Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
9 September 2024
11 September 2024
Deletion requests on 10 September 2024

September 10

[edit]

Files in Category:Statues of Lenin in Vyksa

[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Russia for sculptures and it's extremely unlikely the artist of this one has been dead for more then 70 years. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The monument was erected in 1927 according to the model of the working iron foundry of the Verkhny Plant of Lavrenty Semenovich Kochnev by the plant workers themselves. The best shift of the blast furnace shop under the leadership of Pavel Stulov, an active Komsomol member, smelted the iron, the mold was made by I. I. Muftelev and I. I. Stulov, the best pourers I. Panteleev with his assistant I. Sukhanov poured the mold. Extremely likely the artist of this monument has been dead for more than 70 years already.
This note concerns the following photos: File:Выкса, памятник В.И. Ленину (1927).JPG, File:Выкса, памятник В.И. Ленину у ДК металлургов.JPG. The other two photographs show another monument. These cases must be considered separately. Olksolo (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture isn't a main object on 2 of 4 images, only images where sculpture is a main object may be protected. MBH 16:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first to images are of the church and the monument to Lenin. Which is why the files have Lenin in their name and the descriptions say "Orthodox Church and Monument to Lenin in Vyksa." So the original photographer clearly meant to photograph the statue and it's obviously an integral part of the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Flags of the province of Huelva

[edit]

Disputed by User:Macondo in 2020 as Fictional flag attributed to the province of Huelva, unofficial and completely false. The province, in fact, has a different flag. It is the flag of the maritime captaincy of Huelva with the shield of the province of Huelva. Out of COM:SCOPE if these flags aren't real.

Belbury (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Provincia De Huelva.svg is COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed DRs for other images
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 Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:DW of artwork.

LGA talkedits 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all public graffiti or mural works, not in a museum or other place, I believe there are free from copyrightVgrigas (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, it will explain that murals are copyrighted and as the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks these are not free for use on commons. LGA talkedits 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 23 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.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. With the PDM license, the copyright owner still owns full rights over the image.

Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep out of process, make a new DR every year or so. metadata does not trump explicit license. how do you copyright a photo taken in 2017 in 2013? i.e. the wrong date tends to undermine the claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This has to do with the flickr license which is Public Domain Mark. The metadata is just a warning that the copyright owner retains copyright over the images...unless he/she changes the flickr license. A Public Domain Mark (PDM) license on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies because the flickr copyright owner retains full copyright over the images. Please see this Deletion Request for the Admin's clarification: the Public Domain Mark license can be revoked at any time. That's why Commons cannot accept this license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good faith is not sufficient when the copyright owner has a copyright notice clearly posted in the camera metadata for each photo. There was never any COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner and so she can launch legal action against Commons at any time. As Admin Woodward stresses, the Public Domain Mark flickr 'license' can be revoked at any time and that Commons cannot accept this license due to this problem. COM:PRP should apply here. The other Admins rejected this license at present so as a non-Admin trusted user I have to follow their decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: This image is PD (under US law) despite the PDM license since it is a US government image but the images under DR are by a private individual. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • good faith is sufficient. these are low risk items. there is a far higher chance of copyright vio with an false "own" or "PD-USGov" or FOP germany, than PD uploader. what is the number of DMCA take downs of PD items? is it less than FOP germany? the other admins did not have a consensus, they and you only have your strongly held views unsupported by facts, only an ideology of license purity. we have 300000 items with no metadata, maybe we should improve those licenses and sources, and the existing files with PD, before increasing the standard for new uploads.
    • why don't you cleanup the metadata of the USGS image rather than persist using the the broken use of information template? "Photos were taken with a system developed by Dr. Anthony G Gutierrez (Tony.Gutierrez@us.army.mil) and taken by Brooke Alexander, Sue Boo, Heagan Ahmed and Sierra Williams." what makes you think all those people were works for hire? were not some of them contractors? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: That's been discussed before.... Alexander and the others were interns, and so 'employees' under US law. - Reventtalk 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: When these images are sourced to a US government site, they would be PD if the metadata says US Navy, US Air Force, USGS, etc or generally sourced to a US government site. But when when an account linked to an individual person has a PDM license, it was the Admins who decided to delete the image, not me. I am not an Admin. In this image it says you can contact someone at usgs.gov at the bottom. So its certainly US Government..as in US Geological Survey. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you realize how many thousand images have been deleted from NASA website as "contractor"? or even ESA [1]: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons" - and some have been deleted and put back [2]. maybe we need an OTRS to USGS to establish who is an employee and who is not?
do not evade responsibility for your deletion nominations. the blithe assumption of US website = US Government is equivalent to flickr uploader used PD tag = PD own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, unless the Flickr account owner licenses the images. The public domain mark, and it's use on Flickr, has been discussed repeatedly, multiple places. There is a clear community consensus that we cannot accept it, because it is not a license, and we cannot 'pretend' that people who apply it to their own works are granting a license. - Reventtalk 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: In this case, the credit line in the camera metadata was given to NASA and the images are sourced to a NASAHQ Photos account. The copyright owner is explicitly named as '(NASA/Bill Ingalls)' which implies that Ingalls did the photography for NASA or NASA gave credit to Ingalls. In the undeletion request, it is clearly stated that "However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA." So, Ingalls work is PD.

If you wish to change Common's policies on a completely different issue like Public Domain Mark, this is not the right forum. PDM just Cannot be accepted from a private person's flickr account because the copyright owner, Linda Rae Duchaine here who states a claim of copyright over her images in the camera metadata, can Revoke permission at any time. How can Commons use these images? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.

— Creative Commons, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.

— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.

— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.

— Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45355
(t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - obvious case. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 7 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.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files are on Flickr with the 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license for Commons, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark since they can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time. As long as the license is not changed at source, we cannot keep these images.

Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment these have a category - use visual file change right or not at all. how many times will you append this page confusing the issue?
keep intent of flickr user was public domain. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: PD Mark images are not accepted on Commons since the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time. This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators to protect Commons from any legal problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you do not have a consensus for "This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators". your "revocable" is a theory only, there is no case where it has been here. there is no DMCA of a PDM. you are making up legal problems where none exist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: The matter was the subject of a six-month long RFC in 2015, as well as several discussions on VP/C since. The consensus of the wider community has always been that the PDM is not acceptable. - Reventtalk 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a bad close is not a consensus - what wider community? i see a clique of deletionist admins who rule by fiat. you dare call it community? this is why commons is hated and you are hated. come to wikimania - then you will see a community, if you dare. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • vk The is no doubt that the original photographer is the one putting these on Flickr, nor is there doubt that they intend them to be public domain. I have sent an advisory Flickrmail as below. With regard to the claim that a decision was made to "protect Commons from any legal problems", I find this an odd statement as there literally can be no legal problem for either Commons or volunteers who make the upload in good faith. @Leoboudv: could you link to where you have seen this stated? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Women's March photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/108635822@N02/
Hi,

Many of your Women's March photographs were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (making them available to use in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere), but were challenged as they used the Public Domain Mark rather than CC-0 or a CC-BY release.

Could you either change the license away from PDM to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing, or just email me back to confirm your intention was the same as a CC-BY release and are happy for the images to be on Wikimedia Commons with this license?

The relevant discussion for deletion was at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Victorgrigas

Thanks,

[Fae]
  • Changed to  Delete based on a Flickrmail received to my account this morning - (extract) "I do not want my photos on Wikimedia Commons at this time. I have removed them from Flickr to prevent further confusion." If the links given as sources on these images are followed, they are now '404' pages. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It was mentioned in this Deletion Request here and I believe that Jcb and Josve05a have the same understanding. I will be away on Thursday for a seminar. I am following Common's rules by filing this DR and I did not determine the rules on PD Mark. I too was warned not to pass such images some time ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced DR, PDM was mentioned, but nobody described it as a legal problem for Commons. Though we may gain a consensus for policies to handle the uncertainties, my understanding still is that uploads in good faith pose no tangible legal risk to the uploader, nor to the WMF or Wikimedia Commons project. Simply put, if the Photographer is the Flickrstream owner and they wish to change the license, then there will be an issue of whether the license is revocable or ever meaningful when applied to the photographer's own works. As it would be the copyright holder changing their mind, they would be free to request take-down or deletion, however there never has been a case of a claim of damages going to court for a verifiable PDM license being used to rehost an image, nor is it really conceivable that there ever will be, so long as reusing parties are doing so in good faith. Consequently, we could, say, wait for an indefinite period to see if the Flickrstream owner replies to my email, and evidence of that effort to determine copyright would be sufficient legal protection against future claims; so deleting these files within 7 days may be precautionary but logically and legally is not a necessity. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The basic issue is if a license on flickr is revocable as other Commons Admins state then it would be a legal problem for Commons to use it. That is why the other Admins decided not to use PD Mark licensed photos. Of course, you are invited to flickrmail the copyright owner to change the license if you wish to CC BY (Attribution), CC BY SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)or CC zero (public domain dedication) if you wish. I saved some images in the past but there are hundreds of anti-Trump protest images on Commons already. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you mean it is revocable like a flickr user can change their CC-BY license? gosh i guess we can confirm the status at upload and move on. why should PDM be any different? there is a higher legal risk of a "FoP Germany", since there has been a case of a DMCA takedown there - unlike PDM. you are arguing about risk with no data whatsoever.
"other Admins decided" - are you saying admins are the deciders, and we just report on what they do? do admins trump consensus? maybe we should revise the process page. maybe the admins should discuss this on a locked page and just inform us what images to keep and delete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Once an image passes review with a generic CC-BY, CC BY SA or CC zero license, the image is considered passed for life no matter if the copyright owner changes the license at a later date...unless it is a copyright violation or if there are COM:FOP issues. So, Commons can keep the image forever. This image was definitely CC BY at upload even though it is now CC BY NC SA today at the flickr source in 2017 because it was uploaded in 2005 with a FlickLickr bot...that could only upload freely licensed CC BY images at upload. Hence it is not revocable today and Commons can keep it despite the copyright owners change of license with a NC (Non-Commercial) restriction. With PDM, the license is revocable, so its not really a license--more like a label. The copyright owner can remove the use of that image with a PDM license at any time simply by changing the license to say 'All Rights Reserved.' A PDM license has no legal effect. I think most normal Admins have the same understanding of the problems of using PDM labelled/licensed photos. Thank You and I will be away on most of Thursday in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
its a funny thing, the flickr bot also approves PDM such as this one File:Library of congress panel 2140020.jpg. i guess it is not revocable. you have no example where an uploader has changed the "label" - why make stuff up? we have no case law about changing CC-BY licenses, so we do not know the "legal effect" of insisting they are irrevocable. all you have is some tl;dr boilerplate. hey- take all year off, you will not be missed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: You would have to ask the flickrbot designer this, not me. Stop being a troll. I won't nominate your image for a DR since its clearly your own image. The flickreview bot never marked your image since you uploaded it with Upload Wizard Extension So, the Upload Wizard Extension bot programmer hasn't clued in that PDM images shouldn't just be passed without review. Lucky for you. As for me, I am a volunteer and I am doing my duty as a marker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is just as much PD as the current case. apparently the admins who decided, have not decided to inform the wizard devs at the WMF to change their allowed licenses, but they screwed up the flickr2commons since that is java. lol. don't leave the barn door unlocked. "duty as a marker" = troll - have you ever taken a picture? why are you here if you have not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the closing Admin who decides this case will decide to send a message to the Upload Wizard Extension programmer about PDM. Or Admin Revent who knows about the PDM issue will close down this 'loophole' as you correctly note. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158352 - Reventtalk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Thanks for your reply here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: According to Fae who flickrmailed the copyright owner, Jillian Sallaway has rejected the use of her PD Mark images on WikiCommons and deleted all of them on her flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We can them nicely if they agree to change the license. But the problem is this set of images is very replacable as there are hundreds of women protesting Trump. If the copyright owner says no and doesn't change a license and make it free, then we cannot use the photo. I have had other people agree to change licenses for their images here Some of these images were taken in the Cairo Museum before this Museum banned all photography in their museum so they are not replacable today. The Egyptians also ban all photography in the tombs of the Valley of the kings today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, the problem is, commons is not a safe space that honors personality rights, and people might well doubt good faith reuse. emailing people on a one on one basis is not a way to run an image repository, it is bush league. yeah "very replacable" = "once you're seen one protesting woman you've seen them all. so let's just clean out the category of all shots not in use. and we can always farm flickr for more" you have a somewhat smaller vision of commons, i.e. a walled garden necessary to support wikipedia only. i'm beginning to agree with you, maybe i should take all my uploads to english, and "do not transfer to commons" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It was the Admins that decided that Public Domain Mark is too risky. I didn't even know about this decision until I was warned not to mark PDM images. So, I'm just following their decision here. An image doesn't have to be in use on wikipedia to remain on Commons forever. Thanks for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it was the admins who closed a discussion against consensus. i'm just not following their corrupt practices here. and you should expect images to go elsewhere forever. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 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.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

per COM:BLP

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These images are from 1970! Victorgrigas (talk) 16:31, 20 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.

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The King Trump ones are high-quality caricatures with quite some meaning. This is in contrast to this "caricature of Donald Trump" that people here are seemingly desperate to keep and which is entirely inappropriate, not a caricature, and not useful or educational but out of scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Personal art and AI art is deemed out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stanloona2020 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I am unable to verify the CC license claim. The sources I checked make no mention of CC. Is there a blanket release from SFTV I am not aware of?

Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License is wrong, but it might fall under {{PD-CAGov}} as its run by a California government (see https://www.sf.gov/departments/san-francisco-government-tv). There are CC videos by SFGovTV, so there might be some confusion as to if all of them were under CC. reppoptalk 21:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega & Melissa Barrera.jpg

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega 2023.jpg

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega at KCA 2023 cropped.jpg

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Mujahideen Youth Movement.png

[edit]

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 一条草 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

They are likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1004060782952662

Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candy Chea 2014.jpg

[edit]

Likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daerahmualimflag.jpg

[edit]

Fanmade flag, not official. It's being used on pages being written as the flag of the district when the district does not have an official flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hieuthuhai, 2024.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation, no CC license Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecole des Racettes-Onex-04a.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Photograph of a sticker, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Linyax (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank of Taiwan Logo.svg

[edit]

Calligraphy is subject to copyright per COM:TOO Taiwan, Creator is unknown therefore no evidence for {{PD-Taiwan}}. Wcam (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has existed at least since 1954, therefore it's copyright had expired under Article 32 of the Copyright Act. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 12:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This calligraphy was created by 王壯為 who died in 1998[1][2]. The work is not PD until 2049. Wcam (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

None of the exempt items in {{PD-ROC-exempt}} can describe these images. If a symbol is part of an official document, a verifiable source is needed to prove it.

Wcam (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg, clearly PD-textlogo, Taichung International Airport logo.svg and Taoyuan International Airport MRT Logo(Logo Only).svg, probably too? —— Eric Liu（Talk） 09:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as these logos show more complexity and creativity than the "Sunshow" and LV Monogram examples in COM:TOO Taiwan that are not OK. Wcam (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg only consists of several rectangles without containing more complex patterns. I think it doesn't exceed the scope of "Sunshow".-- 人人生來平等 TALK 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the logo of Taoyuan Airport and Taoyuan Airport MRT could be kept because these are only simple shapes that describe each logo respectively. However, if these logos were subjected to be deleted, they should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia and set "fair use". (Template:PD-textlogo) Sinsyuan✍️ 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Murals in Belfast

[edit]

No FOP in NI

Dronebogus (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these should be  deleted, but there are a few that might warrant further attention. First, there are some where I think the mural is arguably de minimis, where the photo primarily shows the situation of the mural rather than its content (they would be useful with the murals blurred out):
This one might be below the threshold of originality:
These could survive through a combination of de minimis and failing to meet the threshold of originality, since the only major artistic component is a rather bad rendition of the Union Flag:
On the other hand this should be  speedily deleted as a scaled-down duplicate of the one just above:
Finally, I'm a bit unsure about these. The individual parts look like they're mostly unoriginal or in the public domain through age. The assembly on the wall might be original, but it's also a little three-dimensional (the individual parts are proud of the wall), so maybe it's a sculpture or a work of artistic craftsmanship rather than a graphic work:
--bjh21 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Belfast loyalist mural 3.jpg, File:Jeanne Boleyn sandy row mural.jpg, File:Mural in Loyalist south Belfast 1981.jpg can all be kept. I tried to filter out TOO-below murals but couldn’t catch every single one because the category is overflowing with copyright violations Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with File:Murals in Belfast 2014 001.jpg. If someone could strike those from the request as removed that would be great Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. --bjh21 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Flag of The Islamic State of Iraq.jpg

[edit]

Fictional flag Whitechoccc (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attacks by ISIS.png

[edit]

The worst and outdated version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Attacks_done_by_or_inspired_by_ISIS.svg Liliiii64 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azov Battalion and SS Emblems And Symbols.jpg

[edit]

This image falls under category “Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack”. The image description makes inaccurate allegations and falsely relates the Azov logo with a nazi symbol, which even its creator has denied. Olivier101 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E7%89%8C%E5%8C%BE%E9%A1%8C%E5%AD%97%E8%88%87logo%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%88-215008775.html
  2. ↑ https://www.sokaculture.org.tw/exhibition/%E7%8E%8B%E5%A3%AF%E7%82%BA%E6%9B%B8%E6%B3%95%E7%AF%86%E5%88%BB%E5%B1%95
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/10&oldid=958110741"