Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/09/18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 18th, 2013
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Birgit Virnich hat persönlich um die Löschung gebeten, es handelt sich um ein Privatfoto. Sie hält die Rechte an dem Bild persönlich und hat einer Veröffentlichung nicht zugestimmt. The portrayed Birgit Virnich demanded deletion personally. It is a private photo, she holds copyright and does not grant permission to publish it. Scoop1006 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, regardless of copyright, German personality rights laws mean that we have to delete this image.--KTo288 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by user with history of uploading copyvios Mattythewhite (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Copyvio of http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4275280/Now-its-Watt-for-Scotland.html. Uploader blocked. January (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by user with history of uploading copyvios Mattythewhite (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Deleted, copyvio of http://talentshunter.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/fernando-canesin/. January (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by user with history of uploading copyvios Mattythewhite (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Copyvio of http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Arkadiusz+Milik/Republic+Ireland+v+Poland+International+Friendly/uT7pTXSnlLW. January (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by user with history of uploading copyvios Mattythewhite (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Copyvio of http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/sport/2013/08/12/news/pasquato-esordio-super-1.7570403. January (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded by user with history of uploading copyvios Mattythewhite (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Copyvio of http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Giulio+Donati/Italy+v+Netherlands+UEFA+European+U21+Championships/Mhl8bQwKFHI. January (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Obsolete because a more recent image from Grayson's 113th term in Congress has been added here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alan_Grayson_Updated_Headshot.jpg#file. This image was from 2008. Ldl766 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Closed as kept. I see no reason to leave this open, I think the nominator does not understand the purpose of Commons. If you want to use a more recent photo of the person in their Wikipedia article, fine. That is not a reason to delete good quality high res images of notable people from Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy of this file http://www.cardinalfang.net/biographies/chapman_biog.html which is uploaded as a Non Free file on Wikipedia Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, blatant copyviol with false info. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Based on this, and the lack of response from the uploader (seen here), and the multiple notices of deletion due to copyright as mentioned here, I propose that this particular image was improperly uploaded and should be removed. DS (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Most likely grabbed from (as indicated: "wordpress") http://octaviasvintage.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/portland-maine-enter-through-the-back-door-part-ii-the-old-port/ (01.2012) = http://octaviasvintage.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/old-port-portland-maine-portland-maine-gccb.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

A composite of present-day and historic images of unknown provenance (but not old enough to be PD, see truck -> suspect copyvio). Kaluga.2012 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Historical part coming from http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/brotherpilot/tags/%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB/view/244416?page=0 (2010 by "BrotherPilot") = http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9/brotherpilot.1/0_3bac0_d4944f68_orig. Gunnex (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No evidence of permission, most possibly not “own work”. -- Tuválkin 01:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Most likely (derivated) grabbed from internet. Historical photos may be in public domain in U.S. and source country but relevant info must be provided. Gunnex (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, orphan yoinked photo with no description, false license, false source. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate of File:Bucket dog (1700091105).jpg. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, similar to what was published via (example) http://www.ajc.org/site/c.fmJZKhOWJfI6G/b.8505133/k.604E/Energy_Independence_Event_III__October_24_2011__Save_the_Date.htm (2011, AJC © 2013) = http://www.ajc.org/atf/Account16283/images/_21711910259619.jpg (last modified: 2011, lower res, not the complete frame but identical exif) Gunnex (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work (uploaded in 05.2013): small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, considering also (smaller res, not the complete frame) https://plus.google.com/photos/100642289109174245753/albums/profile/5843383411500149394?pid=5843383411500149394&oid=100642289109174245753 (02.2013) or http://arnona.co.il/index.asp?Article=1133 (2009) = http://arnona.co.il/files/israel_zinger2.jpg (last modified: 2009) Gunnex (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Most likely derviated & cropped from (example) http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4325438,00.html (2012, credits: "Foto: Gerard Alon", lower res) = http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2012/12/27/4361891/43543221987100408257no.jpg or (similar) http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/TNXQRwhqLqA/maxresdefault.jpg Gunnex (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

rubbish 91.66.153.214 09:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Tin Eye has found 13 copies. All other uploads by this user are dubiuos, especially an "own work" of 1914. 91.66.153.214 09:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Uploaded by Dan Gallard in 09.2011. Per http://animalnewyork.com/2013/murders-mishaps-and-mayhem-caught-on-camera-by-enrique-metinides/mexico-city-september-19-1985/ = http://content.animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/slide_280651_2102414_splashmetinides.jpg exif available which indicates to photographer and copyrights by "Enrique Metinedes". Previously published by several media via Google, including http://www.noroeste.com.mx/publicaciones.php?id=709069 (08.2011) which credited the photo (here in lower res and watermarked version) to above cited Enrique Metinedes = "El mexicano Enrique Metinides, es apodado en París como "el fotógrafo de los desastres"". Gunnex (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Tagged with copyvio via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/lynn-whitfield-talks-new-film-kings-faith_n_3051607.html (04.2013, credits: "Nancy Ostertag/Getty Images") = http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1079544/thumbs/o-LYNN-WHITFIELD-KINGS-FAITH-facebook.jpg (exif available). Gunnex (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Taken from http://im.rediff.com/sports/2013/sep/15la-liga1.jpg Mattythewhite (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

can blatant advertising really be allowed on here, other suspect images by user then also Mjrmtg (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Bad quality (low rez, overexposed) and unnecessary as it shows trivial subject and composition (see Category:Ponte 25 de Abril from Lisbon). -- Tuválkin 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Logo of non notable company. Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of COM:SCOPE; website screenshot, seems of little use. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused user signature 91.66.153.214 12:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It does not fit the category "Cultural Monument" Denjinman (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the categories. 91.66.153.214 13:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Didym (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It does not fit the category "Cultural Monument" Denjinman (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Now they are in Category:Chocolate Hills. BTW: ..."they have been declared the country's third National Geological Monument and proposed for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage List" according to w:Chocolate Hills. 91.66.153.214 13:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Didym (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in France. This statue is a work by the sculptor Noël Bonardi, died in 2012 only. Myrabella (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It is from a German user used only in de:wikipedia. Can onyone upload this picture in de:wikipedia to preserve it? Or only the author? Before deletion i would upload it to German wikipedia. --Ras67 (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Postcard from 1960s is probably copyrighted. Gumruch (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This so-called "own work" comes from http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0511-0903-2722-5551.html Copyright © Acclaim Imagery, Ltd. All Rights Reserved 91.66.153.214 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Logo of a non-notable website. Rapsar (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Similar to what was previously published via http://joodshistorischm.m14.mailplus.nl/genericservice/code/servlet/React?encId=YkrUmjjTCvgjYqa&actId=314138924&command=openhtml = http://images.m14.mailplus.nl/mailing314138924/motzkin.jpg (last modified: 2011) and most likely grabbed from http://www.vanleer.org.il/ar/people/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%86 (All rights reserved to Van Leer) = http://www.vanleer.org.il/sites/files/image_field/motzkin.jpg Gunnex (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

EXIF attributes to photographer Joshua Berson, who would normally be expected to publish his photos under his name. Although an internet image search did not find this photo, it seems unlikely that the uploader is that photographer, considering the uploader's other deleted uploads that were taken from the internet. This would at least need OTRS confirmation from the photographer. Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Causing Ethnic tensions 46.225.32.247 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: This is makes no sense why it should be deleted, and there is no Ethnic tensions, just some people changing the map without showing sources. This is irrelevant, removed the deletion tag from the picture. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: HistoryofIran, nobody changed it without showing sources. My sources are official and more reliable than yours. -- Hami232 5:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Kept: INeverCry 01:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

this image comes from a blog at http://tatparade.blogspot.com/2009/01/rachel-sweet.html but I'm not seeing any proof os information relating to the copyright of the photo the uploader said it was Copyleft but I'm not seeing anything on the blog post that supports that unless their is something I missed I'm not seeing it. Dman41689 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of SCOPE,private, unused file. Revi (discuss|SUL) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: If only it had been better composed (move the camera slightly down and left) and properly lighted (flash, or, better, another lamp at the left), it would be a nice photo of a beaby being “held out” — a common position we don’t seem to have documented. Pity. -- Tuválkin 07:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Poor-quality penis photograph (part of subject cropped out, visual watermark) that does not bear any particular educational value. — Scott talk 18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It's Georg Wilhelm von Siemens, not Drumann. Copyright situation unclear. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Blurred beyond reasonable usability, even after possible sharpening considered Ubcule (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons is not a repository for (in user's own words "random" material) and none of the objects in this image are displayed in a manner likely to render the image usable (i.e. all are excessively cropped). Ubcule (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low-quality image of mystery cable. If description had been given and/or cable was clear enough to identify it *might* have been useful, but it wasn't given and the image isn't useful without it. Ubcule (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like a pencil sharpener, but without description that's just guesswork and severely limits value of image. Ubcule (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far; some of them are fine. Others aren't so great, and many go from being "useful" to "useless" because the uploader didn't provide a description.
I have already nominated quite a few- mainly the "random" ones, because those are not useful without a description (and some are borderline cases or clearly out-of-scope even with a description). Ubcule (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope, unused Ubcule (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image of "vocalist" (self-portrait/upload??) with no indication of in-scope purpose. Not used on personal page. Ubcule (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality genital photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Perhaps using Commons to host pictures? No encyclopedic use. Ryūkotsusei (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Perhaps using Commons to host pictures? No encyclopedic use. Ryūkotsusei (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Perhaps using Commons to host pictures? No encyclopedic use. Ryūkotsusei (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope Jcb (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

High probable copyright violation. For example please see http://cdn.blogosfere.it/sportemotori/images/melissa-satta-infophoto-big1.jpg Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 21:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Own work seems unlikely. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Low quality penis image. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused personal photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unlikely to be own work (uploaded in 2013). Most likely grabbed from http://www.shaqra3.net/vb/showthread.php?t=49262 (2012) = http://www.1ss1.com/data/2010/1ss1_13470627201.jpg (last modified: 2012, identical exif, watermarked but easily removable due to black background) Gunnex (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Invalid license, 70 years have not yet passed after 1947 Jcb (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unlikely own work as stated, and the given date 2013 cannot be correct as Mr. Sadat dies in 1981. JuTa 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Aliousaidou15@yahoo.fr 195.24.206.122 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: INeverCry 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar image (better focused) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No use, we have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 20:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Probable copyright violation. Source stated as "from a site that is the Alonso history." Hvd69 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image also doesn't come under WLM 2013 event and has personality rights

Personality rights Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence. See our general disclaimer for more information.
Kiranravikumar (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Personal image -- out of scope .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

"Own work", but: Uploader is only the compiler, not the photographer. Pic 2 and 3 with different watermarks 91.66.153.214 10:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Useless without a description 91.66.153.214 12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Google can't find an Areza District http://www.google.de/#psj=1&q=Areza+District 91.66.153.214 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: That's Google's problem, not ours -- see Areza, and Eritrea, both of which show it as part of the Debub region. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unable to find evidence on the claimed source site that they license their material under CC-SA 1.0. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I have serious doubts that a piece of satelite imagery from this user (with only one edit) is legitimately "own work". Likely ripped from somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

poor quality, we have other images of this type of device, such as File:Metal herb grinder-cannabis inside.JPG Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar picture (better straightened) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant, almost similar to this image. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Looks like an error (9 kb) 91.66.153.214 08:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Too small to be useful -- we have several other pix of the subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have this flag map in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No use, we have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 20:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. This, the uploader's only contribution here is, I feel, of no educational value as being only of a corridor in some student flat- and I doubt they would now wish to have possible evidence of the theft of a road sign lying around. Perhaps best to regard it as a test upload. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

If the photo was taken before March 31, 1949, the country of origin is not Canada but Newfoundland and Labrador. Regardless, we don't have enough information to determine the copyright status of the image either in its source country or in the United States. We don't know what year the photo was taken, and we have inadequate source information; the original uploader for the copy on en.wiki did not provide a source at all; the source information "Image by the Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca" was added some time later. Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Canada the w:Successor state for Newfoundland and Labrador? In that case, I believe that works from Newfoundland and Labrador would be treated identically as works from Canada. Compare with works from East Germany, which are treated in the same way as works from West Germany. In either case, what matters is the country of first publication, not the country of creation. I agree that we don't have enough source information. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ship was in service 1954-1987. That determines the earliest and latest possible years of publication of this photo. There is no reason to assume that this photo was first published outside Canada. This photo would need to have been published before 1946 to be in the public domain in the United States. The ship was launched in 1954. How would the photo be taken before 1949? There never was a country named "Newfoundland and Labrador". The source country policy is an internal policy of Commons with unclear justification, but presumably it is that people in the source country might be likely to have an interest in those photos. That would be actual people in current countries. Previous countries are irrelevant unless the situation has an influence on the current copyright status in actual countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Also, what does not matter is the name of the ship. If the Canadian Navy names a ship Luxembourg, that doesn't make Luxembourg the source country of photos of that ship. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been taken by 1962 (if not by 1957) - see here . As it is a Canadian Navy photo, Crown Copyright has consequently expired by statute (Copyright Act 1985, S12) - 50 years from end-of-year-of-production. I cannot see how US law can impute a copyright holder where none can exist - "people in the source country might be likely to have an interest in those photos" clearly doesn't apply to Crown Copyright. Davidships (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any actual proof that it is a Canadian Navy photo; there's inadequate source information provided for us to determine its provenance. I just discovered that the original uploader was blocked in 2006 on en.wiki for faking OTRS permissions and impersonating another user on Commons. en:User talk:Jcmurphy#Blocked. Here is the location of the image on en.wiki: en:File:CCGS Labrador.gif-- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that without evidence to the contrary, the reasonable default assumption can be that the source country of the photo is Canada, then the fact that it is attributed to the Canadian Navy or to someone else makes no difference for its copyright status in the United States, because it can't have been created nor published before 1946 and thus, unless explicitely released, its copyright can't possibly have expired before 1996 in Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for us, the copyrights in the United States often subsist on works even after their copyrights in their countries of origin are expired. Please see the page Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: / .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Personal data that has no valid use. Not clear that it can actually be licensed. QU TalkQu 16:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy delete. Personal data. Apparently, the uploader wants to use this image on wikibooks [2], but delete until the uploader explains what they are trying to do and that they have the right to do it. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Temporary speedy deletion to protect the visible personal data. May be restored pending uploader permission and verification via OTRS. DR is not closed yet pending an answer from the uploader. --Denniss (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 17:28, 18 September 2013 by Denniss, closed by .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

OS is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

OS is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 19:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

We have this flag in SVG. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copy of http://ismaeleljardineroarte.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ismael_el-_jardinero_retrato_2.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

95% probably uploaded by the artist or an art gallery. OTRS case. --Dereckson (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Professional portrait. Named author does not match watermark. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Cover from slovak statistics book published in 1958, unknown source Vegetator (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

totally wrong and impossible configuration of asymmetric carbon Starless (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This diagram was supposed to represent both enantiomers of ketamine without looking more like one than the other. Ben (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete That's an important kind of diagram to have. Would be clearer to have it with the cyclohexanone core as just a flat hexagon (no geoemetry at all) rather than conformational. And we have File:Ketamine.svg to fit that niche. DMacks (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant, almost similar to this one. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Please delete this Kingswood College crest as it is flawed. I would like to load the corrected crest Smutsd (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Not a reason to delete. Click on "Upload a new version of this file" below "File History" .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons is not supposed to host non-free fair use images (and the crest is apparently outdated although it looks the same to me on the school's website). HelenOnline 10:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have uploaded the logo currently used on the school's website (there are minor differences) directly to Wikipedia with a fair use licence. HelenOnline 10:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have uploaded another version that was uploaded here in 2013 directly to Wikipedia with a fair use licence and nominated it for deletion here, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kingswood crest 2013.jpg. HelenOnline 12:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per COM:PRP. INeverCry 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

La pyramide est l’œuvre de Ieoh Ming Pei qui est toujours en vie ; son œuvre n’est donc pas encore entrée dans le domaine public. De plus, il n’y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. VIGNERON (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Scanned from a magazine ? 91.66.153.214 15:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 01:13, 25 September 2013 by INeverCry, closed by .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant and a bit blurred. Similar image with better quality is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is in use, therefore cannot be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Doesn't seem to be generic. The logo doesn't seem to be simple geometry, so possible CSD for copyvio. みんな空の下 (トーク) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No use, no source. Probably did not exist. Fry1989 eh? 03:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

possible copyright violatrion Znppo (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: 06:16, 19 September 2013 by Fastily. closed by .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this file is not free. Images on kongehuset.dk are not copyrighted unless explicitly released, and this one does not appear to have been released. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Modern buildings on La Défense, Paris. No freedom of panorama in France Trizek from FR 08:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar image (a bit less blurred) is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

At the time of upload, the source website stated "Copyright (c) Department of Women of the Ministry of Wommen [sic] & Children Affairs. All rights reserved." (The website has since gone offline; there is no record of what the other pages said.) I'm doubtful, without more evidence, that this was released as CC-1; rather, I suspect the new uploader may have been confused about what picking a license entailed. Jarry1250 (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

probably a portrait of the uploader https://twitter.com/REALWISHALL, unused 91.66.153.214 14:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It looks like a reflection of a window, but even then is a borderline out-of-scope case. Any thoughts? Ubcule (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

If someone can identify this, please do so as image *might* be useful after cropping. Otherwise, I'd say it wasn't useful (and hence out of scope) without that information. Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not a "Federal" US office (afaik). PD-claim as "PD-USGov" is invalid. GermanJoe (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User signture, not used 91.66.153.214 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

redundant file. article not published. Chi2 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC) redundant file. article not published. Chi2 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Although this is not a valid reason for deletion, the uploader is not the author and there is no evidence of permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright holder:CJ E&M (per EXIF data) Puramyun31 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Погрешна идентификация на вида. Utar Sigmal (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: Not a reason or deletion. Please use {{Rename}} or correct the description or both. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

These images include architectural works in the UAE, where there is no freedom of panorama.

 Keep I think de minimis applies in this case. It's a photo of security at the hotel, but neither the hotel or even the hotel security checkpoint architecture are prominent. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion is here. I think, however, a mistake was made in that discussion. At very least, the image should be cropped to remove the hotel. That said, I dont' see why the security checkpoint would not also be subject to copyright. It's clearly a unique piece of architecture. The fact that it's not a famous hotel doesn't make it less copyrightable. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. The wikipedia article at en:Madinat Jumeirah doesn't give a date for its construction. Is it old enough to be in the public domain somehow? Just because it's not the Burj Al Arab doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do buildings in Madinat Jumeirah have a copyright? I don't see there anything over the en:Threshold of originality. Poco2 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may well qualify as Freedom of Panorama, since it's a model in Germany. Please see discussion below before taking action. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guanaco (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I'm here I'm going to make some specific comments on the individual images:
  • File:Burj Al Arab from a beach in Dubai.jpg – I stand by my position in the original DR and the eventual decision. It's a photograph of the beach and objects on it, not of the Burj Al Arab which in incidentally in the background. In fact, my impression is that I just pointed the camera in a random direction and fired but I liked the result so I uploaded it to Commons. The Burj Al Arab could be made invisible and you'd still have a useful image, which is proof enough of de minimis in my view.
Would you consider a) cropping to just the left hand side of the photo? b) renaming it and moving it to a different category? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds reasonable to me, but the file should be renamed and moved to a different category. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are definitely good shots of the marina and coast line, but I think the buildings on the right are more than questionable. Luckily, they could easily be cropped out and good images of the coastline and marina would remain. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. The Burj Al Arab is less prominent, but so is the marina. The buildings on the right are, as a result, more prominent. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume good faith in your comments, despite the fact that I only added a car category this week. As I mentioned above, however, there is little architecture visible, so I see no reason to delete it. -Themightyquill (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Entrance to the Burj Al Arab.jpg – This is a more complicated one but I stand-by my comments in the recent DR and the eventual result. The Burj Al Arab is easily de minimis when one applies the Lovre standard, which is based on actual case law and is endorsed by policy. I accept that one can reasonably argue that this standard is too lenient though policy really needs to be changed, or at least clarified, if that is going to fly in my view. There is no known case law in the UAE on where to draw the line with de minimis so using the French standard as a guide seems reasonable. The security checkpoint (Welcome Centre), along with the entrance generally, was the intended subject and I accept this is not de minimis. However, I don't believe it meets the threshold of originality to attract copyright protection. Again, this is a matter of opinion, especially as there's no UAE case law to go on, though past precedent does hold that photos of small utilitarian buildings of this nature are generally kept. CT Cooper · talk 17:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble accepting dm here. The image is called "View on the hotel of Burj Al Arab". The image description is "View on the hotel of Burj Al Arab" and it's only in one category, Category:Burj Al Arab. If the hotel is not the focus of the photo, what exactly is it a picture of? If it's not a photo of the hotel, it's likely out of scope. Themightyquill (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefere de minimis, similar to the Eifeltower at night case (check de:Eiffelturm#Beleuchtung_und_Lichtkunst. And the interiors are not copyrighted cause of TOO or design protection.--~~

Burj Al Arab is a copyrighted building in a country without Freedom of Panorama. If you'd like to claim that one of these images is simply a photo of the city's general skyline and that Burj Al Arab is therefore de minimis, the photo should probably not be named "Burj Al Arab" or be in Category:Burj Al Arab (both of which suggest it's the focus of the image).

[Sorry for the double nomination here. I didn't realize these were already under discussion. I've removed duplicated nominations.]

Themightyquill (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should ask Themightyquill, the mightyest admin in Commons to delete this chapter. (Including my guts to joke around with an admin... :-) --E4024 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem with the image title or image description then they should be re-named, not deleted. And yet again we have an image of a model in Germany (and is clearly tagged as such) being nominated for deletion on grounds of "No FOP in the UAE". Is it too much to ask for people to bother checking the contents of the files and their copyright information before nominating? This "It has the Burj Al Arab in the title and/or the description - DELETE!" approach is not helpful at all, not to mention a slap in the face for those who contribute content to Commons. I'm not impressed at all. CT Cooper · talk 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I agree, if it's just a problem with an image title or description, they should be renamed (and moved out of this category) not deleted. That was my point. Which cases that applies to should be decided here.
It's no more a slap in the face than the enormous number of people who think they are being helpful by uploading images of the building (despite the fact that the category has a template clearly indicating that it's copyrighted) slapping those to try to manage commons files. I'm sorry for that mistake (as well) but please don't take it personally. ::That said, out of curiosity - what exactly are the legalities of minimundus created a model of a copyrighted building. If I create a sculpture of Mickey Mouse and mount it permanently in Germany, can I take a picture of it and upload it to commons? Or does minimundus request permission to create its models? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of my uploads are compliant with policy as I understood at the time of upload (which was over six years ago) and as of right now. Photographs that I took in the UAE which depicted copyright architectural work in which COM:DM and other exceptions didn't apply were not uploaded, though this is often a judgement call in which two or more reasonable people can disagree on. If I knew what I knew now back then and still decided to go ahead and upload them, I would have probably titled some of them and described them differently and maybe created a "Burj Al Arab (incidental)" or similar category which I recall seeing done with other things elsewhere. However, almost all of my uploads in these two nominations have been subject to previous DRs, one of which was only three months ago (see my earlier comments). I think anyone in my position would have been annoyed to see their upload just casually re-nominated for deletion (twice) only a short time after a lengthy DR which ended in keep. However, I appreciate your apology.
I understand that people can get frustrated when they clean out a category of copyright violating images only for them to be filled-up again shortly afterwards, having been in that position myself multiple times while I was active here. Putting aside that much of the blame for this should go to systemic issues with Commons, many contributors try to do the right thing and it is not fair on them to just declare open season on all images in a category, especially as anyone can add or remove an image from a category. At the very minimum, people nominating images for deletion should be checking that the uploads are not already subject to a DR, haven't been subject to one recently and the contents of the images justify the nominated reasons for deletion. I accept that there are some situations when an image can/should be re-nominated for deletion but there ought to be some kind of explanation on why the nominator thinks the original decision should be put aside, especially if it was made recently, and mass DRs are not well suited for such images.
On the model of the Burj Al Arab, well one thing is very clear – "No FoP in the UAE" is not goods grounds on its own to delete it as it's not in the UAE, it's in Germany. Cross-border copyright is very complicated and far from settled, and freedom of panorama is no exception, but current practice is to use the most lenient standard. Given that Germany has freedom of panorama for both architecture and sculptures, presuming it's on permanent display and was photographed from a public place (the rules for this under German law are quite complicated), then it should be okay. CT Cooper · talk 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, CT Cooper, and for your contributions to commons. I didn't realize until after my mistake that Visual File Change does subtly notify users that an image is already under discussion. I won't make the same mistake again. If there are filename changes you think might apply, just let me know and I'd be happy to rename them. It might be worth moving the minimundus image something like Category:Models of the Burj Al Arab or Category:Burj Al Arab (Minimundus Bodensee‎) to separate it from the other images. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the files that were dm, deleted the others. NB: A cityscape/skyline is by definition dm. Ruthven (msg) 09:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in the UAE

Saqib (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: I had no idea if these were previously AfD'ed and kept. I withdraw my nom. Apologies. --Saqib (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw I believe some of them should be deleted such as File:Burj al Arab - Mina a'salam - panoramio.jpg, File:Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (14).jpg, File:Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (14).jpg, File:Gfhec 2006 - panoramio.jpg, File:Hollow concrete chamfered cubes texture (523157633).jpg, File:Umm Suqeim 3 - Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio (3).jpg, File:Umm Suqeim beach, Jumeira 3 - Dubai - United Arab Emirates - panoramio.jpg. These files were never nom for deletion before. --Saqib (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Can you then reduce the above list to the files you mentioned, and remove the RfD tag from the other ones, so we can let the RfD run? --A.Savin 14:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Saqib (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Delete all then. --A.Savin 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Can you remove the RfD tag from the kept files? --A.Savin 16:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in UAE

(Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Al Arab as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On File:Dubai Skyline on 10 January 2008.jpg: this was included in the Section 2 of this DR req, yet it was kept because of DM. Based on my observation of the picture this qualifies DM since it doesn't mainly depict the copyrighted works (or assumed to be copyrighted works), and are considered accessory to this picture (since a good picture of Dubai's skyline cannot be achieved without DM inclusion of such structures as Burj Khalifa or Burj al-Arab). Cropping might constitute a breach of DM, yet I would want to let other, more experienced contributors or admins to decide on this matter. (IMO, I think it needs to be pulled out of Category:Burj Al Arab, and add De Minimis Tag to let others remind that this mustn't be cropped).JWilz12345 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept per dm except 1 (and consistency with previous closures). — Racconish💬 13:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Elegant interior architecture/designs. No freedom of panorama in UAE, and COM:OTRS permission from architect Tom Wright and involved interior designers is required. Unless, have FOP introduced in the country.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above nominations: no FOP in UAE and violation of architect Tom Wright's copyright in using CC/PD licensing. Also, while de minimis may be used as a defense, the building is an essential element in each of these images, and cropping will render all of them useless.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep File:The Burj Al Arab.jpg as I have cropped and remove the tower. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel: by cropping it I doubt it is usable as it became redundant to existing imags at Category:Dubai. Its COM:EDUSE seems to have been diminished after removal of the building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the cropped File:The Burj Al Arab.jpg again. I'm convinced it must be deleted now as out of COM:SCOPE. A dull street angle (not a true street scene) in which the only interesting object is a banner or ad in the distance, which may violate COM:DW. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. Al Arab.jpg is borderline post crop but not really in scope. --Geni (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by 7billionideas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope:Promotional materials of application with questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Blue Set (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of fan/promo photos/logos. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Toys uploaded by Cheposo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons:Derivative works from action figures.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Cheposo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of historical photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Cheposo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A collection of logos and types associated with 1970's & 80's Animes including Gundam with claims of own work and licenses given as "CC-By-SA". Probable COM:COPYVIOs.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. INeverCry 21:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Cloclo7272 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality penis photos.

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Drank (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Historical photos may be in public domain in U.S. and source country but relevant info must be provided. 1 file from 2013, the rest from 2011 and 2010. Per User talk:Drank already some recent copyright problems stored.

Additional info:


Gunnex (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Elbasmith (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Blantant advertising on every photo, screenshots from website or tv ad

Mjrmtg (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All those images are clearly out of COM:SCOPE. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by FSCEM45212 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Collection of historical photos. No proper source/license.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables uploaded by FSCEM45212 (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Tables which could be replaced with wiki markup.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by FSCEM45212 (talk · contribs)

Flickrwashing. The files were "reviewed" by the uploader, who is not a license reviewer or administrator.

LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I,FSCEM45212, did not know that "uploaders" can review their uploads. I swear, I did not know. I thought that I am in list of "Trusted Users" who can review their uploads. Therefore, Wikipedia Commons is requested to not to delete my images which are as followsː

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSCEM45212 (talk • contribs)

Uploaders are not permitted to review their own uploads. Users who are not license reviewers or administrators are not permitted to review any uploads. You are neither a license reviewer nor an administrator, and with your history of uploading copyright violations, you will most likely never be either.
Taking someone else's photo and uploading it to Flickr without their permission constitutes copyright infringement. It is both illegal and a violation of Flickr's Terms of Service. You cannot issue a valid copyright license to someone else's work. Attempting to do so constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Attempting to transfer an image that you uploaded to Flickr under a false license to Wikimedia Commons is called license laundering. It is yet another example of also copyright infringement. It is both illegal and a violation of our policies.
Even if we assume that you did not understand that you weren't allowed to attempt to bypass our copyright policies in this way, the images must still be deleted, as they are copyright violations. The true copyright holders have not approved publication under a free license. LX (talk, contribs) 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I copied these images from my Flickr account. I can provide you evidence if you demanded because I have uploaded these images on my Flickr account. I am their owner. It is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSCEM45212 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that you copied them from your own Flickr account. That's part of the problem. A photo is only your own work if you created the photo yourself – in other words: if you held the camera when the shutter was released. Again, taking someone else's photo and uploading it to Flickr without their permission does not make it your own work, it makes what you're doing a violation of copyright law. LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FSCEM45212 Thanks a lot for your help. I have understand you that "Upload only thos images on Wikimedia which are captured from your own camera or smart phone(?)". Now, please tell me that how can I delete these images so that I can prevent my account from blocking.


Flickrwashing. The files were "reviewed" by the uploader, who is not a license reviewer or administrator.

Therefore, I, uploader of these images request you to delete these images. DELETE THEM!


This file was nominated for speedy deletion. Therefore, I request you to delete it immediately.

NOTE: This file is at Commons. --FSCEM45212 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: All files deleted by other admins McZusatz (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Gustavo guerrero92 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probable copyright violations to my mind. I deleted one clear one, but given lack of date and metadata these others seem suspect.

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Harry baradiy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Table which could be replaced with wiki markup.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Masterdul123 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of software with questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Pistasonline (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Looks like collection of fan/promo photos, not own work.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by SHIRAN1911 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Used in hewiki for the 2007 filmdrama en:August Rush (Warner Bros.) and showing actor en:Freddie Highmore. Unlikely to be own work: most likely film scenes and derivated & photographed from television.

Gunnex (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Sreejiththulaseedharan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by XxxAlkatheerixxx (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Considering User talk:XxxAlkatheerixxx (+35 copyvios/otherwise deleted uploads): IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.

Gunnex (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by אבי כהן50 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF (Sony SLT-A57, Canon IXUS 230 HS, Aigo F100). File:Nf 3845 370297.jpg mysteriously watermarked. File:בקונצרט חזנות בבית הכנסת הגדול במץ.png (uploaded in 06.2013) apparently previously published via heymann-photographe.fr (2011, unable to load the page, cached version)

Gunnex (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Photos uploaded by JVC3ETA

[edit]

I just spotted that other photo uploaded recently by this user: File:Pepe Lobo Sosa.JPG, was actually a retouched screencap from a youtube video. The nominated photos seems to be obtained in the same way, based on their quality. --Oleola (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete considering the low resolution, lack of metadata and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations (which he or she attempts to obscure by repeated talk page blanking). LX (talk, contribs) 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant and blurred. Similar (less blurred) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom. whym (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant and blurred. Similar (less blurred) image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Per nom. whym (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The sculpture is still covered by copyright, and there is no FOP in the US for artworks.

russavia (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Deleted, speedy would have been more appropriate than a DR.--KTo288 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the US for sculptures

russavia (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the US for statues.

russavia (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

US FOP does not cover works of art or replicas of such work

Elisfkc (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures

Elisfkc (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg and File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg since they do not violate COM:FOP US, due to de minimis usage. The Cunard Building and 26 Broadway, which are depicted in these images, were completed before December 1990 and as such is exempt: for buildings completed before December 1, 1990, there is complete FoP, without regard to whether the building is visible from a public place, because the building is public domain, except for the plans. The bull is such a minor portion of these images that it doesn't infringe on the copyright of the original artist, but it is nearly impossible to take images of the specified vantage points without also including the bull in a de minimis capacity.
@Epicgenius: In File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, it seems to me like the Bull is the focus of the image. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, it does seem that the area the Bull is in is the focus, rather than the actual Bull, but the title seems to suggest otherwise. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elisfkc: For File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg, which was taken by me, the Cunard Building was intended to be the focus, rather than the Bull. I was trying to get a picture of the entire building (see File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 77.jpg), but the street is too narrow so I had to take two images: 77 and 78. However, there is no way to get a direct shot of the lowest few stories, i.e. this view, because the Bull is in the way. I can theoretically take that image from beside the Bull, but I'd have a bunch of angry tourists. So i took 78 instead, with what I hoped was de minimis usage.
For File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, I can't speak for Tdorante10, but I think the key part is that he was trying to take a picture of that particular vantage point, but the main features are 26 Broadway and the Bull. I would personally interpret it as an image of 26 Broadway, with the Bull as a de minimis incidental. epicgenius (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I understand now for File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 78.jpg. I'd support a de minimis usage for that. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as de minimis. It is because the bull is so small that it is obviously not the main subject of the first two photos. For the remaining one, there are many people surrounded the bull and we can't identify the bull clearly. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, but some are  kept. Taivo (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FoP in USA. Some of the images have a "de minimis" template. and some have been kept before. However none is de minimis. In the case of kept images there was never given a rationale in the keep decision of the deciding admin (or added next to the entry), why a specific image could fall under de minimis. The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis. Not in the DR: an image of the covered charging bull.

C.Suthorn (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's claim "The categorization "charging bull" alone tells the none is de minimis." is untrue. Some of these files have categories that describe even minor things in the image. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg also contains Category:1 Broadway, which is only visible as a sliver, and Category:Exterior of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, which is partially visible in the background (unlike sculptures, buildings in the USA do have FOP). I find it very hard to believe that Charging Bull is not de minimis in that picture, given that it's a very tiny portion of the picture itself; there are so many people in front of the sculpture that it actually is de minimis. There are other images where the Charging Bull is clearly not the focus of the image. File:美國紐約68.jpg is a view up Broadway where the sculpture is mostly hidden behind flagpoles. In File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 07.jpg, the focus of the image is clearly the cement truck, and the bull is an incidental object in the background. File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull (cropped).jpg has been cropped significantly so that the clear focus of the image is 26 Broadway; however, its source file, File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, is eligible for deletion. One of the strangest files listed for deletion here is File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg, where Charging Bull is so clearly not the object of the picture that, if you did not know what the bull looked like, the brown objects on the right could be just about anything.
That said, there are some images which definitely should be deleted, e.g. File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg and File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for a formal vote,  Delete File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 04.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 79.jpg, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 80.jpg (these three are my own pictures but I have no problem with deletion), File:Bowling Green td (2018-12-13) 06 - 26 Broadway, Charging Bull.jpg, File:Bull from behind (46709018762).jpg, File:Bull Wall Street (6173547669).jpg, File:Charging Bull (28919670730).jpg, File:IMAG7199 (34138459952).jpg, File:New york (9787993752).jpg, File:New York City (4890606552).jpg, File:The Wall Street Bull (5934546528).jpg, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, and perhaps File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg and File:Wall Street bull (15467605171).jpg.  Keep the remaining files. Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg not de minimis? The Charging Bull is not the subject of the photograph (a photo taken from a distance and is of the street and buildings, which have FoP in the US) and is mostly blocked by people and only the top of the rear is visible if you’re looking hard enough.
I’ve not looked at all of the others yet. Bidgee (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the nominator even bothered to check any of the images, instead indiscriminately nominating all files in Category:Charging Bull except for the covered bull (which has no chance at being deleted). To me, this is a very careless DR made simply because "the image is in the category, that means Charging Bull is not de minimis". Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that one passes de mimimis. But is it worthwhile keeping as a generic NYC street scene? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree tat the nom did not investigate the images for whether or not the use of the sculpture was de minimis or not. Certainly my image, File:Shooting Charging Bull.jpg is pretty much the definition of de minimis, as thre focus of the picture is not the sculpture itself, but the photographers taking images of it. Keep all until the nom take the time and effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, and a trout to boot Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete No FoP for this.
I'm unconvinced by the de minimis claims. Maybe for this one, File:USA-99-Wall Street.jpg, because there's a focus to that which isn't the Bull. But the others are either the Bull (a problem) or else they have no focus and they're a crowd of people blocking sight of the Bull. Now those might pass for de minimis, but I think that same argument then makes them fail COM:SCOPE! I see little need for a photo which describes as "A row of bollards, stopping anyone getting near, or us photographing, a copyrighted sculpture". If anyone wants to claim that these do have scope value (I think the 99% one does, maybe File:Wall Street Bull (and a bunch of Japaneese) (2783130469).jpg too) then I wouldn't argue. But for general street scenes, we can and have done better with other images. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these really count as generic street scenes. These scenes are of a very specific location in NYC that can be easily identified. For example, File:Bowling Green NYC Feb 2020 15.jpg is a very identifiable image of the southern end of Broadway facing southward; it would be fine if not for the bull. And File:Bowling Green, New York City (20100324-DSC01214).jpg is an image of the same location facing northward. Both have clear educational use, as they can be used to illustrate the southern terminus of en:Broadway (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting some of these images would be sending the message that certain places cannot be photographed for Commons in any way, because of the existence of copyrighted sculpture there. The entire purpose of the de minimus standard is to allow those places to be photographed as long as the appearance of the copyrighted object is minimal not non-existant and therefore does not abrogate the rights of the copyright holder. With many of these images, if they were advertised for sale as images of the bull statue, the sellers would be laughed at, the amount of the bull showing is so minimal.

This entire nomination is an exercise in overreach and carelessness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above and the few images I checked, this is just another indiscriminate DR.  Keep all, without prejudice to more targeted nominations with specific rationales. Brianjd (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: without prejudice to renomination of smaller groups. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the US for artwork/sculptures

Elisfkc (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Slovenia.

russavia (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: Deleting as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Slovenia

russavia (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The dragon is copyrighted until 2017. The building in the background will remain copyrighted until 2028. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: now that we have COM:DM#Slovenia, another look at these images is warranted. They all show the Dragon Bridge, work by Jurij Zaninović (Giorgio Zaninovich; 1876-1946). Its inclusion in these images is not incidental and unavoidable as demanded by the cited guideline, the bridge features prominently in all of them, and it can't be replaced at will with another work without radically changing the content of the image.

Eleassar (t/p) 13:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 2, 3 and 4 as aleady discussed here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dragon bridge (Ljubljana). --Sporti (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Work by J. Zaninović (d. 1946). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, copyrighted until 2017.

Eleassar (t/p) 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. INeverCry 00:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar image is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, as much as I can see, identical. Taivo (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Reduntant. Almost similar file is here. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, as much as I could see, identical. Taivo (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:FOP#Belgium

Stefan4 (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: INeverCry 00:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

These images show a building by w:André Waterkeyn. Belgian law doesn't allow photos of buildings without the permission of the architect unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years.

Stefan4 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

No FOP in Belgium

russavia (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

No freedom of panorama in Belgium.

Stefan4 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

No FOP in Belgium

russavia (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

The architect died less than 70 years ago.

Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Atomium

Derivative works of texts around and/or inside Atomium.

Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nothing copyrightable shown in the image: all of them fall under {{PD-ineligible}} and/or {{PD-text}}. No FOP-issue. --High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no chance that something as long as this is {{PD-ineligible}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Stefan, I'm at least as respectful of literary copyright as you are, but I'm not sure about these. Although presented in sentence form, they amount to lists of names (in the first and third cases) and lists of dimensions (in the second case). I think these would fail copyright in the USA -- I don't really have any idea about the TOO for literary works in Belgium, but I think we can keep them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, PD-text or PD-ineligible --Denniss (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

See COM:FOP#Belgium.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in Belgium.

Stefan4 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per discussion. --Krd 17:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Non-free architecture.

Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No FOP in Belgium --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.


There is no FOP in the UAE, and thence these images can't be hosted on Commons.

russavia (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for reviewing some articles on wikimedia. To be honest, I have not understood yet the problem with some of my pictures and I haven't got any further explanation on your words (I could see something on the "FOP" link you left)

I guess you mean that there are some policies related to the buildings on UAE that my images don't follow.

I can say that I took some pictures in there and I have't asked anyone on the UAE if he/she mind about using images of his country.

I didn't know I was breaking some rules (I just wanted to contribute with some of my pictures) but in that case, I hardly believe that all of the pictures of the UAE shown on Commons are following that directives

So, if it is possible, I just want to know what's the difference between my pictures and "almost every other" picture of UAE shown on wikicommons

Thanks for your help,

--KeDaO (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KeDaO: hello and thanks for your contributions. The answer to your question is COM:De minimis. If no single or prominent building is the chief subject of an image (e.g. a general skyline or cityscape view), it is thus acceptable as "de minimis".
For the FOP, unfortunately the UAE copyright law does not allow free, unrestricted commercial exploitations of images of modern buildings (Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab included), without authorization from the copyright holder of the said architectural works. Usually the copyright holders are the architects or architectural firms who created/designed the appearances of the buildings (e.g. Adrian Smith for the Burj Khalifa and Tony Wright for the Burj al Arab). Per COM:FOP UAE, which is supported by the current copyright law of UAE, there is no sufficient and Commons-acceptable FOP from UAE. A very restricted provision only states that free uses of images of architecture are only allowed in broadcasting programmes (no mention of free uses of photographs). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments to the Deletion request of Burj Khalifa March 2013.jpg.
I took the above picture and published it on Commons not being aware of the COM:FOP concept. To get a better understanding what this, and how it is applied in UAE I tried to follow the Commons discussion referred to in the deletion request message. I only to ended up in an endless discussion that seem to conclude that it is not clear that it is allowed to publish picture of architectural work (e.g. buildings) in UAE and consequently these picture should be removed since it could be a violation to the law. The problem I have is why then is not all pictures of buildings in UAE removed from Commons, why only some? Why should the picture I took be deleted while other pictures of the same building are still on Commons since many years and there is no request to remove them? In most countries (including UAE) it is clearly indicated by signs at the place or building when photography is not allowed, and consequently they cannot be published, These signs do exists is shopping malls, airports, harbors, religious places, etc but no such signs does exist for Burj Khalifa. I understand the clear distinction between taking a picture and publish the same, but wouldn't the two go hand in hand for public places? Not to mention the thousands of pictures on Internet already published of the Burj Khalifa.
I simply like to understand what pictures I take that I can publish and which I cannot, so that I do not make the same mistake again. Can someone clarify?/Losttraveller (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please understand the difference between a copyright problem (which this is) and a prohibition against taking pictures for some reason -- military installations, art inside museums, etc. Our concern is copyright. We are not concerned with other restrictions -- while the photographer may get in trouble for taking a picture in violation of the posted signs, that is not a Commons problem. The problem here is that the architect of Burj Khalifa owns the copyright. While it is perfectly legal to take a picture for your own use, such a picture may not be used in ways which would infringe on the copyright, including use on Commons. There is no real relationship between the two types of restrictions.
Second, some pictures of buildings are OK -- usually because the building is old enough so that the copyright has expired, but in some cases because the architect has given a license.
Third, please understand that Commons is not perfect. We have more than 18 million images here. It would not surprise me if 1% of those -- 180,000 -- were problems for one reason or another. So, the fact that there may be other images that should also be deleted is a problem, but it does not affect the question of whether these images should be deleted. If you see other images that are similar, please nominate them for deletion by clicking on the link in the left column of the image page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, please believe me that I do understand the differences in copyrights that you describe above, likewise do I understand the rest you explain. Although I still do not have the answer to my question: when can I publish a picture of a building in UAE? Is there any way for me to know which buildings in UAE that have copyrights or when that copyright has expired? There is appr 45 pictures of Burj Khalifa in Commons, four of them has now been tagged for removal. Why only these four and not all 45? Logically if these four violates the rules, so must all 45, or...?
Please understand that I have never objected to have the pictures deleted, I just like to understand when a picture violates the rules and when not../Losttraveller (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I do not know, why the other photos in this category were not presented for deletion, but most of them (and maybe all) should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the UAE

russavia (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No COM:FOP in the UAE for buildings.

russavia (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


, Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted building exteriors and interiors. No Freedom of Panorama in UAE.

Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa and Dubai Metro perfect timing.JPG and Tallest tower vs. the palm trees (5373615733).jpg could be de minimis. I'm not a judge, where is the border between permissibility and copyright violation? --Ras67 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted four, kept two per DM. --Krd 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyrighted building in UAE which has no freedom of panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination --Krd 11:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! None of this buildings are free to photograph!

Ras67 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Building under copyright, no Freedom of Panorama.

Themightyquill (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped File:Roger burj dubai promo (web).JPG to comply with the rules. ~nmaia d 14:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should be cropped more and the name should be changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Sealle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Can we have some clarification as to why these illustrations of a copyrighted building are okay for commons? I don't know how the rules apply here. The copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted, but maybe there's some exception I don't understand.

Themightyquill (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: as a derivative of a copyrighted deisgn, it still constitutes copyright violation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Per previous argument. I only wonder what does it mean copyrighted architecture of the buildings is clearly depicted (especially this clearly as well as copyrighted architecture)? How is threshold of originality actually measured here (for music piece of arts there are some rules, e.g. number of same tones or something, although even here it is relative and some rules say it is e.g. 70% some 80%)? Is it here about pixels being mostly on the same place as in original building blueprints or something else, and again – how is this measured? If one (re)moves one pixel how is exactly new piece of art considered same as or derivative of the original one? --Obsuser (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info On this deletion request the SVG from copyrighted photos was not seen as copyright violation. --Ras67 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: that discussion involved two copyrights: the copyright on the egg itself and the copyright on a photo (derivative) of said egg. Since the egg's author died in 1920 (>70 years), those copyright restrictions have expired. If the uploader of File:Third imperial Fabergé egg.svg based the file on the egg itself, there is no copyright infringement. If the uploader based the file on a copyrighted photograph, that would indeed be copyvio. However, the uploader argues that they did not use any copyrighted picture in particular. In the case of the Burj Khalifa diagrams, the building's author--Adrian Smith--is still alive, which means that not even the original is in the public domain. Any derivative, even derivatives of derivatives, will have to deal with copyright restrictions until 70 years afther Smith's death. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  'Keep You can't be serious! I know photos are prohibited, but a drawing? Besides, it's not even a static drawing; it's a series of simplified floor plans translated, scaled and rotated together to give the impression of a 3D object. '⎆ 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cmglee: I'm very much open to arguments in favour of keeping since these images are in use, but I'm not sure I understand your points. Why would photographs be prohibited, but not a drawing? If a 2D image of a 3D object is copyrighted, why wouldn't an image that gives a 3D impression of a 3D object be prohibited? Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill. To me, it seems obvious that a photograph is the result of an opto-electronic process: light from the building is captured by the camera and converted via electronics and computing to become an image. Sure there is artistic judgement involved, but the information in the photo is derived directly from the environment.
For my drawing, I composed hundreds of shapes which to my eye resemble the floor plans, then arranged them to make a representation of the building. (I admit that tracing a photo, for example, is a grey area, but this is not in my case.)
Look carefully at my illustration: Is the real building just a collection of planes floating in space? Do these "floors" have colours like mine?
I think that considering a non-grey-area drawing as a violation of FOP is a dangerous slippery slope; where does one draw the line? For example, if I claim that this: /\ is a drawing of Burj Khalifa, does that violate FOP?
Cheers, '⎆ 21:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, /\ is not a violation of copyright (no FoP to speak of here) but wouldn't a super accurate photo-realistic illustration of the building be infringement, even if it's not photograph based? Derivative work doesn't need to be derived directly from the environment. Your illustrations are a floor-by-floor recreation of the buildings. They are far more detailed than, say, me sketching the building on a napkin with pencil. There may be gray area about some illustrations, but I don't see your illustrations as gray area. I like them a lot, they are clearly useful, and if there's a way we can keep them, I'm all for it but we need a clear rationale. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be uploaded locally to Wikipedias as fair use in order to represent a building structure (for those Wikipedias that disabled local uploading entirely, I don't know). --Obsuser (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Themightyquill and Obsuser. Can someone tell me how the image can be modified to be acceptable? For example, is it OK if the dimetric view of the tower on the left was removed? Also, can the article have a prominent comment so that editors needn't spend days of work just to see their effort deleted? Cheers, '⎆ 23:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Lastly, can someone update Commons:Freedom_of_panorama to make it clear that drawings are treated similarly to photographs? '⎆ 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted per above: this is clearly a reproduction of the architectural work. Guanaco (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted per nomination --Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No freedom of panorama in the UAE

Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no FoP in the UAE

Saqib (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted - per nomination - Jcb (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how and why you can on the same day upload a number of pictures of the skyline of Dubai, including also the Burj Khalifa, and request deletion for similar uploads – what is your endgame? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I believe there is no copyright to these public images in the UAE .Category:Burj Khalifa. Is it possible to give us one reason to delete these images which are public photos and there is nothing wrong with posting them here!?.Usamasaad 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no endgame, it seems to be consensus that skyline photo of a specific subject are free due to de minimis. A full frame depiction of a building in UAE can not be hosted on Commons due to the lack of panorama of freedom. Every image must be able to use commercially and this is here not the case. --Ras67 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - per nomination. Kept only File:Fog on Burj Khalifah.Dubai. - panoramio.jpg and File:برج خليفة في دبي2.jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!

Ras67 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom. --Majora (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Burj Khalifa was designed by Adrian Smith.

Ras67 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nom. It is not de minimis if what is being photographed is the main subject of the photograph. The entry way would still be part of the copyright and we cannot keep any of these. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in UAE

(Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Too little carefulness in the files' selection. Many of them were already nominated in a deletion request and were kept. One file has now two deletion requests! A skyline should be free, but only the broad ones.
 Keep for all old nominated and kept files (no new reasons were given).
 Keep for broad skyline photos (almost the whole city).
 Delete What is with CollageDubai.jpg? Was the DR properly closed? IMHO also the new one is not correct, a (cropped out) single part image of the Burj Al Arab and of two other buildings can't be assessed as de minimis!
 Delete for photos of the Burj with fountains etc. and all others. --Ras67 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: As per Themightyquill, there are various copyrighted buildings in the picture and having all of them as DM doesn't eliminate the copyvio infringement. If you're talking in the POV that Burj Khalifa is the main DR reason, I've mentioned above that "Some files doesn't necessarily depict Burj Khalifa as the main subject but FOP still applies on other skyscrapers." (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and agree with you, but where is the border? Strictly speaking we have to delete all with copyrighted objects in the UAE. This can not be it. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67: I would say that only having a single small enough copyrighted building as DM would be ok. For example, File:Burj Khalifa @ Yellow Boats Tour @ Dubai (15876740342).jpg might probably the threshold of DM as the design of the building is "too small" in the picture to be seen. I wonder why File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg was kept with the reason of "Panoramic view of the city" per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa (as File:Burj Khalifa 005.JPG in the DR) when FOP applies to all buildings and not BK only. However, this is only my opinion and this is the problem about DM, there is no benchmark. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, it's a difficult matter with blurred borders, the closing admin has to decide it. --Ras67 (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble accepting that the burj khalifa is really de minimis in an image titled "Burj Khalifa" and in the category Category:Burj Khalifa. If it's an image of the skyline of Dubai, it should be renamed as such and it should not be in this category. It should not be used to illustrate articles on the Burj Khalifa. De Minimis is an exception, not a loophole. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, but some are  kept. I commented some files. Taivo (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derived work from copyrighted photos/buildings/designs what we cannot host here! We need the permission of the actual creators for a free licencing of their work.

Ras67 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy delete as derivative work copyvios. No permissions or OTRS authorizations from model creators, images uploaded by a problematic user (who has uploaded dozens of DW/no FOP violations, as seen in their talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

To the 21st one and eternal further, no freedom of panorama in UAE! Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights? It seems to me, that the rest of the world is not interested in this case. IMHO the skylines are copyrighted too.

@JWilz12345: If so, we can change this file name and keep this file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And we can also undelete deleted file and rename deleted file. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The illuminated background is an essential part of the photos and not a casual element. The whole background consists of copyrighted skyscrapers. --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment I think main object in this image is the car. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Ox1997cow (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I read this page carefully. In this page, I found this sentence. "Cityscape, skyline, or vista photos may be acceptable if no single building is the primary subject." It means that both cityscape photos and skyline photos are allowed. And this page contains outdated content. For example, Atomium in Belgium is allowed now because Belgium has freedom of panorama now, but this page explains that Atomium is not allowed. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: slashed my vdel input. While the page is outdated for Atomium, it is still relevant for Burj Khalifa and Burj al Arab, as long as there is no acceptable FOP from UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ras67 (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Keep Already in past discussions, it has been concluded that some images were kept covered by DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel:  Comment In my opinion, some of other files you didn't marked maybe to be kept. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: You may also mark those you think can be kept. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections (except those given keep reasons by A1Cafel or Ox1997cow).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel and Jeff G.: I marked whether delete or keep. I will respectfully accept any objection. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the skylines are not {{Deminimis}}. Every building in these images is copyrighted, it's not in the "sense" of the law to "stack" copyrighted objects and so make them free. The "deminimised" objects have to be "nonessential" and "casual" elements, what is not the case in the skyline photographs. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67:  Comment Already in past discussion, it has been concluded that the skylines are DM. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Lack of freedom of panorama does not mean that we cannot create categories of copyrighted buildings or sculptures. So, why does categories of copyrighted games exist? (Such as Category:StarCraft, Category:Overwatch, Category:Call of Duty, etc...) Ox1997cow (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the skyline photo incidentally contains copyrighted buildings, these photos are allowed under de minimis. Categories of buildings or sculptures in countries without freedom of panorama exist for this kind of situation. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: see Category:Sólfar (a copyrighted sculpture in Iceland, with all files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sólfar). See also Category:SM City San Pedro. For buildings, they can go under Category:Buildings in Dubai or Category:Skyscrapers in Dubai. This category has been abused IMO, and it seems new uploaders ignore warnings on top. Also if the category needs to be nuked, this should be locked until the year the building falls PD or UAE changes their copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: That's an extreme case. When uploading to the category of copyrighted things, there is no problem if we follow the warning and upload. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: By the way, why are you taking the extreme case and giving it as an example? In the previous deletion discussion, you used that only examples of misuse of NoFoP templates were taken as examples, and you claimed that all NoFoP templates should be changed with something like {{NoFoP-Japan}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: the simple answer is that the {{NoUploads}} are, in my opinion, ineffective. I doubt most uploaders will understand what the template means in relation to copyrighted FOP-reliant works: works like buildings, sculptures, statues, monuments, memorials, and public murals/frescoes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: My opinion is different. The reason is that many users don't know that freedom of panorama varies by country. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974:  Oppose Some images were kept due to DM before. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Burj Khalifa should be a trivial landmark (i.e. should not be at the centre of an image) per COM:DM, but it is too prominent in most of the listed images. Apologies for !voting all listed images to delete without seeing them individually. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I and A1Cafel have already marked "deleted" and "kept" on images that are likely to be deleted and images that are likely to be kept. Also, already in the previous deletion discussion, it was concluded that the skyline image is DM as the single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some skyline images are under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa-related.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To end all this mess because of limited exception (broadcasting programs only) in UAE copyright law, are there any attempts by Wikipedians in UAE and Arab Wikipedians to have FOP introduced in the desert kingdom? At the very least, FOP for architecture only (similar to US and Russian exceptions)? @A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, Ras67, Botev, Jeff G., and Soumya-8974: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I'm sorry, but I've never heard of such a thing. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why we are the sole ones who protect Adrian Smith's rights" note that I do not care about Adrian Smith's right, I do not care about UAE law. If I nominate things for deletion I do it to protect users of Commons. This law is unjust, though if for some reason I would have influence on UAE I would start from far worse laws being present there Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for this nomination: keep everything, nominate actually problematic ones for a proper review Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as indiscriminate. Cut out any skyline pictures, they are clearly de minimis. Individually nominate the rest. We aren’t here to “right great wrongs” by protecting the copyright of an architect who has low enough ethical standards to work in a country where being gay is illegal. Dronebogus (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: followed remarks of @Ox1997cow and A1Cafel: and many thanks for your efforts. In some case followed arguments of other users. General skylines kept according consensus. Thanks all for your efforts. --Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The architecture is copyrighted e.g. by Adrian Smith, see COM:TOYS!


Ras67 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67:  Delete They are clearly {{Copyvio}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, COM:FOP UAE, and all the previous sections.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete derivative work copyright violation: appears to be toys or small-scale models. May also fulfill User:Elcobbola/Models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per COM:TOYS--A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, per nomination and discussion. Elly (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates, per COM:FOP UAE. The Burj Khalifa is still copyrighted. Also derivatives (such as lego models) are copyrighted. Reason: the building was completed in 2008.

This image is deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa (Pexels-1537493).jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elly (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree not to delete File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg, because the tower is blackened and details cannot be seen. Elly (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all but File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all except File:Dubai skyline 2010 (censored Burj Khalifa).jpg per Elly SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Surely most/all those other buildings are subject to copyright as well. Either all buildings in this image (including Burj Khalifa) de minimis or all are subject to copyright restrictions, no? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill: Already the decision has been made that the single buildings might be copyrighted but the whole panorama is not. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyline-Dubai-2010.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: That was my understanding as well - so I didn't see the need to black out the tower in that image. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Dubai including the Burj Khalifa would be useful? -- 06:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we can make a sub-category like Category:Skylines in Seoul including Lotte World Tower. (There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, too.) Ox1997cow (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow and Themightyquill: impractical, and can lead to abuse. The best approach is that all skyline inages must be categorized under Category:Skylines in Dubai and similar categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I don't think it's impractical, but I suspect you're right about leading to abuse. Just a thought - I'm not determined. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and Themightyquill: However, existing building name categories(For example, Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Lotte World Tower, etc.) should be kept. It is intended to be used in a photo of the skyline that contains the building. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked {{vk}} on images that can obviously applied de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I have signed your markings for you. Please sign such markings yourself in the future.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Oh, that's my mistake. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Has anyone contacted Adrian Smith to request permission? If so, then I'm assuming he said no? Ixfd64 (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I've not misheard, Adrian Smith is currently in a jail in Saudi Arabia. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974 and Ixfd64: for a more eternal or longterm approach, has anyone including Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in UAE have taken steps to introduce FOP there, at least "for buildings only" (yellow countries)? I expect dozens of more copyvio images to be uploaded here, including: this one. I'm not sure if people aren't aware of no FOP there or just intentionally "testing our no-FOP policy on UAE". I would also want to suggest filtering out exactly the words "Burj Khalifa" so that new users will no longer be able to upload images either containing the said words in their file names or in their file descriptions, at least temporarily (while UAE has no FOP for photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Excessive file name restrictions are bad. Suppose someone uploaded a file name of the Dubai Skyline with Burj Khalifa as "Remote view of Burj Khalifa". Skyline photos with Burj Khalifa are allowed even if there is no freedom of panorama in UAE, as last deletion discussion concluded that they were OK. If you ban the use of "Burj Khalifa" in file names, we won't be able to upload acceptable skyline or cityscape photos. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: And many people do not know freedom of panorama. I also mistakenly thought that the copyright of a building or sculpture photo belonged to the person who took it, until I saw numerous photos of the building or sculpture deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: no, de minimis photos can still be uploaded, thru titles like "Dubai skyline 20211103.JPG", "Skyline of Dubai, UAE as seen from the Marina in 2019.jpg." If images bearing such file names continue to be uploaded, the location filled with millions of deleted files from late-2006 may become "crowded" in the very distant future. Besides files do not get "deleted" in real life, but rather all "deleted" files are still there, just hidden from non-admins (as per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on his reply here). See also w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Image undeletion on the mechanism of files deleted on Wikipedia (which also applies to all Wiki sites). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: You're thinking too extreme. A lot of users will use the copyrighted building name in the file name, but can we ban the copyrighted building name in the file name? And did you think about typos? (For example, "Bur Kalifa", "Buri Khaljfa", etc.) Ox1997cow (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I've known you're an extreme claimant since you had the deletion discussion related NoFoP templates. Even in that discussion, you brought only cases where NoFoP templates were misused and insisted that use of NoFoP templates should only be used in category namespace. Even if use of NoFoP templates is changed to be used in category namespace, there is no guarantee that it will not be misused. Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I look on longterm solutions and not "band-aid" solutions. Thus it is best to filter out such names. Actually Commons has already did a version of what you call very extreme approach: indefinite protection of file names that is comonly misused. Example: File:Burj Khalifa.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That approach of locking the file name prompted me to suggest such. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Keep that in mind. Such long-term solutions can hurt many users. Even though it is forbidden to use only "Burj Khalifa" in a file name, I know that using a file name containing "Burj Khalifa" is difficult to ban. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: and also take note of COM:CARES. The copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: I couldn't find anything about Adrian Smith being incarcerated. His article on the English Wikipedia doesn't say anything either. Could you provide a source? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I have probably misheard a piece of news related to the still-unfinished Jeddah Tower, also designed by Adrian Smith. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of course I know the copyright holders include the architects and artists of national monuments. Anyway, even though I agree to ban file name containing only "Burj Khalifa", I cannot accept your extreme argument of banning file names containing "Burj Khalifa". Ox1997cow (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, how about using the edit filter to just warn the user if they try to upload a picture containing the name? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: It's not bad. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Khalifa Interpretation Centre.jpg. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep skyline images. De minimis use of the Burj Khalifa, there’s a precedent for this. The freedom of panorama page of English Wikipedia literally shows a skyline in a non-FOP country. I struggle to see why the images that just show the base aren’t de minimis but that’s not my expertise. The blacked-out version is artistically interesting but a ridiculous solution to a nonexistent problem (buildings are not more copyrighted because they’re famous and impossible not to notice in a generic panorama!) Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept General DR like this one is clearly not helpful. Yann (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Only 3 images on this flickr account. Is this own work? Leoboudv (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Denniss (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

El Boricua Aleman 17:38, 17. Mär. 2011 Cmcworld (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии Dogad75 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Presence of Watermark Balablitz (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 20:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Origin unclear. Absent further information I'm inclined to think assuming FBI authorship is reasonable and so should keep but a discussion is in order.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: a pro forma deletion discussion seems very strange to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm sure we can find a proper place of origin and license for this photo. Good photo as well. -- Martinillo (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the most likely origin of the photo is the civilian contracting company that Alexis worked for -- "The Experts". When would the FBI have taken this photo? The only possible GOV source would be the Navy while he was enlisted. Jujutacular (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Good point, most likely taken by the navy or contracting company that Alexis worked for, not the FBI. Can you find a proper license for the photograph? 142.32.208.235 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I doubt the FBI had anything to do with taking this picture, but the picture is extremely likely to have been taken by a federal government employee for a government ID, probably Alexis' CAC badge. We know he had a valid CAC, which would have been issued in summer 2013 when he began his current position, and the picture taken for it would have been easily accessible by the FBI and other agencies, so it's hard to imagine why, when issuing a current photo, the FBI would be releasing some other non-government picture. (Theoretically possible? Yeah. A concern worth deleting the photo over? Not in any realistic universe.) 152.121.18.254 15:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If not FBI-created, most likely created by DoD. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is most likely either from his CAC or his clearance badge, either way a gov employee would've taken the photo. Dainomite (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 05:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

UK FOP law indicates that for FOP to apply the work needs to be on permanent display. As this is not on permanent display, but rather an exhibit which can be removed at any time, FOP does not apply to this image. russavia (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep What about FOP you can be right, but it is not a sculpture but just a costume... Electron   15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it's not that simple. [3], [4], [5], plus others demonstrate that there is copyright involved. In the US, George Lucas owns the copyright, in the UK he doesn't someone else does. russavia (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the info. I've read the article. What about UK: The court upheld an earlier ruling finding that he could continue selling the replicas because they were deemed to be industrial works rather than creative pieces of art, and therefore not subject to the full protections of copyright. That ruling found that as 3D objects, but not sculptures, the Stormtrooper helmets were only subject to a 15-year copyright, which has since expired. Electron   09:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is that for us to host images on Commons it needs to be free in both the source country and the United States. This is obviously something that needs to be explored fully, not just in relation to this image, but all stormtrooper images. russavia (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Generally you are right, but e.g. there is no FOP in US for e.g. new squlptures, yet there are plenty of images with squlptures from other countries, where FOP egsists -> Category:21st-century sculptures... So, your statement: to be free in both the source country and the United States is not the truth for all cases; not for all pictures gather here... You know that there are many exlusions of this rule. And it can be another one. Electron   12:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons FASTILY 05:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: It is however a nice example of the use of this filter; together with the original, could be clearly educational — as it is it is esthetically pleasing and could have widespread use as it seems to be properly licensed. Needs more categories, of course. -- Tuválkin 07:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused personal image, out of scope FASTILY 05:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No COM:FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete But before we had to add the year of restoring files e.g. [[Category:Undelete in 2037]] for each image (depending to the author's death). Replace 2037 by the date the photo will be in public domain. --Raoli ✉ (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 05:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates!


Ras67 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 22:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

No FOP in the UAE.

russavia (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: FASTILY 05:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]