS IMAGE IS PROPERTY OF MASTERCRAFT BOAT COMPANY. I AM (PHIL WALKER - eBUSINESS DIRECTOR) WITH MASTERCRAFT BOAT COMPANY AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR BRAND DIGITAL IMAGERY. THIS IMAGE IS ALLOWED TO BE PLACED ON OUR CORPORATE WIKI PAGE.
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that all of the images shown here are freely licensed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this 1990 poster and the images in it are all the work of the uploader. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this poster and both of the images shown are actually the work of the uploader. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The named author is "Equipo de Comunicaciones Senador Francisco Chahuan". This needs a free license from the author via OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Doisneau is dead in 1994. Besides, copyrighted by Gamma-Rapho. Copyright violation. 83.204.178.187 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not focused AnhaltER1960 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Private image. Not educationally useful. Not used. No other contributions from user. DavidIvar (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
files from http://wappenwiki.org/ are published under cc-by-NC-sa Kathisma (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
files from http://wappenwiki.org/ (mentionned source) are published under cc-by-NC-sa Kathisma (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
files from http://wappenwiki.org/ (mentionned source) are published under cc-by-NC-sa Kathisma (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SVG does not render properly. SentientDAI (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File is redundant with higher-resolution version. SentientDAI (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File is redundant with higher-resolution version. SentientDAI (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no educational value -- blurry and overexposed Daphne Lantier 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in copyright, published 1934, photographer died 1930 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep photographer died 1930 --Ralf Roleček 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image was previously published at a couple locations online, including here. An OTRS ticket is required. Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-coherent texts in a picture, out of COM:SCOPE. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self publish work with questionable educational value. Mys_721tx (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Querying this as a shirt design, with a prominent, non simple logo in the centre... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted characters.
G I Chandor (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No FOP in Japan. G I Chandor (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 01:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photo contains copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poor-quality night image; not likely to have any educational or historical value Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Illustrative, nice composition. --Fæ (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep Good quality nocturnal image of this subject and of historical value. Tm (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person on this photo and i never gave any authorization about broadcasting this photo. The person who broadcasts the photo is not the owner of this photography. Thanks to delete it 86.249.119.88 10:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination & (C) printed right on image / not same as uplaoder. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self promotional and without EXIF meta data !! doubtful educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons Indrajit Das (Talk - Contribs) 14:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. Promotional article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Friend was rejected. Image is likely not own work of uplaoder. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file is claimed as PD-old-70. However the photogrpaher is uncredited, meaning it's impossible to verify that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Withdrawn. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fictionnal and not in use => out of com:scope Kathisma (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actually? --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: per nomination & discussion. The link provided goes to the spoof site Copyright © 2016 The Kaharagian Foundation Published by Authority of His Royal Highness The Prince of Kaharagia from which this image was taken. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category already exists (Rába Contact) – Balint36 🚌 bus stop 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Both categories are empty. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one image on this account. It appears to be a derivative work without a COM:OTRS ticket. Leoboudv (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Leoboudv. It was me that uploaded this picture in the stock photo on Wikipedia. This was a honest and legitimate request for inclusion of this image, because is within the Wikipedia protocols. But I understand that appears strange the fact of the account have only this picture, posted yesterday. So, let me explain it: This is a movie poster and I did request the picture directly from its producers, Mr. Josias Teófilo and Mr. Matheus Bazzo. This is a brazilian movie made in USA, and it will launch this year. I explained to them the copyright licensing rules envisaged on Wikipedia, and they considered it the most convenient way to advertise their poster would be on Flickr.com, to publish on the official page of the film, which will be released this year. Consequently, available to upload in Wikipedia too, through the status "Some Right Reserved" by their autors, acceptable for Creative Commons - Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). They have their own website especially for the movie The Garden of Afflictions which is originally in portuguese. They have account on twitter, Facebook and Flickr too (all in portuguese). All this because is an independent documentary movie, not mainstream movie. So the advertise is independent too, especially on social network. Therefore, I'm colaborating with them, with the portuguese article on Wikipedia of their movie, and I also help the director, Mr Teófilo, with his person article and even already uploaded a Photo of him successfully, in the same terms of The_Garden_of_Afflictions_2017_Movie_Poster_PT-BR.jpg Probably, for this reason, the account O Jardim das Aflições on Flickr.com is recent, as they are still starting the advertising works, although the film is already notorious with his public. Proof of that is the movie will be presented for the first time, before the official launch, today, 23 mar 19:00 EDT, at the University Virginia Commonwealth University and here is the event with the programming: The Garden of Afflictions (2017) Film Screening and Q&A. And we must also consider that, despite they have their personal accounts on Flickr.com, they probably thought it was more professional to create a special account on Flickr.com for the release of the film, not in their personal account. Therefore, I kindly ask you to understand the situation and reconsider your contestation, for there is no need for it. Sincerely,--Richvianbonett (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elisfkc No. There is no conflict of interest about it. I helping, but I am not a formal volunteer and even not in the team film. In addition, you need to understand that to edit an article you need the minimum of interest on the subject, right? (for example, I never will editing a fashion article, because I hate fashion). So there's nothing wrong with me liking movies and getting interested in this movie. The article is and will be neutral, because, as far as advertise it everyone wants to know the critical perceptions around it. Moreover, I did not create it and I am even not the main editor. So, I know the rules very well, ok?--Richvianbonett (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Leoboudv. I've send the email regarding this discussion, as you indicated. That is confirmation of receipt: "Dear Rich Vianbonett, Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later. If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2017032310025394]. Yours sincerely, The Volunteer Response Team.". Again, Mr. Leoboudv, I just make it clear, as you said initially, just "(...) It appears to be a derivative work without a COM: OTRS ticket.". So you only have a suspicion, not a concrete proof. For all intents and purposes I followed the rules. This is a means available on Wikipedia to upload images, and that's what I did, honestly and legitimately. In addition, this was the most efficient way I found, given the high bureaucracy of the other options, which even require a letter signed by the authors, which is often impractical. Your attitude is correct and I understand your skepticism, but I have shown you, with several elements, around your sole objection, that the Flickr.com account belongs to the authors, there is no other equal on Flickr. And you can easily prove this by getting in touch with them. Anyway, I would like to not be wronged in my edition, for nothing, just a suspicion, which would also imply in censoring the respective article. Sincerely,--Richvianbonett (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Elisfkc. No. Sorry if my english is poor, but I mean I collaborated in the sense of researching information and publicize it, as a journalist does, did you understand?. Collaborating only in the article, just it. Again, I'm not in the film team and I am not a volunteer to them. I do not know them, I've never been in person and I contacted them only once to request the image, because I did not know where they put the poster on free leave, and at the opportunity I warned them that it would release the poster of the movie on Wikipedia. Journalist also contacts people about whom they will write, this is normal and does not imply a conflict of interest. So, I am a volunteer only in Wikipedia, write about movies, directors and other things. But if your mistrust remains, my record is available, and there is nothing there that would detract from my work, as you're accusing me now.--Richvianbonett (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Mr Elisfkc. Be reasonable. You based on misunderstanding of what I wrote here questioned the neutrality of the article associate to this picture, which I neither created nor am the main editor. And you did not even give justification on the talk page. By the way, do you speak Portuguese? Therefore, you have nothing and I already explain to you about your objection. So do not promote a witch hunt here, and bypassing the main discussion here. Please do not disturb, because the subject here is restricted to the image.--Richvianbonett (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Elisfkc, Did you just change the picture to the original one? right? So, I now owe you a thank you. Not just because the quality of original one is better, but because you just PROVED for everyone that the Flickr account is from the authors!!! You certainly noticed that the quality of the image that I uploaded is poor, because I got it through of a "print screen", which means I have not any account on Flickr, neither this one. Otherwise, if it was mine, or even if I had any Flickr account like you have, I would get the original one, of course, like you just did it. So there was nothing more I can say, after what you just did, and I think this Litigation is done. You Mr. Elisfkc and you Mr Leoboudv have proof enough about your objetions. Thank you again, Mr. Elisfkc, you were very efficient. Sincerely,--Richvianbonett (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Mr. Elisfkc. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my English is precarious and I also express myself poorly in writing. But you were professional, having the insight to understand the situation and still the kindness to update to the original image, which proved that account on Flickr was not mine. So, I am very grateful for your role here. Sincerely thank you.--Richvianbonett (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hopefully the COM:OTRS permission message will resolve any problems. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Thank you, Mr. Leoboudv. Sincerely,--Richvianbonett (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: I don't see the problem here. The image is on Flickr, in an official account, as CC-BY. I don;t see why we have requested OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by DarwInasno permission (No permission since)
@Natuur12 and Holy Goo: I'm afraid "no permission" would apply here, indeed, but it's perfectly OK to bring this into a DR, especially as it has been discussed before - I had not noticed the above discussion had occurred, when I tagged the file - and more detailed information about the reasoning can be provided here. According to the information on Flickr, this file is a derivative of an original paintingbyMaurício Takiguthi, a Brazilian realist painter from São Paulo. Even if the painting was commissioned by the film team, as it seems, it would be necessary to send proof to OTRS that the painter had released his copyright to that team, and under what premises it was done, so that we can find out if the file really can be kept at Commons. A possible second copyright on the file, belonging to designer Joaquim Olímpio, who produced the poster, can possibly be dismissed if it's close enough to the original painting. But at least the Maurício Takiguthi copyright (not mentioned in the discussion above) must be correctly addressed, otherwise the file must be removed from here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Reading the former discussion about the file, I've noticed it has an OTRS ticket already. Closing this request and handling it by OTRS from now. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author has given permission to use the files under certain conditions that it should be properly cited and it should have a creative Commons cc0 1.0 license on it. The images are in public domain but the uploader has changed the license to cc4.0. if the uploader changes the license than it's ok or so the images shall be deleted as wrong license
✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Llivermore: before giving me suggestions i request you to please go to the link and read it yourself. As stated it must have cc0 1.0 license. Is there any provision that states that CC4.0 is allowed? I haven't marked this for copyvios but this cases can result into bogus/fraud license. Isn't it a great idea to change the license to {{CC-0}} instead of wasting time and getting the files deleted? You are the uploader and I feel that no rules shall be violated anywhere even if I unmark it from deletion are you responsible to answer for the CC4.0 license on this images? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiven2240: no, the CC0 1.0 license only applies to the data, not the images. It is clearer on the gallery view: http://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb?view_id=6ba121d1-da26-4ee1-81fa-7da11e68f68e&q=siphonaptera If you click on any image you can see they have a CCBY 4.0 license in the footer of the lightbox/overlay view. Also, if you check the image metadata they have CCBY 4.0 licenses. This is the correct license. I take responsibility that this is the correct license - I work for the Natural History Museum and releasing this content is part of our digitisation project.Llivermore (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiven2240: We have discussed making the licensing clearer on the Natural History Museum's Data Portal which is the online source for all open access images. While we feel the attribution information follows convention on widely used sites like Flickr (i.e. license is only visible when you view fullscreen image not a thumbnail) we are considering putting a generic license note for images alongside the CC0 license for datasets. We have raised an issue for this here: https://github.com/NaturalHistoryMuseum/DataPortal/issues/26 Llivermore (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - the images are correctly licensed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paintings on game cartridges and boxes are copyrighted works.
G I Chandor (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images on game cartridges are copyrighted works. G I Chandor (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-nominating this for discussion due to a recent court ruling that calls into question the copyright status of many "useful articles" that feature artistic elements. The Supreme Court ruled today in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that useful articles, including clothing, can have designs which are copyrightable if (a) they can be perceived separately as a 2D or 3D work of art, and (b) that work of art would be copyrightable when separated from the useful article. This is a very low bar to pass. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that cheerleading costumes with basic designs can not be reproduced without permission so long as you could draw a picture of them and that picture would be copyrightable. See page 22 of the Court's ruling. Bluntly, this is a stupid ruling, but nevertheless we must follow it. Clearly, if depicted as a 2D work of art, this costume would be copyrightable. Therefore, reproducing its design elements in this picture is a copyright violation. ~ Rob13Talk 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ich sehe nichts, was geschützt sein könnte. --Ralf Roleček 17:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: This is a misreading of the ruling. If the clothing has a design on it which would have a copyright if it were drawn on paper, then the piece of clothing has a copyright. This is not new law -- a Tee shirt with a silk screened image on it had a copyright long beore this ruling. That does not mean that you can copyright a dress or a hat simply because a drawing of the dress or hat would have a copyright. However, the earring shown here appears to be a copy of the Jack Sparrow earring and since earrings are not utilitarian (jewelry designs are copyrighted), this image infringes on the earring's copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of File:Flag of Lebanon.svg. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant, a SVG version of this file already exist. ★ Poké95 08:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SVG is not PNG. --Ralf Roleček 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Delete: But SVG can be rendered as PNG by MediaWiki. Compare this file with the PNG thumbnail of the SVG at 1200x800px: Checksum matches. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: We do not keep new raster files that duplicate SVGs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
il s'agit de la chapelle Notre Dame d'auriac et non pas de la chapelle st andre 77.144.214.209 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tu as raison. Normallement il faut changer le nom d'image, mais on peut suprimer, parce que la photo est tres moche... Tournasol7 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- please use {{Rename}}. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The incorrect image has been chosen - this is not 58-0052 but 58-0100 79.218.87.107 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a wiki, so you can fix the information. --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- use {{Rename}}. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by FrzeasSpeedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: useless nonsens. I'm not totally sure and categorized it into "Construction sites in Dresden". Taivo (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by FrzeasSpeedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: useless nonsens or rename. But in my opinion the photo is in scope. Commons has surprisingly few photos about rusty pipes. Taivo (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in scope and usable. --Ralf Roleček 12:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: poor quality and composition, but Ralf feels it's in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
メタデータに私の名前が Senkaku Islands (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - the image is in use, so it cannot be deleted at your request. If you upload a new version without the EXIF, using the same file name, then we can delete the old version. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OlAKf8mIxjU/hqdefault.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OlAKf8mIxjU/hqdefault.jpg belongs to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlAKf8mIxjU, that was uploaded to Youtube in 2011 (and this file has been uploaded in 2010. Please provide a valid proof of copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Copy Mike Coppolano (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] Keep unless the copyvio is proven. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: It is up to those who want to keep an image to prove that it is free -- not the other way around. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of an original icon / logo Dereckson (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really bellow the COM:TOO in the United States. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Kept: with PD-simple. --Jcb (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erm 1920 date, but no credited author/photographer so how is the uploader proving this is PD? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible that this 1960 image was actually photographed by the uploader. He tells us on his user page that he was born in 1966. Therefore we need a free license from the actual photographer or his heirs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mi padre era fotógrafo al igual que yo. Las fotografías que nos tomamos en estudios las dirigimos nosotros mismos y buscamos alguien que haga "clic".
En cuanto a la fotografía de 1960, pertenece al archivo personal de mi padre y no exisite mayores referencias. Al ser yo el heredero de sus archivos y obras, soy el que tiene derechos. La fotografía ya es pública y se encuentra en el libro "Santa Cruz en los umbrales del desarrollo".
Saludos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.108.98 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your father and then you own a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right belongs to the photographer and his heirs. If your father was the actual photographer of this image, then it can be kept on Commons if you send a free license using OTRS and explain that. If he was not the actual photographer, then only the photographer or his heirs can freely license it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: the uploader is the copyright holder. Ruthven (msg) 09:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same picture like File:Chas Gerretsen and Caribinero, Chile, August 1973.jpg by the same Author. it is unlikely that Gerretsen has also photographed himself 2003:DE:3DB:69F3:3CE3:FCBA:DAFF:AE6C 15:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is related to ticket:2017030510013298 according to which it appears to be a bystander selfie, i.e. the photograph was taken by a bystander with the photographic equipment of Chas Gerretsen and remained under his sole control. Unfortunately he does no longer remember who took the photograph. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe image, “Chas Gerretsen and Caribinero, 1974 Chile: Mutual Suspicion” was taken by an unknown bystander, on Chas’s camera with his film, 43 yrs ago. It is unlikely that it was taken by a photographer friend, since the original image is badly framed.The caption first read 1973 because he thought that the picture was taken in 1973, shortly after the coup d’état. In 2013, while in Santiago for the commemoration of 40 yrs after the bloody coup of 11 September 1973, Chas was told that the picture could not have been taken in 1973 because the building in the background was not finished in 1973. The only other time that Chas was in Chile, was in 1974. In 1974 the Pinochet government held the press conferences in that building. To the best of Chas’s knowledge that’s when the picture was taken. I tried to change the caption of the Caribinero photo to the right year: 1974, but found that to accomplish this I had to re-upload the photo. For that reason, there are two of the same images with different dates/captions on Wikipedia Commons. Chas emailed both images of “Chas and Caribinero, (1973, Low definition) and the 1974 in high definition to me, Pfmoni. The purpose was to illustrate an article, I was creating on wikipedia, Chas gave permission for unlimited free use. While the image was on Wikipedia Commons, it was and is available to anyone to download. By the way - It is normal for museums all over the world to charge for prints or copies of digital images. --Pfmoni (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: The copyright to images taken by bystanders belongs to the bystander. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the source of this picture is MSU, how does the uploaded have the authority to upload it? John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wiki, I'm not sure if I had selected the correct creative commons license when uploading. But I am the senior photographer at Michigan State University and took this new portrait of Dr. Hanna-Attisha for her wiki page. Everything I've taken over the past 36 years for the University is free to use by anyone. Can you please give me some guidance on this? Its my first wiki contribution experience. Thanks, Kurt Stepnitz.
CommentI recommended OTRS to the uploader at his talk page. Can we hold on this for a few days? Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]Deleted: This can be restored when and if the University sends a free license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the file description, this painting was commissioned by the uploader, so it is a recent work. There is no evidence of a free license from the painter. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Este gráfico está publicado en mi libro "Desenredando la Independencia de Santa Cruz y sus provincias" y por tal motivo tengo los derechos. Fue elaborado por Carlos Cirbián por mi propio encargo y bajo mi seguimiento.
Está expuesto en el Museo de la Independencia de Santa Cruz a disposición del público, junto a otros gráficos .
La intención de publicar estos gráficos es la de difundir nuestra historia. Tanto el pintor como el escritor estamos de acuerdo en esto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nino Gandarilla Guardia (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order to keep the image on Commons, the painter must send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Debemos esperar el permiso del autor via OTRS para reponerlo. --Ezarateesteban 21:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lo que puede darles es el Número de Registro de Derechos de Autor de mi libro "Desenredando la Independencia de Santa Cruz y sus provincias", en cuyo contenido están los gráficos y por lo tanto yo me hago responsable de su difusión, siempre y cuando no tengan fines comerciales. Sólo necesitan mencionar la fuente.
El número es: D. L. No. 8 – 1 – 1007 - 10 Pueden verificar el libro en: https://www.amazon.com/Desenredando-independencia-Santa-Cruz-Spanish-ebook/dp/B00BJOMKAY/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1492221974&sr=8-5&keywords=nino+gandarilla+guardia
This appears to be a studio portrait -- note the background -- and not a selfie, so it is probably not "own work" as claimed. In order to keep it, we will need a free license from the photographer using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviamente no es un selfie. Pero es una foto oficial, hecha por mi propio encargo, de mi propia persona y dirigida por mis propias ideas de pose, elementos y encuadre.
¿Cómo no podría tener yo mismo, mis derechos de mi propia imagen? ¿Quién podría reclamar derechos de mi propia foto? Hacer "clic" sobre una cámara, que está sobre mi mismo, le da derechos a otra persona?
Tema para meditar en temas de Derechos de Autor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nino Gandarilla Guardia (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established in the law and here on Commons that the copyright belongs to the actual photographer, not the person who commissioned the work. In order to keep the image on Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement signed by the photographer that allows you to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: lamentablemente es asi, el fotografo es el titular del copyright a no ser que se lo haya cedido por escrito. --Ezarateesteban 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_1939_lot_14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
![146 File:" 14 - ITALY - Stair drawing - Scale disegno con note.jpg](https://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/03/23#File:"_14_-_ITALY_-_Stair_drawing_-_Scale_disegno_con_note.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(geograph_67584).jpg){kind=link}
![237 File:"Derelict to Deluxe", artigo do "Financial Time", página 52 e 53..jpg](https://akarinohon.com/text/taketori.cgi/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/03/23#File:"Derelict_to_Deluxe",_artigo_do_"Financial_Time",_página_52_e_53..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cn_17797)_US_Air_Force,_RIAT_1993._(6958832018).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anri_Okita_at_AVN_Adult_Entertainment_Expo_2016_%2825545790092%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rieger_Rotraut-3162.jpg){kind=link}
