Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/13

Unneeded, as we already have photos that sharper and of better quality Tabercil (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - uploader placed a speedy delete request on image. Tabercil (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image that is not useful for the project. Also appears to be based on an image of a darts player for which no copyright information has been provided (compare File:Dillz2.jpg). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image that is not useful for the project. Also appears to be based on two underlying copyrighted images (one of a blonde woman, the other of a darts player), the sources of which have not been indicated. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the wrong name when uploading to commonist. I corrected it and uploaded as Ann 1945 track.png

--Anhamirak (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin captain tucker here on October 21, 2009 flickrmailed the flickr owner (Signalkuppe) but the flickr owner refused to change the license. Signalkuppe certainly received Admin tucker's message since his latest upload on his flickr account is in December 2009 This DR could be speedied too. Leoboudv (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No proof this was ever freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed flickr review within 5.5 months of upload. No evidence this image was ever free Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No proof of license. --Elsa Baye (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 03:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyright owned by Fox. [[1]] --Elsa Baye (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyvio. Gwynhaden (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. — Dferg ^(disputatio) 15:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal photo, no description, no category Justass (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Podzemnik: Out of project scope: unused personal photo...

Apparently not created by the Flickr uploader, but rather taken from http://news.cnet.com/2300-1012_3-5876215-1.html?tag=mncol, which would make the Flickr license invalid. This also affects the incorrectly licensed and incorrectly attributed crop File:Larry Ellison crop.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Yes, good catch LX. This is a clear copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels --Elsa Baye (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost a duplicate of File:Betty Blythe.jpg. --Elsa Baye (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep it's not a duplicate of File:Betty Blythe.jpg; the PNG is presumably losslessly converted from the LoC's TIFF file, and the JPG was lossly converted. This is the version that editors should be working from if they want to make new derivative works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new derivative work File:Betty Blythe crop2.png with less than 12.5 million pixels. --Elsa Baye (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Now there are four versions of this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Pieter Kuiper. Koyos (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Tryphon^☂ 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other images of this bridge to replace this photos which failed flickr review. So, I think it is better if Commons deleted it. Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments on this request for cancellation:

1. The fact that there are other images is not a just cause for cancellation. Fact be laid down in my opinion, this is better than many others.
2. What means: "Which failed flickr photos this review? When I uploaded the image this was the license, and I tkink was correct at the time. Regards. --Mario1952 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: You never typed in a {{Flickrreview}} at upload to prove it was licensed freely. (an Admin or the Flickr bot would have marked it on this license) That is why it failed flickr review and should be deleted. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I had to upload the image manually because the tool was not working and I made a mistake not to put the {{Flickrreview}}. Sorry.... --Mario1952 (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Failed flickr review, and the license indicated by the uploader above does not exist on flickr (which makes me doubt he checked it carefully before uploading the image on Commons). –Tryphon^☂ 10:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a derivative work --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Anthony Perkins died in 1992, but image was taken in 2007. --Elsa Baye (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 10:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on the tomb certainly not in the public domain --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This isn't a picture of something that happens to have a photo on it: it's a section of the tombstone with a name and the photograph centred. I'd say the copyrighted photo is the main subject of this picture. --Simonxag (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No FOP in France. –Tryphon^☂ 10:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on the tomb certainly not in the public domain --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image is composed to feature the copyrighted (the subject died in 1996) photograph. --Simonxag (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No FOP in France. –Tryphon^☂ 10:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on the tomb certainly not in the public domain --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Photo is composed to feature the copyrighted image. --Simonxag (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No FOP in France. –Tryphon^☂ 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a modified version of an image found at http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46857000/jpg/_46857947_knox_house466x600.jpg (see plan in top left of jpeg, not the 3D rendering)--FormerIP (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I redrew the diagram at a smaller scale, with new coloring, plus the "outdoor balcony" and 3 added windows. The prior revisions had appeared very similar, in outline coloration, to the diagram in the reference source, even though the shapes were merely hollow rectangles in a floorplan. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, it is quite misleading to say you have "redrawn the diagram". It maps exactly. What you have done is cropped the original and added labels. You have also now converted the background to greyscale, which makes the copyvio slighlty less obvious, but it is still a copyvio. If you were to actually redraw the diagram - from scratch - then that would be fine. --FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (note from author). The diagram still appears too similar to the BBC webpage diagram, so I agree it should be deleted to avoid the appearance of a copyvio with slight modifications. I will create a replacement diagram as a new file, showing internal furnishings as 3x times more detail than the original, to dispel any thoughts as being essentially a copy of a copy-restricted image. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This image can be deleted as being an outdated duplicate of another Commons image, if you prefer. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admin. In spite of appearing to concede and agree to "create a replacement diagram", Wikid77 has instead uploaded the same image but with a little added detail here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kercher_Knox_house_Perugia_Italy.gif . I have nominated that file for speedy deletion. I hope that is appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obsolete (note from author). The image for this DReq is now an obsolete variation of File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif. However, careful examination of the content of this older contested image will reveal significant differences from the BBC reference-image. Specifically:

• The Commons image contains internal furnishings, such as stove, refrigerator, washer, tables, sinks, toilets, bidets, shower, tub, which are not in the BBC image.
• The Commons image has walls that are 8-pixels wide in 3-tone colors, while the BBC image has 3-pixel walls as 1-tone color.
• The Commons image is over 2x (twice) the size of the BBC image.
• The proportions of the various rooms differ between the images.
• The Commons image has window slots, while the BBC image has no windows.
• The Commons image has more doorways & hallways than the BBC image.
• There is not a single pixel which is the same between the diagrams.
• The Commons image is in GIF format, and the BBC image is JPEG.

Hence, the Commons image is not a copyvio as a derivative of the BBC image, but rather a larger floorplan which contains rooms of similar arrangement, but drawn in completely different sizes, different style, with different colors/shading, plus windows and internal furnishings. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unless the uploader measured the appartment himself, or based his drawing entirely on public domain data, this image and File:Kercher Knox house Perugia Italy.gif are still copyright violations of http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46857000/jpg/_46857947_knox_house466x600.jpg, per COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. –Tryphon^☂ 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Image is from ESA and not free. See: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=huygens&single=y&start=270 Uwe W. (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 12:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A derevative work of an non free ESA picture. See: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=huygens&single=y&start=372 Uwe W. (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 12:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a duplicate of File:Cathedrale nd chartres vitraux005.jpg, only less good. I'm not sure any of them would be useful, but we sure don't need to keep both. Eusebius (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree for suppression (I am the photograph) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused, replaceable by File:Cathedrale nd chartres vitraux005.jpg, and the author agreed to deletion. –Tryphon^☂ 12:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source=Eduard Shevardnadze's memoirs does not fit to Author=own work. User has uploaded a number of pictures with insufficiant copyrightKarsten11 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 12:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hiljainen kansa-panoraama.jpg

Not public domain yet (author still living), COM:FOP for buildings only in Finland A333 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 12:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in France Justass (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Ca signifie qu'on ne peut pas mettre sur commons de photos de sculptures contemporaines !

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 12:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment at the image says that this is a photomontage; not used, not in COM:PS. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not own work either [2]; so out of scope and copyright violation. –Tryphon^☂ 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it isn´t an own work, may be scanned of a newspapper --Esteban (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing source information for the individual images; only the collage appears to be own work. –Tryphon^☂ 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-made logo not used in any article - out of project scope. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure here: The image can have two possible public domain reasons:

• Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy but no evidence is given that the image was taken at the persons duty and not as a hobby during his free time.
• Template:PD-US because the image was taken by an U.S. citizen befor 1923 and so there is the posibility that it was published befor 1923 in the U.S., but there is no evidence that it was published.

Presumaby and in absence of any evidence showing the oposite I assume that it is a private photograph never published but transfered to the Oregon State University Archives at some time. The photographer died 1947, unpublished works will be pd in 2018 according to opyright.cornell.edu. See the biography at http://www.flickr.com/photos/osuarchives/sets/72157615083889400/ and http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv80724, regretably nothing is said about his work at the military. Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No one has provided evidence towards either of these hypothesis, hence we have to assume that the picture is still copyrighted. –Tryphon^☂ 13:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of copyrighted photo Justass (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, you're right. mahanga (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A derevative work of an non free ESA picture. See: http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=huygens&single=y&start=372 Uwe W. (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like a personal picture, unused. Eusebius (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file was the original. I made a smaller version of the picture. 85.149.172.129 23:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright violation: [3]. –Tryphon^☂ 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is NOT in the public domain in Germany (work is from 1890, the author must be dead for 70 years to be in the PD in Germany) Yellowcard (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, unless there's some evidence that the autor is not dead for more than 70 years, works that are more than 100 years old are generally acceptable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it was a Commons consensus to keep pictures of unknown copyright status which are older than 100 years. Where is this policy written down? Yellowcard (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is (ASFAIK) not a commons policy, but it's policy used on dewiki. See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Pragmatische_Regelung_bei_Bildern.2C_die_.C3.A4lter_als_100_Jahre_sind. Although it is not (yet) an official policy on commons, it's been used as a rule of thumb for quite some time also on commons. Since for a lot of images, the author is unknown, we do have to go with some guideline that declares an image PD based on it's age rather than that of the author. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is de facto nonsense. It is based on the copyright law of anonymous (or pseudonymous, but this is not eligible here) works. To be able to use this template, we have to proove that this work was anonymously published, according to several verdicts. Of course, we cannot proove that the work was published anonymously when we don't know the author. Yellowcard (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought when I wrote Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Teofilo (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zur Kenntnisnahme: Foto: Idg. Jahrbuch V (1917). --32X (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per PaterMcFly --Eva K. ^{is evil} 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is not reasonable to assume that 100 year old pictures with unknown authors are under copyright. Koyos (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: why shut the author not be death for 70 years?--MartinS (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Let the author come forward then if he is not anonymous. -Nard the Bard 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. ZooFari 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a duplicate of File:Cathedrale nd chartres vitraux100.jpg, only less good. Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete fuzzy. Replacement free picture available. How about uploading http://www.flickr.com/photos/wm_archiv/3062424615/ ? Teofilo (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree for suppression (I am the photograph) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost a duplicate of File:Cathedrale nd chartres vitraux102.jpg, only less good. Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you see it again, they are not the same stained glasses

File:Cathedrale nd chartres vitraux102.jpg

If someone could take a better photograph... Otourly (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, after seen it again, Yep you're right in fact... Otourly (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree for suppression (I am the photograph) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Too blurry to be usable in any project. Coyau (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of very little educational interest. We have better views of all the displayed windows. I have consulted the author before making the DR. Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No encyclopedic value --Civa (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per request. Coyau (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of very little educational interest. We have better views of all the displayed windows. I have consulted the author before making the DR. Eusebius (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No encyclopedic value --Civa (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per request. Coyau (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were only used on the French Wikipedia but is no more used, replaced by a Navbox and the SVG code isn't right (display error). Vascer (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unused. Without prejudice to recreation if required later. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a derivative work --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we need permission of the choir in this case. Yellowcard (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There have been many problems with missing permissions for files from the original uploader. This looks like another such file. --Simonxag (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Imant Raminsh is still alive, his composition is still in copyright. Neutral on the permission from the singers. -Nard the Bard 02:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seem scan from book 221.127.251.83 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a notable person? GeorgHH • talk   18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This deletion request is also for all images in Category:François Mativet. In my eyes it looks like a private gallery of an hobby musician. There is only one wiki article: fr:François Mativet. --GeorgHH • talk   18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Lard Free mentions 4 titles, so yes, that sounds notable. The problem with these pics is that we don't have the permissions from the photographers. Teofilo (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. no permission by various photographers, sources most likely wrong (photographer not mentioned) Polarlys (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures within the Category:Fête des lumières are showing light artworks, which are certainly copyrighted. (I have to say I uploaded some myself some few years ago...) By the way, FoP (unfortunately) doesn't exist in France.
Only 4 pictures of this category (and its subcategories) are not concerned by this mass deletion request : File:Lumignons.jpg, File:Maitre du feu.jpg, File:Place republique.jpg, File:Multicolour-candles-1.JPG and File:TCL-crowd.JPG (therefore the category can be kept with those 4 pictures only) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment See Category:Tour Eiffel at night for information about light art in France. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment How about adding a notice similar to that on Category:Tour Eiffel at night? We can then keep the category, maybe something like this:

• -84user (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that would be acceptable but that means that most of the pictures have to be deleted anyway! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per TwoWings. Kameraad Pjotr 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]