Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/04/15

maybe a copyvio? Other images uploaded by this user are copied from internet, and this is a copy from facebook. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 03:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyight violation. JuTa 20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

original file to upload on link Kumarakesh (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Well you know, you can use speedy copyvio tag for blatant one like this, see "Copyright © 2014 Newgen Software Technologies Limited. All rights reserved" on the source pages.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: uploaders request JuTa 20:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too general of a file name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 2014-04-15T19:41:13‎ (UTC)

---

Kept: as redirect to duplicate File:Lunar eclipse April 15 2014 Minneapolis Tomruen3.jpg. JuTa 22:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio http://www.cinetelerevue.be/fr/kevin-rankin.html Mattho69 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nom Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete … and I doubt it’s user’s “own work.” —Fitoschido (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nom and Fitoschido Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During last upload this was not own work of the uploader. Compare Special:Undelete/File:Water-Moon_Monastery.jpg (Admin link only). JuTa 19:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nom, false license / authorship Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly copyrighted Mattythewhite (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyvio Krd 09:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explains itself Mattythewhite (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyvio Krd 09:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope Atamari (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, unusable as nothing is recognizable due to the low resolution. Otherwise, the image would probably violate the personality rights of the depicted person(s). --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, as per Atamari. Lotje (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per discussion Krd 09:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве, на саййте указано © 2014 ShowBiz.ua Dogad75 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии Dogad75 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO : https://www.france-amerique.com/articles/2007/09/19/pierre-vimont-le-nouvel-ambassadeur-de-france-a-washington.html Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: The source mentioned in nomination is not an exact duplicate but the same motive. Per deleted contributions of uploader and COM:PCP Krd 09:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder request, ticket:2014041510020541 and [1] §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyvio Krd 09:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope, blp problems Smallbones (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. I really don't see any sort of potential use for this; it's... I can't think of the correct term right now, so the best description I could give is "like something that would be shared on Facebook". - Purplewowies (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope; private photo of a non-notable person Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only serves as a portrait for the uploader's spammy autobiography on Wikipedia. Qwertyus (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per discussion Krd 04:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: copyvio Krd 04:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: its a clear copyright violation so no nomination is necessary, a speedy deletion is all that is needed. I have tagged it appropriately. Ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"own work", no sources, no permissions 91.66.152.253 07:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zweimal vorhanden durch Fehler beim Hochladen Dguendel 07:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posing family in front of the monument. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep How much more consent do you need than posing? And there are no children in the picture, where you could imagine they didn't know what they were doing. --Wuselig (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: In use on enwiki -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken from a blog. Unclear copyright terms 91.66.152.253 08:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File needs an OTRS ticket from http://www.galrystore.com 91.66.152.253 09:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, commons is not facebook Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CV of non notable person - out of scope surely Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CV of non notable person - out of scope surely Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet type meme/poster - out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising surely - out of scope Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "own work" but a photograph of a photograph that has no license information. It cannot be licensed as CC-BY-SA. Pxos (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplicate of File:Flag of Dolores (Tolima).svg, with greater size and worse name and it is used only in user pages Hosmich (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per above. - Fma12 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope; probably an advertise Ciaurlec (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope; probably an advertise Ciaurlec (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate, I'm very sorry about that, my mistake Kim Bach (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clear advertising Smalljim (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clear advertising Smalljim (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marked © all rights reserved at http://www.writework.com/essay/metso-paper-marketing-plan MPF (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: license disallowing commercial use -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: license disallowing commercial use -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right issue Msanta20 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: License disallowing commercial use -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not own work: [2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE due to very low image quality, making this image unusable. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

• File:MI GATA SALVAJE NARANJA.JPG
• File:Gatita Naranja 2014.JPG
• File:Gata Naranja.JPG

---

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free space invader; taken from a stream of space invaders, therefore not de minimis. Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is the sign, looks de minimis to me.  Keep Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: COM:DM -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: the space invader is clearly not de minimis. The image contains 'space invader' in the title, it has been taken from a stream of space invaders and it is used in an article due to this space invader. The DR should be reviewed. TadejM ^(t/p) 08:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also tend to  Delete, no de minimis. Following the guidelines from Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines: (X means: The sticker "Space Inavders against Homophobia" on the traffic sign)

• the file is categorized in relation to X (fulfills)
• X is referenced in the filename (fulfills)
• X is referenced in the description (fulfills)

So, we've met three points against de minimis.--Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from uk:File:Скульптура кобзаря в Андрушівці.jpg (Ukrainian Wikipedia) and already locally tagged with {{NoCommons|nofop}}, considering COM:FOP#Ukraine. Seems to be a modern statue/sculpture for which further details I could not retrieve. Gunnex (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: no FoP in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве, встречается в Интернете ранее загрузки на Викисклад, см. http://batzbatz.com/uploads/posts/2010-11/1290937227_lyanik-m.jpg Dogad75 (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: no evidence of permission Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

missing permission, likely false claim to ownership Lady Lotus (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения а авторстве и лицензии, фото, скорее всего, взято с официального сайта музыкана http://razumihina.ru/images/data/gallery_1631.jpg Dogad75 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения свободной лицензии. На ранее загруженном фото указано ...by Marina Cherednichenko. All rights reserved. Dogad75 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: no evidence of permission Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. См. http://kyky.org/news/akute-priedstavili-naskroz-2013-04-03, все права на материалы сайта защищены. Dogad75 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather misleadingly named, implying that it is a generic template for those four languages, but the actual template refers to a certain project that has by now been abandoned. Whereas the other templates are used instead of the Information template, this was used together with it. I have replaced the few pages where this template was used with the COAInformation. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Unused template -- Steinsplitter (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader has a history of uploading copyvios as {{Own work}} (see File:Bucknell University's Academic Quad In Spring.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Football players.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:KLARC -- The Kenneth Langone Athletics and Recreation Center.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Ellen Clarke Bertrand Library.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academic Quad, Bucknell University.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olin Science Building.jpg), making the claims of {{Own work}} here not viable.--[User:GrapedApe|GrapedApe]] (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

não pode ser publicado em meu nome de usuário Tricy (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: uploader request Krd 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no authorship, low resolution, no exif, indicates likely copyvio to me russavia (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much tilt, overexposed, better version is File:(1)Glendale_in_Glebe.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much tilt, also needs cropping, better version is File:(1)St_James_Parish_House_Woolley_Street_Glebe.jpg. Sardaka (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status. Uploaded on 27.11.2011 by Alamarvdasht (talk · contribs) as "own work" the user added in 01.2014 the original source = http://www.panoramio.com/photo/57224242 (08.2011, CC BY-NC 3.0 by H-Karimi هادی کریمی ) which would need a permission from "H-Karimi هادی کریمی ". Checking User talk:Alamarvdasht we have already some related copyvio notes (example) = http://www.panoramio.com/photo/49972470 (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 by Hadi Karimi, quite similar to - see above - Panoramio user "H-Karimi" ).

But: Despite the deletions and instead of counter-arguing, the user keeps uploading images with uncertain copyright status.

Additionally, File:Tecomella undulata tree in Alamarvdasht, Fars, Iran, by Hadi Karimi.jpg or File:Derak Mount Shiraz1 Hadi Karimi.jpg (a featured picture) or File:Tange boragh-Hadi Karimi.jpg and lots of other uploads by Alamarvdasht apparently were all originally published at Panoramio either by "Hadi Karimi" or "H-Karimi", always - as I could verfiy - licensed with CC BY-NC-[ND] 3.0, which would fail COM:L.

By whatever means we need a clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence that Alamarvdasht = Panoramio user(s) "Hadi Karimi" or "H-Karimi". I suspect that the uploader does not understand Englisch and/or is overwhelmed by Commons license policy so a contact in the first language of uploader (Persian) should be made to clarify the situation (which I can not provide). Gunnex (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather misleadingly named, implying that it is a generic template for those four languages, but the actual template refers to a certain project that has by now been abandoned. Whereas the other templates are used instead of the Information template, this was used together with it. I have replaced the few pages where this template was used with the COAInformation. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Unused template -- Steinsplitter (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identity is incorrect. Not Stomoxys calcitrans. 220.237.96.81 10:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skoch3 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC): I requested the file name be changed to contain the correct family name. This family was identified by another user, who also changed the categories accordingly. I don't think there is justification for deletion if the file name is changed. Thank you![reply]

---

Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of http://www.j4s.fr/inc/img/j4s_logo_index.png Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве, так как участник Руслан Кодацкий, загрузивший фото, сам изображён на данной фотографии. Смотрите подпись к фото https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:В_далеком_1987.JPG. Dogad75 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Underlying lk as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.spektakulart.se/fem-fragor-jonna-berggren/
Converted by me to DR, as the external website credits the same name as our uploader is and also the external image has far lower resolution. Eventually we might ask our uploader for confirmation via OTRS. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: I hadn't noticed that the name in the photo credit was the same as the uploader's. Considering that, I would say that it is probably not a copyvio, so the nomination can be withdrawn if it's okay with you.--Underlying lk (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I better answer on this page too (same answer can be seen on my discussion page): "I am the photographer of this picture (see the byline on the bottom of http://www.spektakulart.se/fem-fragor-jonna-berggren/). I have not sold this picture, I own all the rights. And I am publishing this picture here on wikimedia commons with a creative commons license (CC-BY-SA 3.0). The copyright notification on the bottom of the blog does not include the pictures on the site. I have also here on wikimedia uploaded another (so far unpublished) picture of the same person taken with the same camera and on the same date (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jonna_Berggren1s.JPG), feel free to compare the EXIF metadata." Sofie Sigrinn (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Uploader's statement was compelling. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения от автора о передаче файла в общественное достояние. Dogad75 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User request, personality rights, not used. See https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=7406854 Yann (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Встречается в Интернете в большем разрешении, в метаданных указано время изменения 21 сентября 2011 года. См. http://www.psilon.org/media/contents/8219/big.arty-artem-stovalory_0001.jpg Dogad75 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Картина украинского художника Алекссея Ретинского. Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Dogad75 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Рисунок украинского художника Алекссея Ретинского. Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Dogad75 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Картина украинского художника Алекссея Ретинского. Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Dogad75 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image presents COM:CONSENT issues, in that it is taken inside a prison, and these people are prisoners who are identifiable. russavia (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is in use on English Wikipedia, I'll notify that talk page. I tend to agree this should be  Deleted, I don't know the legal status of a prison (whether or not it's legally considered a public place) but in my opinion it does not seem likely to me that prisoners performing for other prisoners would reasonably expect those images to be displayed to an international audience. -Pete F (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment COM:IDENT has important background for a decision like this. -Pete F (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free sticker. Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free stickers. Eleassar ^(t/p) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Russia + copied from a copyrighted source 95.25.25.161 16:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not good pic. We have this of mariner 1 File:Atlas Agena with Mariner 1.jpg and likely a copyviol like all other user uploads Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is from a trailer from a British film not an American film may not fall under the copyright tag given 69.124.39.237 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed at http://exoticplanes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/bangladesh-air-force-spotters-view.html to be copyright of "Kevin Gutt" MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a photograph of a map board at the castle. Uploaded in good faith, but it is a copyrighted 2D image, not covered by the right of panorama in the UK Hchc2009 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken SVG, superceded by unbroken SVG image Themightyquill (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the person pictured (presumably) edited my page on Polish wikipedia, saying that she'd like to have that photo removed. I think this file should be deleted, as it's also not a good quality. Dudek1337 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a still copyrighted artwork. JuTa 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

нарушение авторских прав: http://www.artlib.ru/index.php?id=11&idp=45&fp=2&uid=26720&iid=399229&idg=0&user_serie=0 Zugr (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a private snapshot and out of project scope. JuTa 20:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

awards are 3d sculptures not usually free from copyright protection. in addition to that, the image quality and size looks like it has been published on the Internet elsewhere before it was published here. Vera (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии, ищется в Интернете ранее загрузки в Википедию, см http://www.baku.ru/pht-view.php?id=161725 Dogad75 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

На сайте-исьочнике указана лицензия CC-NC-BY-SA 3.0, см. https://archive.org/details/DelphicGamesViolinages17-21.3Tour.E.o.Tarosyan Dogad75 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве. В Интернете размещена гораздо ранее и более полное фото, см. http://photo.topdj.ua/49027/849657/#849658. Dogad75 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Dogad75 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Во-первых нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии, во-вторых, на фотографии сам автор изображения, что скорее всего указывает, что автор фото другой человек. Dogad75 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения свободной лицензии, на сайте укзано © 2011—2014 Портал «Планета» Dogad75 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения авторства и свободной лицензии. Возможно, фото взято с официального сайта музыканта, см. http://razumihina.ru/ru/druzia/ Dogad75 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии, сомнения в авторстве ("сфотографировано и отредактировано участниками группы"-разрешение от каждого участника?) Dogad75 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Нет разрешения на свободную лицензию. Dogad75 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source, low quality, orphaned. Leyo 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment – Fixed. The source is now visible on the file page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: Fixed and way to cute to delete Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Сомнения в авторстве, ранее встречается в Интернете, см. http://www.ideasforbrands.ru/ARMA, http://vk.com/vkmusicians/breaks?z=photo11212332_304882191%2Fwall-50695130_9448 Dogad75 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image used only by prank page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded in 05.2013 by Samaksasanian (talk · contribs): unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously edited, most likely grabbed from http://anzaliport.pmo.ir/fa/links/banadertabea/astara/properties = http://anzaliport.pmo.ir/pso_content/media/image/2013/01/25143_orig.jpg (last modified: 01.2013) Gunnex (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Affected collage (will receive a separte DR): File:Astara montage.png. Gunnex (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality; similar file yet exist Ciaurlec (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image comes from http://www.discasanave.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=300049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominae (talk • contribs) 2014-04-15T06:58:21‎ (UTC)

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image comes from http://www.discasanave.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=300049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominae (talk • contribs) 2014-04-15T06:58:18‎ (UTC)

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free stickers. Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free stickers. Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, poor quality image and unused. There are better alternatives:

• File:Leonardo Da Vinci - Vergine delle Rocce (Louvre).jpg
• File:Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg
• File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg

See also this. Angelus^(talk) 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, blurred, poor quality image and unused. There are better alternatives:

• File:Leonardo Da Vinci - Vergine delle Rocce (Louvre).jpg
• File:Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg
• File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg

See also this. Angelus^(talk) 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, poor quality image (low resolution, blurred and dark colours) and unused. There are better alternatives:

• File:Leonardo Da Vinci - Vergine delle Rocce (Louvre).jpg
• File:Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg
• File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin of the Rocks (Louvre).jpg

See also this. Angelus^(talk) 23:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the portraits and the building in the background are of interest, not de minimis, in this phot. Eleassar ^(t/p) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the metadata user has made this pictures with different cameras, some images doesn't have metatags. The images are also in different sizes and different qualities. I doubt we can trust the uploader that this is his work. Avron (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found that with google--Sanandros (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image comes from http://www.discasanave.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=300049 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominae (talk • contribs) 2014-04-15T06:58:02‎ (UTC) Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private images, bad quality, out of scope

• File:सनी हजंग 2014-03-28 04-00.jpg
• File:सनी हजंग 2014-03-28 03-58.jpg
• File:Front sunny hajong 2014-03-28 03-54.jpg
• File:Sunny hajong4 2014-03-28 03-53.jpg
• File:Sunny hajong's holi in kishanganj, bihar 2014-03-28 03-52.jpg
• File:Sunny hajong3 2014-03-28 03-50.jpg
• File:Sunny hajong2 2014-03-28 03-49.jpg
• File:Tooo late 2014-03-28 03-48.jpg
• File:Sunny's hand tattoo 2014-03-28 03-48.jpg
• File:Sunny Hajong 2014-03-28 03-43.JPG

Indeedous (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: per nomination Krd 04:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Some file names are uncompromisable. SVG is definitely better format.

• File:Global Broadcast System Logo.png
• File:GBC World Radio Logo.png
• File:GBC World Logo.png
• File:Other GBC World.png
• File:GBC HDTV Logo.png
• File:GBC Logo.png
• File:Korea Global Broadcast Corporation GBC Logo.png
• File:Korea Global Broadcast Corporation Logo.png
• File:Eawerr74415.png
• File:Frvg41145sr.png
• File:Aeew5448a.png
• File:54254fdew14.png
• File:74f54rew541.png
• File:8rko4spk.png
• File:GBC Plus15 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus14 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus13 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus12 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus11 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus10 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus9 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus8 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus7 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus6 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus5 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus4 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus3 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus1 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus2 Television Logo.png
• File:GBC Plus Television Logo.png

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters not clearly released by production company or whoever owns the rights. Probably not {{Own}} as claimed.

• File:5Peruchazhi Poster 2.jpg
• File:4Peruchazhi Poster 1.jpg
• File:Peruchazhi First Poster.jpg
• File:Peruchazhi Second Poster.jpg
• File:2peruchazhi.jpg
• File:1peruchazhi.jpg

Storkk (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Movie posters. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion. This picture is part of a massive promotional attack to Wikipedia and all its related projects. Details can be found here Hypergio (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The link Hypergio (talk · contribs) provides actually seems to call into question the actions of individuals in preforming some locks and initiating some measures against accounts that were perhaps not warranted. This proposal to delete images by this photographer seems to be part of a subsequent cross-wiki campaign by a very few people to eliminate any trace of him from the Wikimedia projects, some of which have apparently existed since at least 2010, after that recent suspicious effort, apparently by him or by someone on his behalf, to simply create user pages for him on many Wikimedia projects. Whatever the merits or foolishness of that effort, I certainly consider some of his work at Photographs by Augusto De Luca quite notable and worthy for inclusion, and much of it has existed here for years now, with little or no controversy, and now that it has come to my attention in recent weeks, I intend to use more of it at the Wikiquote project. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
•  Keep (I am the author of the study-in-progress cited by the nominator.) This file is in use on 31 wikis or so. Highly improper to delete unless that is handled first, this would be Commons making local content decisions. Kalki is correct that there is a global campaign. It's claimed that there was a global promotional campaign, and the evidence supports that as possible, except that "campaign" is a strong word for the action of a few editors over a few years. However there is definitely a global campaign to delete everything Augusto De Luca, without any regard for actual content guidelines, with a very high level of work going into that deletion effort, all without prior discussion or warning to the editors or wikis involved. --Abd (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kept: No rationale for deletion request SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviol: This is a photo made by user GIUNCO, as he wrote, but actually this image shows a photo made by another photograph, so it is a copyviol, please note that the size of the copyrighted image (the brick tower and the blue sky exceeds the Commons:De minimis acceptable appearance dimension. Bramfab (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The function of the "photo" -- it may be a collage of photos, "bricks," very unclear -- is as illumination, allowing the silhouette of Augusto De Luca to appear; which is why this photo is so widely used in articles on De Luca, and this use appears to have been specifically permitted by De Luca, and the possibly copyrighted content is de minimus. "De minimus" is not a standard measured by area, but by the nature of the use. I read the de minimus policy as permitting this. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a collage of photos, but a full single size photo of a copyrighted photo token with a black head of somebody in forefront, (black because it was in the shadows side of the room). It is evident that Commons:De_minimis#An_example is not accomplished : Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. In taking the photograph and uploading it to Commons, the photographer will of course be making a copy of the poster design, and without consent that will generally be an infringement and hence not allowed. The fact that the photographer has created a new copyright of his/her own does not prevent the poster copyright from being infringed, and that is so even if the photograph displays a high level of originality itself. However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster.

Plus the description of this photo is quite explicit: "Augusto De Luca - Workshop - Screening of his best photographs" so the presence of copyrighted photograph is relevant, not incidental, is on focus and definitively not hidden.

I would to add something about the right of use of the silhouette; 1) the actual silhouette is not from an collage or cut and paste from other photos, but comes straight from this pictures taken by GIUNCO, so does not need any permission from somebody else for its usage, but from the actual photographer , 2) where is the indication of permission given by De Luca about use of his silhouette (made by himself obviously) as CC-BY-SA-3.0 ? (I am asking this, just for the theoretical case of other photos really made by collage of images from De Luca and from a third photographer).--Bramfab (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is only one "photograph" which is clearly involved here. That was taken by GIUNCO. It is a photograph of Augusto De Luca, a photographer, apparently at an exhibition of his works. Only the silhouette of De Luca is visible, De Luca being in front of what appears to be a projected image, a "tower of photographs," I assume. That would represent the "towering corpus of his work." Each of the photos has been reduced to what Bramfab calls a "brick." It is not clear if the original photos were visible, or if the bricks are just a simplified representation of some sort of density-variable content. The bricks show various aspect ratios. The projected image is not a photograph, it is, at most, a work of art. It would be copyrightable, as such, though it is primitive and schematic.
• The photo is of a living person. My sense of GIUNCO, from reviewing his work, is that he is a photographer himself, as with a number of those who have uploaded the work of De Luca. Our subject is artistically brilliant as a biographical photo of De Luca, because in one image, it captures De Luca's style. That is, De Luca has a sense of color and composition, which the background image shows, and De Luca often plays with shadow and shows silhouettes. Seeing this photo in the articles on De Luca, I had assumed De Luca was the photographer, but it was GIUNCO, who obtained permission, not for the background, which would not have been necessary under the de minimus principle, but for a personal photo to be taken, as a courtesy (because GIUNCO obviously believes that De Luca is a notable person, and the photo was taken in a public place.)
• The claim of copyright on a personal silhouette, created only by the act of photography, is preposterous. Rules about photos of living persons apply, instead.
• It may not be relevant here, but there is clearly a campaign to harass De Luca and nearly all those who edited the wikis with his images and who created articles, based on alleged "promotion." It is claimed that all these editors were "sock puppets," presumably of De Luca, or paid by him. However, if a deletion can be justified for lack of permission from De Luca, that's asserted as well. It couldn't be both. I'm studying the incident, see the link in the prior nomination. Based on what I'm seeing, so far, I will ultimately file process to reverse some of the actions.
• What may be useful to know here is that six users have been globally locked, so far, unilaterally and without discussion, completely outside normal process, hundreds of user pages were directly deleted by a global sysop and two stewards, and one steward deleted perhaps a hundred wiki articles without notice or warning, and GIUNCO is among those locked, see CentralAuth for GIUNCO, so the user cannot reply. The page User:Augusto De Luca was created here in March and summarily deleted, based on a speedy deletion tag, and locally blocked, even though already globally locked, so we also cannot ask De Luca here about any permission issues. As to images, we are, so far, only seeing some fallout on Commons, nominations by relatively naive editors.
• Assuming that the De Luca page followed the pattern on other wikis, it was a single displayed image, a photo by De Luca, hosted here, and contained no other text.
• This is a meta issue, ultimately; however, local wikis have discretion. I am acting at this point to prevent the loss of this image, still widely used in project articles. --Abd (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not blind: not brick but brick tower, i.e tower made of bricks, wholly visible in the photo, not small details. If the bricks and the tower are real or virtual does not matter, it is always a copyright image, unless explicit released license. And the copyright infringed is not about the man's silhouette, but about the picture composed of tower+blue sky+moon. This deletion request is related to the evident copy-viol, not to the fact that "a global sysop and two stewards, and one steward deleted", although I have to note that, if such operators have made such relevant deletions, some good reason should exist. --Bramfab (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oy vey, another Augusto De Luca nomination. At least this nomination seems to have some merit, judging from a quick search through Google. This image appears to have been previously published on Vimeo.com about four years ago, approximately 2010, while the image here on Commons was uploaded in 2011. We don't know if in that video Augusto De Luca ever indicated any intention to publish that specific image under a free license, and we don't know if the uploader User:GIUNCO was ever authorized to release such an image under the given license, whether he might actually be the copyright holder (Augusto De Luca) or someone representing him. This therefore becomes the job of the Commons:OTRS team. If anyone knows how to contact Augusto De Luca directly, through an official email bearing his name or whatever, and convince him to send information to OTRS, that would be great.
• Bramfab, you assert that the bricks appearing behind the silhouette is a potential copyright violation. Why do you think it is a separate photo from the picture? I also note that there is a lack of EXIF data, perhaps that could help solve this issue. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never assert that, I assert and wrote (please have a look above) "If the bricks and the tower are real or virtual does not matter, it is always a copyright image, unless explicit released license. And the copyright infringed is not about the man's silhouette, but about the picture composed of tower+blue sky+moon." and "please note that the size of the copyrighted image (the brick tower and the blue sky exceeds the Commons:De minimis acceptable appearance dimension."

I never assert that the silhouette is a separate photo from the picture? I wrote (please have a look above) "It is not a collage of photos, but a full single size photo of a copyrighted photo token with a black head of somebody in forefront, (black because it was in the shadows side of the room)". But even in acceptance the hypothesis of collage does not change nothing about infringement of copyright.

I would notice that "we don't know if the uploader User:GIUNCO was ever authorized": this "we don't know" simply means that the image is not licensed in acceptable way for Commons. That it!--Bramfab (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No. GIUNCO claimed permission from De Luca. TeleCom is correct that, if permission is needed, OTRS might need to be involved, to confirm the matter. Possibly complicating contacting both Augusto De Luca and GIUNCO is that both have been globally locked. Augusto De Luca created a user account here a few days ago, deleted. I'll ping them, there is some small possibility they will somehow notice.
• If the background possible copyright infringement is de minimus -- which is my opinion --, then there is no ground for deletion here. I'm working on getting the accounts unlocked, and on independently contacting De Luca.
• Thanks to TeleCom for finding that image. However, the image referenced is not a photo by Augusto De Luca, it is a photo by GIUNCO, displayed in a video about De Luca. That is, I am assuming that GIUNCO told the truth, that this was his work, not Augusto's.
• If I'm correct, this image is higher quality than the Vimeo image, so this image was not copied from there. The background appears to be a projection displayed during a workshop by De Luca. GIUNCO claimed a photography date and place of 08/11/2009, it:Ariano Irpino (Palazzo Forte).
• From the Vimeo evidence, Augusto De Luca certainly permitted the photo to be taken. He used it! He also appears to have confirmed release for some photos here through OTRS, I remember seeing that, but I don't recall what specific image was involved. It's clear that GIUNCO and De Luca were cooperative. This photo is emblazoned across many of the Wikipedia articles about De Luca, it could hardly have escaped notice.
• Given that Commons may be nail-it-down has-to-be-bulletproof, once a file has come to attention, I'll mostly rely here on the de minimus doctrine, since the essence of this photo is the original silhouette of De Luca, not the background, and at the same time I'll work to contact De Luca to nail it down. I'm worried that the flap over his user pages may discourage him from responding. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last comments just confirm that the image is not licensed in acceptable way for Commons. That it!--Bramfab (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarity, an image being "free for use" is not acceptable on Commons, because it could be interpreted as simply "free for viewing on the Web" rather than the explicit "free for re-use and remix in perpetuity" that CC licenses offer us. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• background image found. It's right here. File:Augusto_De_Luca_-_foto_2.jpg. cc-by-sa-2.0 license. If I'm correct, that's a wrap, we can all go home. GIUNCO photographed Augusto De Luca in front of a projection of the foto_2 image. Further permission unnecessary, not necessary to determine de minimus usage. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the image from the Vimeo video even predates the Flickr release by about one year, but it could perhaps be the same Augusto De Luca and he, as sole copyright holder, could choose to license it differently on Vimeo and Flickr. Do note however, that Commons has Commons:Questionable Flickr images and Commons:License laundering policies, in certain situations where Flickr users tend to be unreliable and may pose to be other famous people (commonly when they are fans of those people and wish to roleplay) but in general I think we can take on good faith the Flickr identity to be the same Augusto De Luca as the Vimeo identity assumes.
  • We would still need to modify the current photograph to correctly attribute the original image plus compilation of silhouette as per the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 license. Bramfab, would this still be considered a copyright violation? If we attribute correctly the bricks image behind the silhouette, would the separate silhouette image, or the resulting compilation of silhouette plus bricks image, which requires original thought, qualify as copyright violations? Or would you say File:Augusto De Luca - foto 2.jpg might itself be a copyright violation? I've not seen evidence of such, but please let me know when more information comes up. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, are we absolutely sure that it was GIUNCO who created this image, as he claimed with "own work"? After all, GIUNCO did commit a technical copyright violation when he did not attribute the original background image to Augusto De Luca properly, and thus failed to meet the terms of the CC-BY-SA-2.0 license. Are we sure he didn't just take this image from somewhere else, perhaps from Augusto De Luca himself? After that violation, I think it might be insufficient to simply take his word on good faith that he created this image in its entirety. But judging him would probably be best left to the closing administrator to decide. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, my concerns continue to be unaddressed. Was the image taken by GIUNCO or Augusto De Luca? And if the latter, did Augusto De Luca ever authorize GIUNCO to release the current image under the given license? It's quite possible Augusto De Luca only intended the background image to be freely licensed, which leaves the copyright of the current image "silhouette plus background" in doubt. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By sure the actual license is not correct for Commons, me too I left last word to the closing administrator.--Bramfab (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the face of it, GIUNCO puts up an image presented as "(Augusto De Luca - Workshop - Screening of his best photographs)." There is a profile of Augusto, holding a microphone, in front of an image that we have confirmed is a De Luca photograph. Obviously, someone took the photo, and it was very unlikely to be De Luca. The current image copyright would be owned by the photographer, by default. Not De Luca. GIUNCO has claimed to be that photographer. We routinely allow such claims. GIUNCO did, in effect, attribute the background image to De Luca, it's implicit in his title. If that attribution needs to be more explicit in the license here, that's trivial to fix. I had thought that OTRS might need to be involved because of the background image, if it was not considered de minimus, but that has been handled by finding the background free license. I do think we are done. --Abd (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete: Image previously uploaded to Vimeo with no indication of free license. This is a difficult nomination closure, due to the image behind the man's head being found (after the deletion nomination) to have been free. However, the Vimeo publication is earlier than the upload to Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All from Eurovision.tv, and all rights reserved.

• File:Teo 34.jpg
• File:Dng img 2050.jpg
• File:Mariya Yaremchuk.jpg
• File:Riskykidd-diapisteusi.jpg
• File:Tijana - to the sky - 2.jpg
• File:Mg 0397r.jpg
• File:Suzy-converted.jpg
• File:Tolmachevy.jpg

Storkk (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).

• File:CUernBELoxg.jpg
• File:IM69G 2623.jpg
• File:IгнгнMG 26018796.jpg
• File:67мп26767632.jpg
• File:2p6N4UgGYBs.jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope

• File:Fery Darmansyah 2014-03-27 22-09.JPG
• File:Fery Darmansyah 2014-03-27 22-07.jpg

Indeedous (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:OM Wiki.png
• File:Bone-anchored-hearing-oticon (1).png

The images above contain an image that appears to be identical to one at http://www.oticonmedical.nl/ (direct link to image if it is not appearing on the homepage there) aside from cropping and saturation. Oticon likely would have copyrighted that image, and so it's probably not the user's own work. --Purplewowies (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Khan Academy material is NC, See https://www.khanacademy.org/about/tos, paragraph 7.2:

"7.2 License Restrictions. The Licensed Educational Content is intended for personal, non-commercial use only."

• File:Algebra 2 - simple linear equations.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Adding and subtracting fractions.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Dividing fractions.ogv
• File:Khan Academy heart disease.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Multiplying and dividing negative numbers.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Multiplying fractions.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Solving Equations 1.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Solving Equations 2.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Statistics Sample vs Population Mean.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Statistics The Average.ogv
• File:Khan Academy Statistics Variance of a Population.ogv
• File:Solving quadratic-equations.ogv

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Sad, but true... see: youtube source it is under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported --Jahobr (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep These were relicensed, and CC licenses are not revocable. For the heart disease one specifically, it says "Licensed under CC-BY-SA" on the YouTube page; Sal Khan confirmed this to be the case. For the others, it says on the Commons page that all Khan Academy videos are licensed under CC BY-SA, and this used to be the case. InverseHypercube 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Apparently NC licensed. Even if they are actually cc-by-sa, they will require OTRS permission to be restored FASTILY 08:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request from the Loren Mizrachi. See ticket:2014032410021418. None of these are used, and except for the portraits, I think that the educational value is poor, so we can delete them. Regards,

• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 1.JPG
• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 2.JPG
• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 3.JPG
• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 4.JPG
• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 5.JPG
• File:Angel Felon and Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 6.JPG
• File:Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 1.jpg
• File:Loren Mizrachi at Porn Star Karaoke 20050412 2.JPG
• File:Loren Mizrachi, Angel Felon at 2006 AVN Awards 1.jpg
• File:Loren Mizrachi, Angel Felon at 2006 AVN Awards 2.jpg

Yann (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why we have all those shots was because we had a valid OTRS ticket from Luke Ford for all of his shots, and we know some of the shots we have on this site have been lost from the originating site, so we grabbed every valid shot we could locate. Loren Mizrachi (assuming we're talking the same person) appears to have as his sole aspect of notability being a part of a LA punk band called SHI which (after Loren left) became Entropy (two demo tapes, one CD and no Wiki article from what I can tell). So I would say Loren is non-notable. Checking on the lady with him in most of the shot, it turns out Angel Felon made all of four adult videos before disappearing all together; she is non-notable. At this point, I would say yes,  Delete the shots as a courtesy to Loren with the proviso that if/when he does become a notable figure we will restore the shots as they will have an education value at that point. Tabercil (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image, out of scope

• File:S- Nick Barua 2014-03-28 22-21.jpg
• File:S. Nick Barua - ニック バルア.jpg
• File:S. Nick Barua - Fashion Week Milan.jpg
• File:S. Nick Barua - Millan Fashion Week.jpg
• File:S. Nick Barua.jpg
• File:S. Nick Barua ニック バルア.jpg

Indeedous (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]