Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/25

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons is not amateur porno site Anatoliy (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio Anatoliy (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OB by File:Hurva Syn Jeru2.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: duplicate matanya • talk 11:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio? Found here. However, since the image has been on Commons for 5 years, it's possible it's just an unattributed use of our image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's far more likely http://www.voiture-france.fr/saab-occasion/saab-900-occasion.php took the image from Commons than the other way around. Our version is 650x679 while their is 574x600. Also the car in the picture has Lithuanian plates, is it more likely a user in Lithuania or a site if France took the photo? // Liftarn (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed http://www.voiture-france.fr/occasion-saab-9000.php where they have ripped off a photo I took. // Liftarn (talk)

Kept: Duly noted and kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Najwyraźniej skan z gazety. Błędne metadane - w 1980 nie było aparatu Canon PowerShot A560 Mpfiz (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: CV (scanned from a newspaper) Masur (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded this picture by mistake because i wanted to upload another one Schalinnger33 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day on upload. Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded this picture by mistake because i wanted to upload another one Schalinnger33 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day on upload. Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i uploaded this picture by mistake because i wanted to upload another one Schalinnger33 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day on upload. Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like does not official CoA (official is this). Does not falls under PD-UA-exempt. Anatoliy (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Это, скорее, {{PD-RusEmpire}} - в верхней части герб Харьковской губернии. PD-UA-exempt ставился, т.к. закону не важно действующие гербы или устаревшие. --Butko (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Вот здесь - http://www.heraldicum.ru/ukraine/towns/starobel.htm описывается история герба. Изображения, предлагаемого у удалению там нет. А на странице http://geraldika.ru/symbols/8787 написано, что это проект. Возможная датировка (по моим предположениям): до 1804 года, когда был принят герб в составе Воронежской губернии, с 1824 по 1863, когда появился проект Кене, где уже используется новый герб Харьковской губернии или современный вариант. В первых двух случаях - это общественное достояние, в третьем - нужно удалять. Посмотреть бы книгу А.Гречило, Ю.Савчук, I.Сварник 'Герби мiст Украiни (XIV-I пол.XX ст.)' написанную источником на geraldika.ru --Butko (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ну за этим обращайся к uk:user:herald, он же Андрей Гречило.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Старобільськ до 1823 р. входив до складу Воронізької губернії. А після переходу до складу Харківської верхнє поле не відповідало адміністративному підпорядкуванню. З цих міркувань і використовували скоригований герб, який подано на цьому малюнку. Офіційно через царський указ він не проходив, але на практиці використовувався. Тому авторські права на нього не поширюються. --Herald 19:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-RusEmpire Anatoliy (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This CoA does not oficially adopted. CoA projects does not falls inder PD-UA-exempt. Anatoliy (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here and here we can see different coat of arms.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other two images of Horlivka coats: File:Gerb gorlovki.jpg, File:Herb Gorlovka (official).jpg. But only one of them is official. Other should be deleted as non-free.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Это официальный герб. Сравни с гербом на сайте горсовета - один и тот же блазон. --Butko (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Описание: «являє собою зображення центрального триколірного зелено- червоно-чорного щита в співвідношенні 2:1:1. У першому зеленому полі зображення птаха горлиці. Перше і друге поля розділені срібно-чорним нитяним перев'язом ліворуч. У третьому чорному полі два схрещених срібних молотки. Над щитом міська корона з трьома зубцями. На короні - дата заснування міста "1867". Над короною - суцвіття соняшника з трьома листами. Щит праворуч і ліворуч обрамлений гілками акації, перевитими срібною стрічкою. Ліворуч від щита зображення шахтаря з відбійним молотком у лівій руці, праворуч - зображення архангела Михаїла зі списом. Унизу на стрічці назва міста, над стрічкою - червона гвоздика - символ революційного минулого міста, під стрічкою зображення п'яти спадаючих дубових листків.» На этом же гербе нету ни шахтёра, ни ангела, ни надписи 1867, соответственно, он не является официальнім символом города. А начит это произведение неизвестного художника, на которое он имеет права.--Anatoliy (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Щитодержатели, девиз и корона - это элементы большого герба. Предлагаемый к удалению рисунок - это малый герб (щит) в картуше. Он тоже совпадает с официальным блазоном --Butko (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Це герб, блазон якого відповідає рішенню міської ради, але поданий в уніфікованій формі, що дозволяє формувати єдину систему муніципальних гербів України. Авторство цього дизайну моє. Опубліковано: Гречило А. Герби та прапори міст і сіл України. - Львів, 2004. - Ч. 1. - Табл. ХVІІ (№ 111). Щодо використання цього зображення на Вікіпедії ніяких застережень не маю --Herald 18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Аналогічне питання: а чому ж в описі написано, що автор Леонід Толстов, якщо дизайн ваш?--Anatoliy (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Це автор герба, який затвердила міська рада (у книжці він вказаний біля зображення затвердженого варіанту). Мною змінено лише дизайн - щит вписано в картуш і увінчано міською короною. Перший варіант не потрапляє під заборону законодавства про авторське право, а другий (з моїм оформленням) я дозволяю вживати, якщо цей герб трактувати як інший (хоча за змістом у ньому збережено і блазон, і графічне вирішення цього автора). Попросту можна до статті дати два варіанти - затверджений міськрадою та уніфікований до єдиної системи. --Herald 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept: Blason is the same as official; author's pemission was given. Anatoliy (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not official CoA (this and this documents describe different symbol), does not falls under PD-UA-exempt. Anatoliy (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Это официальный герб, в приведенных выше документах именно он и описывается. Блазон совпадает полностью. Напиши подробнее, что тебя смущает. --Butko (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Це герб, блазон якого відповідає рішенню міської ради, але поданий в уніфікованій формі, що дозволяє формувати єдину систему муніципальних гербів України. Авторство цього дизайну моє. Опубліковано: Гречило А. Герби та прапори міст і сіл України. - Львів, 2004. - Ч. 1. - Табл. ХXIIІ (№ 150). Щодо використання цього зображення на Вікіпедії ніяких за��тережень не маю --Herald 18:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Знову ж таки: в описі цього герба автор не вказаний, але в описі герба з таким самим блазоном написано, що автори: А.Чутчев, А.Уткін, Г.Андрієнко, О.Панасенко.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Це автори герба, який затвердила міська рада. Мною змінено лише дизайн - щит вписано в картуш і увінчано міською короною. Перший варіант не потрапляє під заборону законодавства про авторське право, а другий (з моїм оформленням) я дозволяю вживати, якщо цей герб трактувати як інший (хоча за змістом у ньому збережено і блазон, і графічне вирішення цих авторів). Попросту можна до статті дати два варіанти - затверджений міськрадою та уніфікований до єдиної системи. --Herald 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Blason is similar to official; author of the image gave permission Anatoliy (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see http://www.toratora.com.br/aquarius.html, to make a photomontage makes no own work AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Province created in the 1970's, so this seal cannot be older than 50 years as outlined in this law. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not own work, it copy from http://michalskig.ue.wroc.pl/ 太刻薄 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover by en:Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, died 1957, not PD until 2028. ~ NVO (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remarked as obvious copyvio. Alex Spade (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 00:13, 2 December 2011 by Fastily, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no encyclopedic, historical, or cultrural value. Commons is not a family fridge. Sven Manguard (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Pointless file. Besides, it's only used on the user page of a banned user. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no encyclopedic, historical, or cultrural value. Commons is not a family fridge. Sven Manguard (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Pointless and lacks source. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic work (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Taiwan (Republic of China)) Sdrtirs (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I think we can say de minimis to any of the sheets in this image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic work (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Taiwan (Republic of China)) Sdrtirs (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nothing here to worry about that is not de minimis.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Iran + the statue is made on Jan 2007 AMERICOPHILE 06:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to that rule, taking photos of cities, towns and villages is absolutely prohibited except some very old parts, where no new elements can be found. In such a case, nearly all my pictures of Iran have to be deleted. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a screenshot of a 1990s TV Program produced in Iran. AMERICOPHILE 06:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not OK for artistic works as per Commons:FOP#Japan. Sdrtirs (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it be accident. I wish to use it on wikipeida but I guess i have to upload it there (because it's fair use, but is copyrighted) Millermk90 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 07:19, 25 November 2011 by Túrelio, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect structure (see File:Lofepramin.svg). Leyo 06:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Confirmed "it's wrong and replacement is right" at NLM MeSH, PubChem, and ChemSpider. DMacks (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

web size, low reslutio, missing exif, probably not own work AMERICOPHILE 07:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of copyrighted 3d Art. Kelly (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Already nominated and kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Sculptures by Paul Manship. Wknight94 ^talk 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-no notice      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from a non-notable program (I haven't been able to even find it on Google using its apparent name) Andre Engels (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Out of scope. BrightRaven (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing of a character from a television cartoon series. Clear case of 'derived from a copyrighted work' Andre Engels (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of some cooperation project between schools; I have my doubts about the authorship too Andre Engels (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope - piece of social media communication Andre Engels (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of - yes of whom? Andre Engels (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doubtful source/copyright status information Andre Engels (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of an unspecified person Andre Engels (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unsufficient licensing. Taken from www.hetburoo.be 195.169.222.45 11:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 00:53, 30 November 2011 by Fastily, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from http://kingmagic.be/biografie.html Unsufficient licensing Agora (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsufficient licensing. Taken from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150348225947503&set=a.10150348022887503.344859.316560527502&type=3&theater Agora (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If ownership is unclear, it seems that asking the uploader would be the best first step -- just because it's on Facebook doesn't prove that the uploader is not the photographer. However, I don't see the educational value of this photo of apparently private individuals, without metadata describing the picture, so I would vote  Delete anyway. -Pete F (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Not only is the photograph an issue, but the structure/set/background shown has a copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsufficient licensing. Taken from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150165523487503&set=a.445330287502.237036.316560527502&type=3&theater Agora (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the file name is harassing me 94.54.70.207 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Takabeg (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The file name is a shortened combination of the two people in the picture.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image (slightly modified) already appeared as front page image at brazilian news magazine "Exame" (edition 956: 12/11/2009, original source) and might be copyrighted via exame.abril.com.br (Copyright © Editora Abril S.A. - Todos os direitos reservados"). Gunnex (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata reveals "Copyright Abril Imagem / Author: GERMANO LUDERS/GERMANO LUDERS"... --Gunnex (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too blurred to be of use in any project. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsufficient licensing. Taken from http://www.lievelambrecht.be/index2.php?spage=showcat.php%3Flang%3Dnl%26cat%3Dkunst%26detail%3D114 Agora (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beste, Ik maak deze wiki-pagina over mijn vader. Het is de eerste keer dat ik er één maak dus het is nog een beetje zoeken. Gelieve mij enkele dagen te geven om alles op punt te zetten. De foto's die ik gebruik zijn allemaal zelf genomen, er rustten dus geen eigendomsrechten op.

mvg, GDB

Deleted: The image appears on the cited page. Even if it is yours, we will need a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS to be sure that the copyright is clear.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue Amitpremmishra (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 09:34, 1 December 2011 by Polarlys, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Maisie-Lily.JPG
• File:Jessie.Williams.jpg

I don't think this is uploader's own work since uploader has some copyright violation from other websites Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 23:47, 26 November 2011 by Neozoon, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

i don't like my photo 79.107.230.231 13:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Photo is not especially unique, not used by any Wikimedia projects, is low resolution, low quality; delete per uploader request. -Pete F (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

There are many pictures of dubious value by User:SAMNAD.S, but I think this one definitely has to go. --Lipedia (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree. --Leyo 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete out of scope, watermarked, educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope - promotional picture and description. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promo of hotel in Italy Shakko (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality. Unused personal picture. Out of scope. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded here by mistake Sweeny 77 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Uploader's request. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage material, promotional, out of scope Motopark (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image, no notable person Funfood ␌ 18:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plain text in a picture, should be provided as textfile Funfood ␌ 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No educational purpose. Article deleted at pt.wiki OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled down version of File:Flag of Lebanon.svg ~ Fry1989 ^eh? 21:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No author, wrong license, promo pic from other sites Funfood ␌ 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i don't like my foto Joannaddd (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Photo is not especially unique, not used by any Wikimedia projects, is low resolution, low quality; delete per uploader request. -Pete F (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

erreur d'importation par l'utilisateur. pas de droits sur le copyright. merci de supprimer Jean plancon (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to a {{Copyvio}} speedy delete template; if the rights weren't held to begin with, it should be a clear case and a quick deletion. -Pete F (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a photograph, but a painting, a date is needed. As no date is provided, there is no way to determine whether the picture is in the public domain Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 14:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the balloon might be copyrighted. Leyo 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely that uploader had his own satellite and took this picture. P199 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely wrong information. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Spanish_reconquista.gif 95.120.79.142 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep information being wrong or not is not ground for deletion --Tachfin (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless proposer provides thoroughly sourced justification AdeMiami (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per COM:NPOV, we don't care about the truth, only about what is educational. Beta M (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. As seen in the discussion of the file proposed. E.g. Zaragoza was the capital a muslim state called ca:taifa de Saraqusta (1013-1110). You can confirm it reading any of the bibliography cited in. In the animated gif Zaragoza appears as a part of Kingdom of Aragón in 900. Must be apported some information about the sourec or sources used to perform this animation, because it seems to be strongly biassed by the general consensus of the editors and some sources cited in. Imagine a gif about II world war showing Hawaii as a colony of Japan in 1945. Who is the responsible for giving source of information? --Bestiasonica (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely wrong information. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Spanish_reconquista.gif 95.120.79.142 15:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to view the oppinions of the community regarding two problems with this file (and other similar photos). I don't really want the file to be deleted, since I'm the uploader. The first problem is that it is not in the public domain in the US, but this is also the case with other photos of Gustav Klimt, by the same photographer (Josef Anton Trčka): File:Klimt.jpg, File:Trcka04.jpg, as well as all the photos in Category:Josef Anton Trčka (and many other photos or paintings with authors deceased between 1926 and 1940). The second problem is that the Wien Museum claims copyright on this photo (see [1]) and says "The reproduction of the images is only in connection with the exhibitions of the Wien Museum free of charge". I'm not sure such a claim is valid, regarding of a picture which is out of copyright in Austria (the source country and the country of residence of the museum). Razvan Socol (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - see also {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that it was not published before 1923? If it was, even outside of the USA, then it is not under copyright in the USA, because it fails the fourth point of the Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Four-point_test.

I would ignore the claim by the Wien Museum -- it is certainly PD there, and they are possibly committing Copyfraud.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that the 1923 criteria applies in this case (after reading only Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act). Considering that the image is dated 1914, it was probably published before 1923. I now understand that in this case, we should also remove the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD -- URAA does not apply.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement: Sergey Rudenko died in 1969 [2]; the image has been copied from his book. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is not the problem, how old is the photo or when did the photographer die? --Kürschner (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any information on this. The uploader wrote that he took the image from the internet and that he believes it is free.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The architect died in 1946, as there's nofop in France, this picture can't be free until 2016 Symac (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright information and license given. Saint-Louis (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison Ozenfant depuis square de Monsouris.jpg

File:Maison Ozenfant facade.jpg

File:Maison Ozenfant.jpg

File:Paris Avenue Reille Maison-atelier Ozenfant 001.jpg

Le Corbusier, architect of this building died in 1965. As there's nofop in France, this picture can't be free until 2035 Symac (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for other pictures of this building in Category:Maison Ozenfant (Paris 14) Symac (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious copyvio due to being a derivative work of a Sesame Street character - Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets. Rd232 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this your own work - or are you the designer of the logo? This is maybe (drawing of the moon with lines?) too much (COM:TOO) for {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} copyright indicator templates. Saibo (Δ) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date is absolutely wrong as any watch to 1899 Quiñones' pictures can prove (see this one, the first on the left). Therefore, how can it be guaranteed to be in the public domain? Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 23:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no author, wrong license Funfood ␌ 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely wrong information. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Spanish_reconquista.gif 95.120.79.142 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a Norwegian translation. What happened to the original English language image? It was called "MuslimOccupation.jpg". --Tokle (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the info in the map might be wrong. That it is in use is not an argument. --Tokle (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It is our policy to keep images that are in use. It is not the job of Commons editors to try to determine whether the image is correct or not, that is the job of WP editors.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Town hall of Lille : there is no Freedom of panorama in France. Architect of the City Hall is Émile Dubuisson (died in 1947), the building is copyrighted at least until January 2018. (some background on FoP in France (in French))

• File:Beffroi de Lille.jpg
• File:Beffroi hotel de ville lille.jpg
• File:Beffroi hotel de ville Lille.jpg
• File:Beffroi Lille nuit.jpg
• File:Lille Mairie.jpg
• File:LilleBelfrey-turned.JPG
• File:LilleBelfry.JPG
• File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg

Jean-Fred (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nominator. No FoP in France--Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per above, except  Keep File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg per de minimis. Some of them are trashy but pls mark File:Beffroi de Lille.jpg for Category:Undelete in 2018. --ELEKHH^T 12:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep only File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg see Jurisprudence of the french "cour de cassation" place des Terreaux. The building is not the main object of this photo it's an accessory. This picture is founded " dans l’ensemble architectural de la place des Terreaux dont elle constituait un simple élément, la cour d’appel en a exactement déduit qu’une telle présentation de l’œuvre litigieuse était accessoire au sujet traité,"  : “this presentation of the litigious work was accessory to the topic depicted, which was the representation of the plaza, so that the image did not constitute a communication of the litigious work to the public”. There is no violation of copyright for this picture and it must not be deleted. If you delete it, you'd have to delete all the general view pictures token in France (Paris, Lyon, Bordeau…) But sadly  Delete the others one. Recently, the french Assemblée national ha refused to modify the law (7 for, 23 agains for… 577 députies}}. We must wait until January 1st 2018. But some lawmakers want to extend the time period from 70 to 100 years and more. France is very backward with freedom of panorama.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(Talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Grondin about File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg which should be kept as COM:DM as there is substantial case law in France for this kind of De Minimis being valid in court. Here the main topic is Porte de Paris, not the city hall. Teofilo (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg as de minimis, delete the others until 2018. --Claritas (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: the building is original enough to attract copyright; the author's work won't be in the public domain before 2018; there's no freedom of panorama in France.

Concerning File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg, I don't believe French De minimis rules can apply here. The Place des Terreaux case isn't relevant here: in that case the litigious artwork, a set of small fountains, was embedded in the ground of the plaza, so that it was impossible to show even part of the plaza without showing part of the litigious work. Such isn't the case here. The panoramic photography doesn't show the whole plaza, but focuses on part of it. While the main subject is the Porte de Paris, the town hall is placed on a strong line (according to the rule of thirds) and appears in the picture as a secondary subject, not an accessory subject. It's my strong conviction that the photographer wouldn't have taken a panoramic picture if not to include specifically the Porte de Paris (not the entire plaza) in their frame. File:PanoramiquePorteParis.jpg should then be kept, but cropped and purged. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Belfry_of_Lille : there is no Freedom of panorama in France. Architect of the City Hall is Émile Dubuisson (died in 1947), the building is copyrighted at least until January 2018. (some background on FoP in France (in French)).

Some of the files may be kept as De Minimis ; but it is the community to decide.

• File:Lille - 13 - Hotel de Ville et Beffroi.jpg
• File:Lille - 47 - Beffroi et Hotel de Ville.jpg
• File:Lille-Hôtel de Ville-2012 03 18.jpg
• File:Lille-Porte de Paris et Beffroi de l'Hôtel de Ville-2012 03 18.jpg
• File:Porte de paris 2 (Lille Nord France).jpg

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1.  Keep only File:Lille-Porte de Paris et Beffroi de l'Hôtel de Ville-2012 03 18.jpg per de minimis and  Delete the others.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(Talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, even File:Lille-Porte de Paris et Beffroi de l'Hôtel de Ville-2012 03 18.jpg since it is possible to take a picture of the Porte de Paris without the Belfry. Léna (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

less quality Wikipics1900 (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PORN Anatoliy (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting all images by User:SAMNAD.S except the following:

• user page photo
  user page photo
• 
  user page photo
• 
  interesting
• 
  not too bad
• why not
  why not

Reason: Only unused photos without educational value, lots of pointless portraits. Lipedia (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: some uploads deleted. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is my husband photo and we do not want that his photo is online anymore Helgamsb (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Helgamsb (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content uploaded by and related to some non-notable artist. Out of project scope.

• File:IJAHDAN TAURUS LIVE@ZAMZAMCAFE 02-07-11.ogg
• File:NAH SING S*** SINGLE.jpg
• File:LIFE WINNER.jpg
• File:INIT by IJAHDAN.jpg
• File:DESDE AHORA By Ijahdan.jpg
• File:SEENCRONIZAH By Ijahdan.jpg
• File:FOR A CAUSE By Ijahdan.jpg
• File:TRUE KING By Ijahdan.jpg
• File:BTOWL.jpg
• File:IJAHDAN & 2PAC.jpg
• File:IJAHDAN Y SIN RAZA.jpg
• File:Ijahdan netter logo.jpg
• File:IJAHDAN LIVE PROMO.jpg

Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please my reason for deletion of this image, taken by myself and also uploaded by me, as set out in some lenght in the request box on the file description page. Boberger (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the file description page added as by instruction:

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I, User:Boberger, am the uploader of the photo which also taken by myself. The photo was taken to illustrate a very short biographical article on Swedish Wikipedia on this author. This would probably be the sole possible use of the image on WP. However, the person pictured has, by reasons that are her own, asked me to delete the picture from the article, as well from the repositary. No doubt, there is no legal obligation to delete the image, but I want to oblige to such a plee. A complementary reason is that I take a lot of portrait pictures of (mostly) Swedish authors an a consensual basis (the actual image was taken "on the fly") for uploading on Wikimedia Commons, and I would like to continue to have a constructive relation with the Swedish writers´ community in order to continue to shoot "quality" still photos in a direct relation between me as the photographer and the pictured person, in order to continue to raise the quality of Commons portraits of authors. Regarding this specific author I hope to be able to take a quality photo of her next in spring 2012, when I will be able to visit the town of her residency. That wouldn´t be possible with the existing photo kept in the database. Yours truly, Bengt Oberger. Boberger (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 On the fence (neutral) I understand and sympathize with the reason for the request, but it is the only picture we have of this author. Also it is a great picture -- I really think you have captured the smile very well -- and, to me, it flatters her more than most of the images on Google. Perhaps you could say to her that we will be happy to take it down once we have a better image?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Although I agree with Jim regarding the quality of the picture which should in no way be embarrassing for the author depicted, and there is most likely indeed "no legal obligation to delete the image", as Boberger says, in my opinion honoring the request will ultimately do more good to Commons. Also, it seems to me that Lotte Möller isn't a that well-known public figure; in such cases, personal rights and wishes have more weight than e.g. for politicians constantly appearing in public. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture by Carl Martin Hansen (1877–1941) and Carl Brummer (1864–1953). Not in the public domain yet. 87.61.168.144 13:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Brummer is irrelevant since he is an architect and has not created the artwork. But it will indeed not be in the public domain for another month, my bad.Ramblersen (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't agree with you that Carl Brummer's contribution isn't a work if that is what you are saying. It is much more than, say, a plain granite cube. And remember that the wording used in Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Denmark can be misleading in this particular case — it is buildings that may be freely depicted, not architecture as a whole. 87.61.168.144 08:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely understand. There is no architecture in this image at all, so if Brummer contributed to what we see, his profession does not matter, the sculpture will not be free until 2024.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the municipality's monument database "Carl Brummer was responsible for the architectonic design of the monument."[3] Does that help clarify? 87.61.168.144 08:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As just quoted Brummer was responsible for the architectonic design. 1) That may only refer to the incorporation of the artwork at the site 2) Even if he actually did design the plinth which I can find no explicit evidence that he did, architecture/design does not enjoy the same protection as an artwork and can be freely photographed. A plinth (even if it has some ornamental details) is something to place a sculpture on, ot an artwork in its own right, just like a bench is something for people to sit on, or a granite railing along a canal is something to keeo people from falling into the water. 3) Even if the plinth is considered an independent artwork (wrong imo), the principal subject of the image is obviously the bust which was created by an artist who on January 1 died more than 70 years ago, and as a result this picture will be a clear case of freedom of panorama. There is no need for any buildings in the picture to make it that, all that is needed is for the primary subject of the image to be unprotected. If this image is considered an infringement after January 1, good luck cleaning up Wikipedia Commons because then a ton of other pictures should be deleted as well. That said, this is a totally indifferent bust of a totally indifferent woman so I don't really care what happens to the picture. Ramblersen (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we are at the subject, if anyone can explain to me why something like this image isn't a no-go I would appreciate it. I am just trying to figure out the rules here.Ramblersen (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoliceNationalMemorial2755.jpg is OK because the United Kingdom has a very comprehensive FOP exception for sculpture. Denmark has the exception for architecture but not sculpture. My FOP table is not complete, but it will give you a guide to the complexity of the subject. The rules are, of course, not made by us, but by the various nations involved. We simply do our best to obey them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sculpture public domain since 1 Jan 2012 A.J. (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description a 'cinema'. Doesn't look like it, don't know what it is instead either however Andre Engels (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Unless more info is provided it's a useless image as it is. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 11:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, Not entirely useless. Even though we don't know what this rusty object in the centre of the picture is, at least there are identifiable plants in the picture as well, and it's sorted in Category:Artemisia vulgaris. Further identification would be welcome, but I don't think it's needed to delete the picture. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CoA of Ukrainian city → does not falls under PolishSymbol; not official CoA (this is official) → does not falls under PD-UA-exempt Anatoliy (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To jest polski herb polskiego miasta i jako taki podlega prawu polskiemu, obecna przynależność administracyjna nie ma tu nic do rzeczy. Prawo ukraińskie nie ma zastosowania do polskich symboli. Poznaniak (dyskusja) 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poznaniak says that this is historical sybol of city from times, where it was part of Poland. Polish law still applies to it;  Keep under correct description. A.J. (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A.J. (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a violation of privacy. The article Dave Days/days has been deleted 11 times on enwiki, 4 times on ptwiki, 3 times on dewiki, once on eswiki, and is about to be removed for the 3rd time on nlwiki. ErikvanB (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question What about File:DavedaysCutouts.JPG? Same uploader & article. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Derivative work, speedy deleted.

Deleted: out of scope. A.J. (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Poor quality (bad contrast). Errors. The possible replacements exist: File:Tokaido Shinkansen map.png+File:Chūō Shinkansen map.png. Alex Spade (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: While poor quality is not a reason to delete in this case (the three maps can illustrate how to present the same information in three different ways), Errors are a valid one. Léna (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibt es 1. neu hier: File:Deutsche Ostsiedlung.png & 2. auf de:Wikipedia unter dem gleichen Namen diese Karte: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ostsiedlung.png

Deleted: good-faith request by uploader on day of upload (i.e., 4 months ago!). Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image does not adopted as official coat of arms, and does not falls under PD-UA-exempt. Anatoliy (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Похоже, что этот вариант герба не был официально одобрен. На сайте ОДА указан другой герб [4], который принят в 1999 году. Он же нарисован на почтовых марках:

Если этот герб не является официальным, тогда он не подпадает под PD-UA-exempt, поскольку в законе об АП есть примечание: «Проекти офіційних символів і знаків, зазначених у пунктах "г" і "д" частини першої цієї статті, до їх офіційного затвердження розглядаються як твори і охороняються відповідно до цього Закону.».--Anatoliy (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

У 1999 р. я був заступником голови конкурсної комісії на символи Донецької області. За підсумками конкурсу обрано проект герба, але до нього додано низку рекомендацій, які слід було внести до кінцевого варіанту. Однак через поспіх на сесію винесли проект без змін. Тоді Є. Малаха, який також був членом конкурсної комісії, підготував варіант із врахованими зауваженнями та передав обласній раді. Формально цей варіант не затверджувався, але був переданий до публічного використання. --Herald 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Однак в частині другій статті 10 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» написано Проекти офіційних символів і знаків, зазначених у пунктах «г» і «д» частини першої цієї статті, до їх офіційного затвердження розглядаються як твори і охороняються відповідно до цього Закону. Оскільки цей варіант не затверджений офіційно, то він захищається авторським правом, і може бути використаний тут лише після надання згоди автора — Є.Малахи.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Drafts of official symbols do not attempt copyright exempt status until they are officially adopted as symbols. Hence, deletion as per nomination. russavia (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]