Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/30

doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder of the president's official photo (at web resolution) 66.31.42.26 01:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't for the life of me remember why I tagged this Flickr-change-of-license. It's unfree at Flickr, with no proof it ever was free. Uploader has a large string of copyvios. Futhermore, he uploaded this with cc-by-sa-2.5, which is a license Flickr doesn't even use. -Nard the Bard 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Flickr author should not have the right to relicense an image. The copyright belongs to Diego Rivera's family. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a copyleft notice on the page, and I don't see how this is in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License information can be found here. The screenshot will be used on a page describing the open source project "MindTouch Deki" which I am currently working on. This is my first upload to the commons, so please help me out here if I'm doing something wrong. CraigBox (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This category was incorrectly created. Sorry. --— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: Empty category or gallery: content was: '{{Delete |reason=This category was incorrectly created. Sorry. |subpage=Category:Street entertainers by country |day=30 |month=October |year=2008 }}' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Jacklee|J

Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is PD and the text cannot be copyrighted but it's not a faithful reproduction due to the paint splashes. JD554 (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The artwork/ overlaying the old painting is new. It consists of far more than words and a typeface and so is copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. Image unused since upload and probably out of use. Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

printed matter which is almost certainly the copyright of someone else Snowmanradio (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

printed matter which is almost certainly the copyright of someone else Snowmanradio (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio, according to deleted image Image:Abajolaloce.jpg. Diti (talk to the penguin) 11:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site is NC-ND -mattbuck (Talk) 12:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. Unused, low-quality image of probably drunk people, eventually also violating personality rights Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Unused and probably unusable image without any description. Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Obviously personal image, titled "Party Time at Tampico Beach", unusable and probably violating personality rights. Túrelio (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Image titled "Laptop Lenovo ThinkPad" with filename "Gezims laptop", but actually showing the sceen only; highly unusable. Túrelio (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

album cover 66.31.42.26 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallpaper properly copyrighted ~/w ^/Talk 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the icons are certainly. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution, not used, derivative work, permission is cc-by-nc-sa, 4 great reasons to delete. -Nard the Bard 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that there's no FOP in France. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work (copyrighted sculpture, no freedom of panorama in the united states 66.31.42.26 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I know this is already closed, but for the record this is not "anonymous" sculpture as uploader claimed. It is titled "Racing in the Footsteps of a Legend" and was dedicated in 1989 by living artists Jacques and Mary Regat http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:-HbiXuzNsYcJ:www.keepitartsea.com/home.cfm%3Fdir_cat%3D46088+%22racing+in+the+footsteps+of+a+legend%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us. -Nard the Bard 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"own work by uploader - 1896" doesn't sound reliable ~/w ^/Talk 19:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Famed botanist en:Alfred Cogniaux died in 1916. -Nard the Bard 19:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the mistake here? it is a photo I took of a page of an old book... should I say I am the author? Dalton (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Problem was that the author is Alfred Cogniaux, not you. You can note you scanned or took the photo of the old work, but the original author still needs credit as author. Info on authorship and licensing has been fixed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • OK, thanks, will pay atention to that on next uploads.

• Are all the other illustrations of the same book: Category:Flora Brasiliensis and Category:Flora Brasiliensis (Orchidaceae) not ok too? Orchi (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, public domain work; description fixed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A book cover seems unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Perhaps fair use on en.wikipedia, but not here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't look professionally done; I'm convinced.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The point here is that the uploader is not the copyright holder of the book cover. Whether they took the photograph of the book is then irrelevant. --Simonxag (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Why would Jonathan Sarge (Odingaard) not have hold rights of the cover? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was stupid, but we still need OTRS confirmation. --Simonxag (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• {{vn}} The image is a previously published book cover. I would request that the owner of the copyright send an e-mail to OTRS to verify that the account is valid and it has the rights to upload the image. In fact, I'll open up a ticket and do it right now. J.smith (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - licensing has been verified though OTRS ticket 2008110110001229. J.smith (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have an OTRS, request withdrawn. Thanks to all, specially J.smith! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Unused, personally looking image. Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown as of 26 October 2008; not edited for 7 days

as of COM:SCOPE. Unused personal image, probably unusable. Túrelio (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Kved: In category Unknown as of 25 October 2008; no license

Questionable license. -Nard the Bard 00:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Formally, the cited source is not precise: I had to browse 6 pages of forum postings in order to find it finally here. No copyright statement made, no authorship attributed, so the choice of license is inadequate. In general, using fan forums as source of any form of information is highly problematic... →Spiritia 09:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate and missleading - see talk page of WikiProject Birds on en wiki Snowmanradio (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In use in at least six wikipedias. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete This bird is not mentioned in Hilty's Birds of Colombia, and Sibley and Monroe say it's not found in Colombia, Venezuela, or the Guianas and not in all of Brazil, only the southern part. As it's inaccurate, it needs to be deleted from all the Wikipedias where it's in use. —JerryFriedman (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. See COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate and missleading - see talk page of WikiProject Birds on en wiki Snowmanradio (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Regardless of taxonomy, the range extends to Honduras, according to Sibley and Monroe. —JerryFriedman (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. See COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of photo is unknown and could be too recent for US PD, so it does not qualify as PD. Image source gives some restrictions on use that appear to be incompatible with Commons requirements. Orlady (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I find that construction of the road started in 1924, which makes this photo later than 1923. --Orlady (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If the LoC can't find a copyright for this image then I'm sure I would be even less likely to. Them stating the obvious, that even if it was copyrighted fair use rights remain is just their way of covering their ass. -Nard the Bard 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Nard, are you feeling ill? -mattbuck (Talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tend to agree with Nard; US photos from this era (mid 1920s to early 1930s from cars) have fallen into the public domain uless specific copyrights were registered and renewed; the LOC is the repository of record for such US copyrights and I think we take their word on US copyright status unless we have specific information to question it on individual case. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about copyright is on the Library of Congress website, but is from a library at Harvard University. What it says is "The Frances Loeb Library is unaware of any copyright in the images in this collection. All images in this collection may be used for educational and scholarly purposes, but we do ask that a credit line be included with each image used (see below). For permission to copy or use materials for commercial uses, please contact the Visual Resources Librarian of the Francis Loeb Library for further information regarding the Loeb Library's reproduction policies. The nature of historical archival photograph and slide collections means that copyright or other information about restrictions may be difficult or even impossible to determine; the Harvard Graduate School of Design would like to hear from anyone who may have additional information regarding the images found in this collection."

 Delete Transfer to English Wikipedia as fair use. --Simonxag (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fair use claim could be justified for this image because other images can be easily obtained. The road still exists and appears essentially as it did in this photo. There are other suitable images to illustrate the article, including the two images that the uploader deleted from EN:Hutchinson River Parkway when inserting this image there. (Note that the uploading user has been blocked at EN as one of the many sockpuppets of a user who was banned after indiscretions that have included an extensive history of making false claims regarding the ownership and permission status of images.) --Orlady (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is clearly attributed to the source it was obtained from - the Library of Congress. As stated on the Library of Congress website, the photograph is from a collection labeled "American Landscape and Architectural Design, 1850-1920" [1]. There is nothing here to indicate 'subversive actions' or false claims on the part of the uploader. The image is placed in the "history" section which seems appropriate. The two other images within the article were not deleted from the article as falsely claimed in the comment above. The images were moved to another section detailing the exits found along the Parkway today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.127.243 (talk • contribs)

Deleted. per Orlady: "construction of the road started in 1924, which makes this photo later than 1923". Insufficient evidence for PD status. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source deadlinks; it's unlikely this professional, staged photo of santa was actually taken by the air force rather than just put on their site with (or without permission); same image deleted as having insufficient copyright info at en.wiki 66.31.42.26 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Keep--Garfieldairlines (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Delete See the image talk. V-wolf (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Delete - The link to the source is dead. There are assumptions saying that the image might come from non free source. The image resolution is also poor, we won't lose anything in deleting this image. Esby (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Delete Too small, probable copyvio. Image exists in different versions too, maybe it is a derivative works of the image on this page. Since we don't know, we should remove it. Diti (talk to the penguin) 13:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment A more significant picture is located here. If the image does really come from this military website, then it is not PD because they aren't the file creators. Diti (talk to the penguin) 13:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Delete Unknown copyright, and is most likely not GNU, CC, or PD. Doesn't belong at Commons. Blurpeace (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted Multichill (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Inaccurate licence/permission. Copyright probably belongs to heirs of photographer Bernt-Ola Falck and/or publishing house Wahlström & Widstrand. 217.208.119.229 (aka Mimarob (talk)) 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have got the right to upload a new picture, so this one wih unclear status can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PelleB (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same immage with better spelling: Image:Sanxay roemisches Theater Rekonstruktion.jpg Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted please use {{Badname}} next time abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Image of unknown content since November 2006, with date stamp watermark, uploaded by 1-upload userr Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Placed a request on the en.wp RD to see if anyone knows where this is. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion on enwiki abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is in a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info This is by Franz Albermann, whose father de:Wilhelm Albermann died 1913. I couldn't find any data regarding Franz. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info This is by de:Willy Weyres (†1989). -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyrighted artwork? Looks like some bits of glass stuck together by me, for a utilitarian purpose, of moving light. There's nothing even drawn on it. Thus it's ineligible for copyright.  Keep -Nard the Bard 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If it was for utilitarian purposes, they could have used clear glass. This is artwork, even though there is nothing drawn on it. It is not ineligible; if it should be, it had to be below the threshold of originality. I don't think that you can claim that. If you do: Just look at the structures in the glass. Plus, there are some small circles in different colours in the top windows etc., all of it artistic creation. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info This is by de:Franz Pauli (†1970). -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a builduing. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted artwork, FOP does not apply: This is inside a building. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:FOP#Germany abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not releases under GFDL. Copyright (c) 2003 Администрация Президента Республики Ингушетия (Administration of the President of the Ingush Republic) Óðinn (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate and missleading - see talk page of WikiProject Birds on en wiki Snowmanradio (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Sibley and Monroe say its range includes the Guianas, Venezuela, and much of Colombia, confirmed by this map from InfoNatura. —JerryFriedman (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of http://www.iberoelsalvador.org.sv/galerias/10/inauguracion7.jpg, is not free --Belb (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obvious copyvio. No need to discuss. Next time, you can {{Speedy}} this kind of image. KveD (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of http://www.iberoelsalvador.org.sv/galerias/10/inauguracion3.jpgis, is not free --Belb (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obvious copyvio. No need to discuss. Next time, you can {{Speedy}} this kind of image. KveD (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request canceled!

I received from SuicideGirls.com per e-mail a confirmation that the Flickr.com account is indeed theirs. See also OTRS ticket 2008110310027958

I will clean up all templates.

--Jeroencommons (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:SuicideGirls
  • All images in this category and subcategory are copyrighted, because they come originally from http://suicidegirls.com/ . The copyright-tags on Flickr must be false. --Jeroencommons (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exceptions are (must not be deleted): Image:Sam Doumit @ San Diego ComicCon 2007.jpg, Image:Suicide Girls @ Arlington, TX Wizard World convention 2006 - 2.jpg and Image:SuicideGirls @ San Diego ComicCon 2007.jpg - 2.jpg--Jeroencommons (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Are ALL the images Flickrwashed copyright violations from that website? No photos of women who have also posed for the website but not from the website? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eg, Image:Suicide Girls @ Arlington, TX Wizard World convention 2006 - 2.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they must be kept. I've found those three while adding the tags and added them to an exceptions list. --Jeroencommons (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Many of the images seem to have been uploaded to Flickr under a free license by Flickr user "SuicideGirls", the same name as the website, and which the Flickr profile identifies as one and the same. That Flickr account seems to have existed and been doing this for years. What is your reason for thinking the licenses are false and not authorized by the website/copyright holder? -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the name is the same on Flickr is no prove at all. Those images are copyrighted. Maybe it's someone from their community, but that is still no prove these photo's are free. --Jeroencommons (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep This has been discussed before. There is no need to keep bringing this up. -Nard the Bard 16:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bad Ass Mystik.jpg: the official site refers to the Flickr account. The MySpace themes on the official site contain a PictoBrowser Flash application, which has been configured on the themes page to use that Flickr account as the source for images. So there's no copyright issue to delete the images, and many of them seem to be used in Wikipedia articles as well. --Para (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't exactly understand what you are saying. It is very clear: Suicidegirls.com is a paid website that makes the photes themselves and they are off course 100% copyrighted. No way we can use them on Commons. --Jeroencommons (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SuicideGirls people upload some of their images to Flickr, and offer people the possibility to use those images on MySpace with the copy&paste HTML on their site (as mentioned in the Bad Ass Mystik deletion request), or anywhere else as they have licensed them with Creative Commons Attribution. The main site would not propagate links to the Flickr account if they were copyright violations. --Para (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Yes, images are copyrighted, and the copyright holder can release any of their images under a free license if they wish. As far as I can determine this is what copyright holder "SuicideGirls" has done with a series of images they uploaded to Flickr. I see no evidence of any copyright violation has been presented. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Again: SuiceGirls.com is the owner of these photo's and there is no prove that the Flickr account you are revering to is an official SuicideGirls.com-account. If that can be proved using OTRS, I will cancel this request. --Jeroencommons (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - The flickr account is an SG account, but I guess some sort of confirmation would be nice. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Some sort of additional confirmation would be nice, as it always is for every image, but I see nothing to indicate that OTRS is required in this case. As I note the Flickr account "SucideGirls" links to the "SuicideGirls" website, and Para notes above the "SuicideGirls" website links to the Flickr, confirming they are the same entity as they say they are. If anything, this seems a rather better than average confirmation of copyright holder permission for images on Flickr. If someone wishes to contact them for an OTRS I have no objection, but note that while I appreciate Jeroencommons' vigilence I see nothing that raises any serious suspecion that the Flickr account (high profile and active for years) is fraudulent. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep no there's no problem of copyright --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - It's all been said. There is no problem.--Lamilli (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - keep free images per the reasoning given by Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bad Ass Mystik.jpg. J.smith (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - No further comment.--FP (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Request withdrawn by nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Image:Lear.JPG, Image:Ginevra-Lazzara.JPG, Image:L'autore.jpg

Person in the image uploaded the photo; I doubt that he took it, it was not "self made" --hbdragon88 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep User self-photos are allowed. We even have a Roger Ebert photo he uploaded. -Nard the Bard 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has not proven that he made them himself, or said that the photographer gave him the copyright, or that he bought it out and now owns the copyright. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I can tell, the performance from which this photograph would have been taken was in 2001, but the uploader inconsistently claims an image creation date of January of 2008. The image also shows artifacting that to me appears consistent with a JPG converted from a scan at a low quality level, rather what I would expect with a 2001-era camera, and the absence of embedded metadata corroborating the uploader's claims all leave me highly suspicious of the uploader's claims. Recommend deletion for lack of proof of ownership by uploader. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:PRP as it is unlikely that the uploader or the person in these images took these professionally made photos himself. As already noted by Kelly Martin, all these images appear to be scans. This evident in File:Marco Lazzara.jpg which wasn't cropped properly. Following files from the same set were deleted as well: File:Patriarca-Lazzara.JPG, File:Orfeo Lazzara.JPG, and File:Monteverdi Marco.jpg --AFBorchert (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 03:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relates to the article gallery page. should also be placed in education Pdf files WayneRay (talk) 07

59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)WayneRay

Deleted per Nard the Bard as our policy explicitly excludes PDFs just containing raw text. This PDF actually included a table with statistical data of the municipality of Capão da Canoa which can be easily transfered into regular Mediawiki syntax. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

militaryphotos.net is not the "real" source of this. -Nard the Bard 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - Copyright notice: All photos, text, and information on this site are for educational and non-commercial use only.The photos in these albums are user submitted and are the property of those users.Because of this, we don't have the ability to sell, license, or authorize the use of any of the photos on this site Sterkebaktalk 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Usage restricted in Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a better ("standard") location map (the image: Image:Dimos_Sperchiadas.png), than this one that I hastily made yesterday. DRap (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per request: unused. Ciell (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To zdjęcie pochodzi z PAP, zostało zamieszczone na stronie www.prezydent.pl " Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie tekstów oraz zdjęć publikowanych w serwisie internetowym www.prezydent.pl, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie nie dotyczy elementów zastrzeżonych, w tym zastrzeżonych elementów graficznych oraz tekstów publikowanych pierwotnie w innych źródłach." User talk:Index08

En:Permission is granted to re-use, copy and reproduce the materials available on the Internet service of the President of the Republic of Poland, provided they are credited. This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever. This photo is from PAP.

 Comment - I don't see what the problem is here. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This request is after misunderstanding of the license of Polish President's webpage. Julo (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Mattbuck and Julo. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work by uploader as claimed; dubious license --Infrogmation (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that typeface is not copyrightable. Is the logo otherwise subject to copyright?--Chaser (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, logos fall under the scope of {{Template:PD-ineligible}}. Waylon (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Chaser and Waylon. I've changed the license to {{PD-textlogo}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not safe to expose the digits on the cheque. See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/news08.html Mgc (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Knuth-cheque.jpg is used on 14 pages in 9 projects. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep This account has been inactive for almost 2 years (as the link you point to indicates, he's changed his banking details 3 times since 2006. Since this check was uploaded in 2005 I'm assuming it is one of the original ones). The check itself is pd-ineligible, and the details no longer valid. So it doesn't really matter anymore. -Nard the Bard 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to a comment page linked by Knuth, changing/closing one's account does not solve the problem: "The thief can keep writing checks on your account even after you’ve started reporting them as fraud, and even after you’ve closed the account. Every time the thief writes a bad check on a closed account [...] your bank will reopen the account". Even if no policy forces us to delete this image, it would be wise (if only as a courtesy) to replace this image — especially given that we do not lose anything since we have equivalent images that do not have the same problem. Schutz (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upload this image over it (but convert to JPG first), tag as {{PD-ineligible}}, and then delete this version. See also Commons talk:Licensing#Copyright on a bank check. Lupo 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Lupo. If this is the final decision, I'm happy to do it, but I'll change the image a bit more first (starting from the original file), to make it clearer that the numbers have been scrambled (e.g. use "0123456789" or "0000000000"), since I've had comments about that. Schutz (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Mgc. I've transfered File:Knuth-check2.png from en-wp and asked the CommonsDelinker to replace all occurrences of Image:Knuth-cheque.jpg by File:Knuth-check2.png. Schutz, you are free to modify the replacement to make it clearer that the numbers have been scrambled, if you wish. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the map of Serbia. Vojvodina is part of Serbia. This map shows Serbia without Vojvodina. 147.91.173.31 14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All the maps at en:Serbia include the province, and including this similar map here on Commons. So delete.--Chaser (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder why is this still here. Deletion. 巡 Mihajlo ^{_[ talk _]} 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be deleted as soon as possible! 89.216.198.113 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Vojvodina is included to me.... 91.105.111.53 12:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Vojvodina has been painted over. But Kosovo is displayed as it is an independent state! Oh, these partial Albanians... The image should have been deleted at once! — Whiteroll (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Incorrect and thus not useful for educational purposes and out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]