Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/06/18

out of scope Manuelt15 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, unused private image. File:Mariell y ToOño...Collage.jpg should be deleted too as a duplicate of this one. –Tryphon^☂ 06:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. As not in use nor realistically useful for educational purposes. In addition to the two images mentioned here, I'll be deleting the contributors other uploads for the same reason. These are File:534499113 WNBWJXKUBRWEPVE.jpg, File:ToOny & Mariell.jpg, File:Mariell & mii.jpg, and File:Imagen005 modified.jpg. Adambro (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope; unused, personal photo with scribbles over it, possibly intended as a vanity insult --Infrogmation (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was clearly an attack image, as nobody would upload his own image that way. Recommend to speedy-tag next time. Damn, this image was on Commons for three years! --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Speedy-Deleted as obvious attack image. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

93.80.130.49 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English: I'm looking to create a new one with a free brachiosaurus image. Unfortunately, File:Human-brachiosaurus size comparison.svg looks to be derived from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Brachiosaurus.jpg too.

--Jomegat (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English: After doing some digging, I can't find a free image of a brachiosaurus to my liking. I have deleted this image from the place I was using it. As far as I'm concerned, this image can be deleted at any time.

--Jomegat (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

AVRS (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. no meaningful description and no recognizable usability. Túrelio (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Speedy-Deleted by User:High Contrast as per nom. --Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. obviously a joke image; unusable. Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Speedy-Deleted by User:High Contrast as per nom. --Túrelio (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse AltCtrlDel (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make no points and give no reason why this should be deleted. Why would anyone delete something for no reason except that AltCtrlDel doesn't like it?

It is a meaningless construct that is of no use to anyone. A pure provocation(?) KaiO (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Image is in use on enwikip, albeit on a user page, but the SVG version File:Anarcho-swastika.svg is used on a number of article and so, whilst there is a policy against deleting images superseded by vector copies, it should be retained. Adambro (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - While the delete arguments given so far ("abuse", "meaningless construct", "pure provocation") are obviously baseless and uninformed, there is also no need to keep a PNG version where a SVG file of superior quality is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latebird (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I had misunderstood the policy on bitmap images superseded by a vector graphic. The one use of this image can be replaced by the SVG file. Adambro (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept - No actual reason for deleting the image(s), not to mention that suppressed images are not deleted, see this discussion. --Yuval Y § Chat § 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect copyright violation per Watermark: Jake Cradlle. (http://www.youtube.com/user/JakeCradle ?) Martin H. (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's me. I'm Jake Cradle. Grashoofd (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case please forward a legal permission to OTRS. Please don't take it amiss if I still doubt your claim because of the other Screenshots you uploaded without beeing the photographer or camera operator or owner of any copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God.. do you want the pic or not. I've posted Martin H., this it proof on my youtube, http://www.youtube.com/user/JakeCradle. Grashoofd (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a permission to OTRS as requested above. The permission template contains one sentence that is important: Ik verklaar hierbij dat ik de auteur en/of de enige eigenaar van de exclusieve auteursrechten ben op File:MirandaCosgrove.jpg. With this sentence you assure, that your work is free of any third party copyrights and that it is 100% your own work - no screenshot, no screen"photo". --Martin H. (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prima, done. Grashoofd (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going somewhere? I prefer to have that template gone. Grashoofd (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The check on COM:OTRS will take some time, an OTRS volunteer will close this request and remove the template from the imagedescription page. --Martin H. (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept - OTRS ticket #2009061810034261. Next time, how about using no permission since? --Yuval Y § Chat § 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is not a copyvio, is a false image, since I haven't found anything about the logo at the official site of FIFA (fifa.com) Filipe Ribeiro^Msg 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - I've checked tineye and found such image here. It looks like fan-art. Yuval Y § Chat § 00:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image in question, File:Juelz.jpg, may be a possible copyright violation. I was able to find this image on Google here in a blog. Considering the blog has another photo that is copyrighted, this image is questionable. — Σxplicit 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright belongs to CBC, not the photographer. No evidence that the image is in public domain. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking a photo of someone else's photo does NOT turn it into your "own work".  Delete unless the original photo can be shown to be PD and description info is appropriately changed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of statue set in the USA. Nice photo, but sorry, it looks like this would be derivative of a modern artwork. --Infrogmation (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per COM:FOP#United States; sculptor died in 2008. –Tryphon^☂ 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivitive; photo of someone else photo, not "own work. Unless original photo is PD, copyright violation. --Infrogmation (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative, photo of someone else's artwork, not "own work" --Infrogmation (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative, per above example --Infrogmation (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video Screenshot from TV total, like http://www.myvideo.de/watch/209540/Will_Smith_und_Stefan_Raab. Copyright is with the production companies Brainpool and Raab TV not with the person who make screenshots. Martin H. (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no it's a pic. I asked permission to both. But since Wikipedia has this rules, delete it. I don't care. Grashoofd (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Vorlage Bild-LogoSH (edit|[[Talk:Template:Vorlage Bild-LogoSH|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Bild-LogoSH (edit|[[Talk:Template:Bild-LogoSH|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:NoCommons (edit|[[Talk:Template:NoCommons|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Lizenzdesign4 (edit|[[Talk:Template:Lizenzdesign4|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Lizenzdesign5 (edit|[[Talk:Template:Lizenzdesign5|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)

First of all, all these are templates stolen from de.wikipedia that are against Commons policy (the first two) because they violate COM:L "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." The templates say: Template:NoCommons is just unnecessary, because we don't move images to Commons, because (surprising) we are already Commons. The last two are layout templates of the first templates, which therefore should also be deleted. Now, the images:

• File:DB-Bahn Autokraft.png (edit · last · history · watch �� unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Logo ZEAG Energie AG neu.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Epex logo klein.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Seal Austrian Service Abroad.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Alanus logo gross 180 px.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:HackerPschorr.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:RIS-Trader logo250.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

All these files are very likely copyright violations and should be moved to de.wikipedia if they are appropriate there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their "association" these templates and these images shouldn't have been put into only one rfd, IMHO. Recommend 2 separate rfds, one for the templates and one for the images. After viewing the image files, IMHO it would be better to file an rfd for each image separately. --Túrelio (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over some of these images. At least 2 of them are PD-ineligible enough for inclusion on Commons. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFDs for some of the single images are now to be found:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal Austrian Service Abroad.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo ZEAG Energie AG neu.jpg

The rfd for the templates has now gone to Commons:Deletion requests/Templates from de.wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have (not knowing about this deletion request) created Template:Do not move to Commons (to detect problem images which were marked on enwp as “not suitable for Commons”, yet transwikied here), and redirected its other language variants to it. I am also going to redirect Template:NoCommons there right now. This means all images marked with it are marked as candidates to speedy deletion. Any objections? --Mormegil (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea for the NoCommons template. Now, there are just the other 4 left. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

deleted, I deleted all of these copy&paste templates from de.wikipedia.org. Two were created by an unexperienced user most likely by mistake. If images are not suitable for commons, please use our tags for speedy deletion. We have all the tools we need. --Polarlys (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear from the summary whether Horst Frank is the author of the photo only or the author of the depicted object. ŠJů (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horst Frank is the author of the photo only, because he is alive today and has a User page on de.wp, while the depicted object is "... a German board game (but not a German-style board game), by Joseph Friedrich Schmidt (1907/1908)." [1] Mutante (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life dates of original author Joseph Friedrich Schmidt are 1871-1948, according to this source (pdf). If considered as a work of art, it would be protected until 2018 (1948 +70). Here are contact data of the company that produced the original form of the game, the Schmidt Spiele-Verlag. Somebody might ask them, 1) whether this is really their design (because there were many copycats) and, if yes, 2) whether they grant us permission.--Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Joseph Friedrich Schmidt has patented the game, but he may not be the author of every packing graphic. --ŠJů (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I photographed the Box a few years ago, so I am the author of the image. I am not the author of the Box itself. The shown gamebox is no longer in the trade, it is very old (1950th i guess). --Horst Frank (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i wrote a mail with this link http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch_%C3%A4rgere_dich_nicht to Schmidtspiele here the Answer:

Sehr geehrter Herr ############,

vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail und den Hinweis. Zunächst interessiert es uns, 
mit wem wir es konkret zu tun haben. Sind Sie Wikipedia-Administrator?

Hinsichtlich des oberen Fotos der älteren "Mensch ärgere Dich nicht"-Ausgabe 
können wir die Abbildung in Wikipedia erlauben. Das Bild rechts "Spielfeld für 
vier Personen" stammt allem Anschein nicht von einem originalen "Mensch ärgere 
Dich nicht"-Spiel. Diese Spielplan-Abbildung empfehlen wir im Zusammenhang mit 
dem Original-Spiel zu löschen. Stattdessen fügen wir Ihnen die Datei des 
aktuellen Spielplans bei und erlauben hiermit die Abbildung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Berlin
########

the google translation:

 Dear Mr. ############,

 Thank you for your e-mail and the notice. First it interested us,
 with whom we actually have to do. Are you a Wikipedia administrator?

 Regarding the top photos of the older "man you are not annoyed" output
 we can figure in Wikipedia allow. The picture on the right "pitch for
 four people "apparently comes not from an original" Man annoyed
 Do not "game. This schedule, we recommend imaging in connection with
 the original game to delete. Instead, we add you to the file
 current game plan and hereby allow the picture.

 With kind regards from Berlin
 ########

they send me two pdf-files with the original board. who can i send the pdfs to convert to png? --213.39.193.140 08:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Schmidt Spiele GmbH suggest that this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mensch_%C3%A4rger_dich_nicht_006.jpg is not an original Board. They send me images of the original board. could someone help me to find the right license for this? --Horst Frank (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask Schmidt Spiele GmbH for a specific license, if they release it for Wikipedia only, it is not enough. You can use this email template and ask them to answer to OTRS directly. –Tryphon^☂ 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Derivative work, no permission. –Tryphon^☂ 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converted from a speedy by Uploader Mekongforest for "I would like to delete my picture, thank you." to rfd by me, as the image is in use. --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No good reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I'm also for keep, unless the uploader provides a strong rationale for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep or provide some reason. Licence is irrevocable, this is not case when somebody uploaded image as a mistake and understand it few hours after his upload and request is not connected with personality rights. So uploader should write some good reason. --Dezidor (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converted from a speedy by Uploader Mekongforest for "I would like to delete my picture, thank you." to rfd by me, as the image is in use --Túrelio (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or provide some reason. Licence is irrevocable, this is not case when somebody uploaded image as a mistake and understand it few hours after his upload and request is not connected with personality rights of private person. So uploader should write some good reason. --Dezidor (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Converted from a speedy by Uploader Mekongforest for "I would like to delete my picture, thank you." to rfd by me, as the image is in use. --Túrelio (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Good photo, in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Nice image. --Dezidor (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I'm also for keep, unless the uploader provides a strong rationale for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless some relevent reason for deletion is explained,  Keep. Looks like a good quality and useful image; I don't see any problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Dezidor. – Innv | d | s: 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or provide some reason. Licence is irrevocable, this is not case when somebody uploaded image as a mistake and understand it few hours after his upload and request is not connected with personality rights of private person. So uploader should write some good reason. --Dezidor (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the bad .gif file format I would call this image totaly out of scope. As far as I read this is not a caricature because it is not based on any essence of this person, it is not criticism because it is not based on any controversy about this person. I would call this a violation of personality rights, but maybe im a bit too affected by german jurisdiction. Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Seems to be pure slander. While I'm not with Foxman in most of his publicly voiced opinions (en:Abraham Foxman), I too can't see any basis for this "caricature". --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep On Finkelstein's site it has a caption: "ADL head Abraham Foxman gives Reagan award after the latter said that Waffen SS officers burried at Bitburg cemetary were "victims of the Nazis just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."" I will add that, and change the source field to the page that gives context. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Mr. Finkelstein simply claims the above mentioned statement and also the association. There is no independant source for that (at least not on his website). --Túrelio (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to doubt that Foxman has given some ADL award to Reagan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Pieter, this "caricature" is not about whether a person has blue or green hair, but whether he "merits" to be accused of nazism, and it is a person who is said to be a holocaust survivor. Pure plausibility is not enough. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion. Same case as image of Dershowitz that was kept. I have no idea whether is Finkelstein true or not. If not, it would be nice illustration of his mistake or misunderstanding. --Dezidor (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Ok, with this caption it is a valid caricature - I deny myself to judge the creativity or cultural value. The image is already marked with the nazi symbol template to express legal concerns for some countries. If noone disagrees we can close this  Keep, deletion request withdrawn. --Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep speedy keep per previous discussions Movieevery (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept. –Tryphon^☂ 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. obviously non-notable person in the foreground makes the image hardly usable. Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There is not much of interest in the background either. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Túrelio does not like Ula. :-) Question: Have we another image of the Liceum Ogólnokształcące in Lębork? --Dezidor (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem so. Maybe you could make one where we can actually recognise something?

For this picture:  Delete - no recognizable content, hence no educational use, hence out of scope. --Latebird (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. obviously non-notable person in the foreground makes the image hardly usable. Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral We have another image of the building File:Pagode Hagenbeck.jpg but this image is not so terrible. --Dezidor (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per Túrelio; private picture which cannot realistically be used to illustrate the building. –Tryphon^☂ 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of COM:SCOPE. obviously non-notable person in the foreground makes the image hardly usable. Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Neutral We have another image of the hotel but from different view File:Hotel Neptun w Łebie.JPG. --Dezidor (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Per Túrelio. –Tryphon^☂ 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work of a video screen, the flickr image is not free of 3rd party rights. Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Same problem with File:Rihanna live in Manila.jpg and File:Rihanna and Chris Brown show.jpg and File:Rihanna disturbia.jpg --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plasma is transmitted the concert in Manila ... You know the concert is a television for better viewing of the artists! Please... Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 15h10min de 18 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

And File:Rihanna and Chris Brown show.jpg Not from TV, because there were two concerts in two days, and one of the author directly photographed pictures and other photos taken in plasma, may prove the concert tickets.Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 15h16min de 18 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

Missing comment that administrator is not satisfied as it does not delete images uploaded to Commons by me. Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 15h23min de 18 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

 Delete, even if it's a live feed, the video is copyrighted; so pictures of the screen are derivative works. As for File:Rihanna and Chris Brown show.jpg, it surely looks like a close-up on the screen rather than a picture of the artists on stage; I would delete this one too. –Tryphon^☂ 09:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] TWO DIFFERENT CONCERTS! TWO! Any concert there is a plasma for the forward who is better by far to do. What counts is that everything here is the basis of his beliefs... ARE PARTIAL!Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 01h52min de 27 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

The album is titled "Rihanna in Manila" - so one concert. (However, your own list w:pt:Glow In The Dark Tour does not mention Manila). Some images are digitally altered, for that reason we have 17th and 16th November 2008. --Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk than not know! was for another tour ...w:pt:Rihanna Live in Concert Were two concerts!!!Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 03h05min de 27 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the camera is setted on year wrong (2008 instead of 2007), I can only use the given information The dates in your list are wrong (2007...) Also the Tour ends on Nov 16 2008 and you just added one day?? - this edit Vitor is very very very untrustfull. What do you think this is: Making informations like YOU want? No comment, thats childish. --Martin H. (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What humiliation! Do not know where is Manila? Philippines there was already noted, was not only Manila! Only the year is the wrong [3] Does not rest even ... Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 03h35min de 27 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can we now stop spamming please? Your claim, that this where 2 concerts is wrong, you tried to fake the Wikipedia list on this concert - but you failed and i reverted you. The tour ends on November 16 in Manila, this photos are all from this concert and all from the Videoscreen. So  Delete and please, Victor, dont trie to push your claims on the base of lies. Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So stupid... My name is not Victor, Smarty partial W:pt:Usuário Discussão:Martin H.. My mistake, three concerts in Manila, consult [4] and search for the Tour.Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 03h47min de 27 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the User, three concerts, 14, 15 and 16, but the photo confirmes this File:Rihanna in Manila.jpg#MetadataVítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 04h09 de 28 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

 Keep [5] The singer and the plasma, see one concert, two singers, no problem. Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 03h45 de 29 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

---

all four images deleted: derivatives of copyrighted video stream at concert. --h-stt !? 14:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source, author, or description Quadell (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: http://www.casabrasil.gov.br/ Yanguas (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon^☂ 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no notability (the article on this person is deleted in ru.wiki) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted logo; picture only involves the logo and is therefore not allowed Erik1980 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Herr Kriss (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Derivative work; uploader does not have rights to license it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the photograph is GFDL, the figure itself is a work of art protected by copyright. --UninvitedCompany (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Derivative work of a copyrighted toy. –Tryphon^☂ 09:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

license does not correspond with source description --Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after reading the source website's conditions, this seems to be a clear copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double with File:MunicipioAngoulême.jpg and not in use anymore --Jack ma (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The two pictures don't have the same source information. File:Hodevil01.jpg seems to be more accurate (uploaded in 2004 on fr.wikipedia, whereas the other one was uploaded in 2005 on it.wikipedia), so it needs to be sorted out before deleting either of them. –Tryphon^☂ 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual year of uploading is not 2004 but 2007, when the other one is 2006. Also, the JPG size of MunicipioAngoulême.jpg is larger (what makes me say that it is more accurate; on the other hand, their sizes in pixels are the same). If Hodevil01.jpg is prooved to be more accurate, I'll switch my modifications. Jack ma (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the upload date of their respective claimed source (on Wikipedia, not Commons). The ultimate question is, who should be credited as the author in order to comply with the GFDL license (Jalava or Fluctuat)?. –Tryphon^☂ 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that File:Hodevil01.jpg is chronologically the first one (Jalava). Small in size, degraded jpeg. Then the contrast ("sharpness") was (very slightly) improved and saved with a good jpeg quality into File:MunicipioAngoulême.jpg (Fluctuat) for it:wiki. So the latter file is larger, but both images have the same medium quality if you take a closer look. Jack ma (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted (and quoted Jalava as author on the new image). Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The San Antonio flag was designed in 1935 by William Herring ([6]); while the original design had the words "SAN ANTONIO" and "TEXAS" superimposed, the base design (specifically including the line drawing of the Alamo) has not fallen into the Public Domain and should therefore still be under copyright. as there is no evidence it was published without such notice or not renewed by its city or state. This image, despite being made by a third party—Jecowa (talk · contribs)—is still a derivative of said copyrighted work. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the specifications of these flags are in public domain (as being defined by law), so if someone creates an image of the flag from scratch, based only on those specifications, it should be okay. –Tryphon^☂ 09:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that since the specifications for the flags are (probably) specifically defined by a given law or statute, that negates the inherent copyrights of said design? I've never seen that precedent; the specific designs for a great number of sub-national US flags (states, counties, cities) are defined by their respective laws, but are still protected by copyright. Do you have any evidence for either precedent or specific Texas or San Antonio law that exempts this particular design from nationally guaranteed copyrighting? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current flag (without the lettering) is official as of 1993. That would make the image copyrighted automatically (anything post 1978 is copyrighted without having to be registered.) If the original sketch in 1933 did not have a copyright notice, it will become public domain due to the failure of a notice on the image. The tag to use for it is {{PD-US-no notice}}. As for the whole law bit; only Federal Works are automatically PD and those laws. State works, it depends on the rules set down in each state. I am not familiar with Texas law, but I do have a solution. I personally know the guy who amended the city flag and I can ask him about the copyright status of the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from the guy who suggested the 1993 design; he said it is not copyrighted and he did not want it to be. It should be public domain. I will vote  Keep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can that be COM:OTRS'd? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have him email OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted. Avi (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Louvre pyramid is a copyrighted artwork by I.M. Pei (still alive). France has no freedom of panorama. However, French jurisprudence traditionally allows the representation of a copyrighted artwork if it is accessory compared to the main represented subject. For instance, a picture representing a Paris street with the en:Tour Montparnasse in the background was judged to be OK.

The problem here is to determine whether the pictures in category:Louvre Pyramid pass this test or not. Please note that many filenames actually mention the Pyramid. Also, I have excepted from this deletion request panorama pictures such as File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg or File:Louvre Paris Panorama.JPG. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction en français : la pyramide du Louvre est une œuvre d'I. M. Pei, qui est encore en vie ; elle est donc protégée par le droit d'auteur. La France ne reconnaît pas la liberté de panorama, mais la jurisprudence admet la représentation d'une œuvre protégée quand celle-ci est accessoire au sujet représenté. Par exemple, les tribunaux ont considéré comme acceptable une photo représentant la rue de Rennes, à Paris, avec la tour Montparnasse dans le fond. La question ici est de savoir si ces photos entrent dans ce cadre ou non. On peut remarquer qu'un certain nombre des photos présentées ici comportent la mention « pyramide du Louvre » dans leur titre. Par ailleurs, j'ai ignoré les photos panoramiques comme File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg ou File:Louvre Paris Panorama.JPG.

• File:Dsc07965.jpg
  File:Dsc07965.jpg
• File:FW Louvre3.jpg
  File:FW Louvre3.jpg
• File:FW Glaspyramide Louvre bei Nacht.jpg
  File:FW Glaspyramide Louvre bei Nacht.jpg
• 
  File:Louvre 08.jpg
• 
  File:Louvre France.jpg
• File:Louvre Pyramide .JPG
  File:Louvre Pyramide .JPG
• File:Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg
  File:Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg
• File:Louvre culture.jpg
  File:Louvre culture.jpg
• File:Louvre-Pyramide-Paris-France.jpg
  File:Louvre-Pyramide-Paris-France.jpg
• 
  File:Parisienne2002-1.jpg

My two photographs document an ongoing street protest, not the Pyramid, which just happens to be there. In Paris, many public events take place in front of notable buildings, some of them modern and subject to architect's authorship. Refraining from reporting on them would create a chilling effect on free speech. David.Monniaux (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with David for the first two pictures. But what about the pyramid's interior (File:Louvre-Pyramide-Interieur.jpg) ? I don't feel this picture gives a view of Pei's work : the truss structure, as seen from the interior with a partial view, may be from numerous other architectural structures, not specificaly Pei's. This is perhaps the staircase wich is a copyrighted work ? This picture should be on a separate deletion request. --Jean-Christophe BENOIST (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre Pyramide .JPG Even thou the title of the Picture says it, this Picture shows an evening scene of the frensh national day on the place in Front of the Louvre. The Pyramid in only seen in part and there are several other topics on the Picture. Perhaps the Picture should be renaimed f.e. "Evening July the 14th in Front of Louvre"--WerWil (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre France.jpg Keep, in my opinion the museum is the main subject on the photo here. There was a similar case under these circumstances. Turns out someone tried to sue postcard retailers over similar thing and were not successful (something like that, I didn't read into it much). Jolly Janner (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Some files of this set have already been deleted by Pymouss and just five images are left. In concur with David.Monniaux that the main subject for File:Dsc07964.jpg and File:Dsc07965.jpg are the march against digital rights management and that the pyramid could not be avoided in the photograph. Similarly, File:Parisienne2002-1.jpg focuses on the participants of La Parisienne. In the two remaining cases, File:Louvre 08.jpg and File:Louvre France.jpg I see the focus on the Louvre. Hence, I have decided to keep these five images. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]