Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/21

20 September 2024

22 September 2024

Deletion requests on 21 September 2024

September 21

File:Cacique París.png

Drawing created from a textual quote and left to the interpretation of the uploader, without previous references or drawings made in the past. It is quite possible that this representation is a primary source hosted exclusively on Wikimedia Commons, and not precisely a historical reference. Taichi (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kádasi Norbert223.jpg

A self-promotion image, consistently put into random unrelated categories. EnzoTC (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kádasi Norbert Énekes.jpg

A self-promotion image, consistently put into random unrelated categories. EnzoTC (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kádasi Norbert 225.jpg

A self-promotion image, consistently put into random unrelated categories. EnzoTC (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kádasi Norbert 224.png

A self-promotion image, consistently put into random unrelated categories. EnzoTC (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spangenbarren aus dem Hort Oberding im Museum Erding.jpg

This photo is likely not the uploaderˋs own work. The source and authotship claims give us „ Foto: Museum Erding, Harald Krause.“ 2A02:810D:4AC0:26A8:B5B6:EE02:547:7ACD 01:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt that the uploader is Mr. Harald Krause and this is then not the uploader's own work. Moreover, here the museums wants be asked if their media material is allowed to get published, so a permission must be obtained which was not done. --Msb (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gemäldegalerie Dachau.jpg

Image is not free ebough for Commons, see EXIF information: „ Das Foto darf ausschließlich für Marketingmaßnahmen für den "Zweckverband Dachauer Galerien und Museen" verwendet werden.“ 2A02:810D:4AC0:26A8:B5B6:EE02:547:7ACD 01:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sedlmair Michael.jpg

Creator of this picture is obviously „ Fotostudio Sexauer Ismaning“ - no permission given for a the license applied 2A02:810D:4AC0:26A8:B5B6:EE02:547:7ACD 01:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanija selfie.jpg

Ne evidence that Sanija approved release. Ђидо (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also affects: File:Sanija Ameti, 2021.jpg. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 04:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Ne evidence that Sanija approved release" suggests the scenario that this is her private photograph and that someone is sharing it without her permission, but the same photograph is used as her portrait on the official website of the organization of which she is co-president. I believe that she took the selfie, uploaded it to her organization's website—and—to Commons, in order to update the information about her on Wikipedia. There is no specific reason to suspect that the uploader is not the author. Per COM:MYWORK: Usually, stating that it is a selfie will suffice if that is really the case, though in some cases you may be asked for additional evidence. This should be the "usually" case and not a case when we really need to ask for additional evidence.—Alalch E. (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the conversations at File talk:Sanija selfie.jpg and at Commons:Village pump#Own work selfie upload with a contested "no permission" tag— Alalch E. (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader did essentially two contributions across all Wikimedia projects: Added Sanija's selfie, and updated some info about en:University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, a month later. People interests are diverse, but simplest explanation is that Sanija, who just took presidentship of a political party, probably has no vested interest nor knowledge of school she didn't go to, nor has any association with.

Simpler explanation is that User:Sasouks and Sanija are two different people. It is even quite probable that uploader is someone close to Sanija, but who went to said school.

Second, this is clearly a selfie, so it was taken by subject herself, so she is the author.

Now, it is also quite possible, even overwhelmingly probable, that Sanija gave that image to another person to update Wikipedia article with it. It is also likely she has no objections to Wikipedia use.

However, knowing, being aware and approving of use of image is not same as legally releasing rights via CC license.

I am encountering this a lot with images of public personas -- I find out that copyright laws are very hard concept to grasp for majority people. Most of them think that giving a copy of image to someone is same as giving them license to share it, or that because they are subject of the photograph, and they hold a printed copy of it in their album, they own copyright on it.

Ђидо (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep https://youtube.com/watch?v=N70wQfqxuCE the author of this image is aware of it being used on wikipedia in Dec 2022.

no evidence that she considered this copyvio and filed dmca requests. RZuo (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although weakly, but just because she's aware that the image was on Wikipedia that doesn't mean she wants anyone to use it for any purpose. There's been plenty of instances in the past where people gave permission for an image to be on Wikipedia but then it was deleted on our end because "Wikipedia" isn't a general license that allows for other uses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no special reason to think that the person who uploaded this as an own work released under CC BY-SA 4.0 has submitted any false information. — Alalch E. (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason they can't file VRT permission like everyone else in a similar situation does then. Not to accuse you of anything but you seem to really be against any kind of standards for inclusion here. We don't need a "special reason" to delete the image. That's not how this works. The fact that there's zero evidence she's the uploader and/or released the image under a free license is more then enough. If in fact she is and did then there's no reason she can't file VRT permission like everyone else though. Honestly I find your instance that the uploader shouldn't have to more then a little wierd. Who cares? If she uploaded it then she can just file VRT permission. Its not a big deal and makes zero difference what-so-ever outside of assuring the file is freely licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could perhaps, but do they even know that they are asked to? They last edited in 2021. Our practice is to trust the uploader unless there is reason not to. The discussion at the file talk page, linked above, suggests that the image wasn't on the internet before being uploaded here, and that she is aware of the image being published here. If that's true, we need quite strong evidence for a "significant doubt" about the image's copyright status. –LPfi (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi: There's two reasons to doubt this. Both of which I think are totally valid and have certainly led to similar images being deleted in the past. 1. There's nothing on our end or anywhere else to indicate that the uploader is Sanija Ameti 2. From what I understand the images were already available on other websites being uploaded to Commons. One or both of those things would result in the image being deleted in any other instance. No insult to you or anyone who thinks the images should be kept, but this whole thing really just comes off like bad faithed white knighting. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are valid in this case.

Usually we trust the uploader, by policy. In this case there is even some evidence that she knows about the uploads. If she didn't agree with having them uploaded (on the terms indicated by the uploader, whether or not it was her), she should have protested.
Is there some evidence? My reading of the file talk page thread is that the earlier occurrence(s) had lower resolution.

(There is nothing anywhere indicating that photos I have uploaded were taken by me – I can prove that, sort of, for most photos, but there is no guarantee I'd see a "no permission" message in time, nor that I'd bother to dig the proof up. I indeed hope that Commons doesn't let them go if I'm not here to defend them after a few years, let alone photos more important than those of mine.)

–LPfi (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request should also handle the extracted image File:Sanija Ameti, 2021.jpg, which was deleted as "no permission since" by User:Aafi. Either both are copyright violations or neither. It is very bad for Commons that you can get images deleted by just slapping that template on them (how would a user not active since 2021 notice?). –LPfi (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi, thanks for the ping. I have restored the image and added a DR template linking to this page. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bezirksmuseum Dachau Foto Günther Standl.jpg

The author is „günther standl“, the EXIF information gives: „ Das Foto darf ausschließlich für Marketingmaßnahmen für den "Zweckverband Dachauer Galerien und Museen" verwendet werden. Jegliche Nutzung Dritter ist mit dem Bildautor "www.guenterstandl.de" “ Seems not to be compliant with Commons. 2A02:810D:4AC0:26A8:B5B6:EE02:547:7ACD 01:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JamesBeckett3 (talk · contribs)

(Mostly) low-resolution images with very inconsistent metadata; File:Solwezi-Airport.jpg has a watermark, File:Proflight j41.jpg has a weird border, File:Proflight crj.jpg has "Langmead & Baker Ltd 2016" in the "Copyright holder" metadata field. COM:PCP applies: likely not own work.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 02:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of South Korea (1949-).png

제일 최근에 올린 파일과 중복됩니다 Republicofkoreaflag (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of South Korea (1949).png

제일 최근에 올린 파일과 중복됩니다 Republicofkoreaflag (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:대한민국 국기 (1949-1984).png

제일 최근에 올린 파일과 중복됩니다 Republicofkoreaflag (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan tour 食肆 restaurant September 2024 IPhone 134.jpg

Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:대한민국의 국기 (1949-1984).png

방금 올린 파일과 중복됩니다. Republicofkoreaflag (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheick Cissé at the 2024 Summer Olympics 05 (53948191035).jpg

Flickr washing: Taken on Cheick Sallah Cissé X (Twitter), not Flickr user's work A1Cafel (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dharavi, murales e graffiti 08.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GV Florida S007 (2024).jpg

Photo has to be redone by the original author. MaloxDayag (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GV Florida S007 (2024).jpg

Wrong photo. MaloxDayag (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GV Florida S007 (2024).jpg

To be replaced by File:GV Florida S007 (2024) (09-14).jpg MaloxDayag (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RUN standing next to her Mural.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street-Art (Sumy, Ukraine) (46518902414).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghat graffiti (5581394652).jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicken head (5581397688).jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cow sculptures, Clive Street, Singapore - 20170121-01.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Singapore A1Cafel (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girls from NGO Painting.jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kali's watching (2877870843).jpg

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:William McCullough mural, Shankill Road - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summer of 69 mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short Strand mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Lodge Republican mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Lodge Six mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ulster Freedom Fighters mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World War 1 mural - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:East Belfast boxers - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gibraltar Memorial - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Republican Murals - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Habanamamalouisbourgeoisarana27-02-2005.jpg

Per enwiki, the sculpture was only a temporary dispaly in Cuba, so it cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:پیراهن‌های همیشه.jpg

Cover of magazine cannot be a personal work. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Persianwetdream.jpg

Poster of movie cannot be a personal work. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paradiselostpersia.jpg

Poster cannot be a personal work. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maman, sculpture de Louise Bourgeois.JPG

Per enwiki, the sculpture was only a temporary dispaly in Switzerland, so it cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charade -188 answer (2506365736).jpg

No FoP in France, artist Louise Bourgeois died in 2010 A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minesweeper in Windows 7.jpg

Screenshot of a video game is copyright violation. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little unclear from w:Minesweeper (video_game) who developed the game, but if it was developed in the U.S.A., this screen might be below COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahangarden.jpg

Picture from a book cannot be a personal work. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Flag maps of Europe

Unused, lower quality versions of the flag map of Europe. (File:Europe flags.png and File:Flag Map of Europe.png - which are not up for deletion - are the ones actually used in articles).

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San julian65.JPG

COM:PCP Likely copyvio. Photograph has the watermark of website from where probably was taken. Maybe this gallery [1] Frodar (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Casa Donde Habitó La Podredumbre Que No Tiene Corazón.jpg

Inappropiiate captions, which look like a personal attack. "The House Where the Heartless Rot Lived" and "A detestable being lived there." without encyclopedic vaoue, 109.71.220.186 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo, probably in scope if the location could be specified a bit and OK if it was taken from a public place, but of course the title and description would have to be changed. I do agree that under the circumstances, it probably has to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; attack content. We don't have any other context for the photo, so there's no conceivable way it could be used. Omphalographer (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:مصطفوی و هیتلر.jpg

out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:گروهک مظنونین همیشگی.jpg

out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow, Petrovsko-Razumovskaya Alley, wall art (31683821561).jpg

No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow, Andropova Prospect, fence of 'Ostrov Mechty' construction site (31109365665).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant hand in the Muzeon Park of Arts, Moscow.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head. The House of Homeless (29101221640).jpg

No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow, VDNKh, Main Alley - inflatable red octopus (21237636532).jpg

No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:16-09-16-Flugplatz Tegel-RR2 5844.jpg

Bildschirmbild sollte ausgeschwärzt werden, da es nicht frei lizenziert ist, Copyright by Sita 2A02:3100:9DDE:3000:1CAE:23FB:4E73:EDC8 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IRIS 72 Alborz and IRIS 73.jpg

License laundering. This photograph, with higher quality, is available in other websites and is not a work by Iran Front Page. HeminKurdistan (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Under section sign, gay.png

Unused file, File:Under section sign, gay.svg|there's an SVG version]]. Adinar0012 (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Industry Automation Solutions Armstrong.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IWMS Supply Chain Solutions Logo.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stevenmaidtofit (talk · contribs)

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou 1979 - 1357.ogg

None of the terms of PD-Iran applies HeminKurdistan (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neotech Logo.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902, color).webm

Requesting deletion as the uploader on this. I came across a previous deletion discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Voyage dans la lune (1902).webm, where it was determined that the restoration of this film included a digital colorization that would be under copyright. -hinnk (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think restorations like it are not separate works that are copyrightable. Somebody needs to clarify, if not the video may be deleted just for precaution in fault which also wouldn't be a problem because I think there are some tools out there now by which it's fairly easy and automated to colorize works (and if not yet working well in this case they probably will soon). Prototyperspective (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, that's correct that faithful restoration doesn't involve introducing copyrightable elements. This example actually came up as part of a thread on that exact topic: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06 § Film restoration, new copyright?.

Colorizing a black-and-white film doesn't usually fall under film restoration though, since it's an intentional revision of the work. This is an atypical case since the original film was in color, but some of the frames were lost and had to be replaced with frames from a black-and-white print. hinnk (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:INSPECTION DU TRAVAIL.jpg

fetched from internet, copyrighted F (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butler in 2007 after a business conference in Charleston.png

AI-generated and -watermarked image of person identified only by their surname. If they're a real person this won't be a useful image of them; if they're not then Commons doesn't need a low resolution picture of an imaginary man in a suit, it has plenty of better ones. Belbury (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; dubious; OOS -- 14:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Tama-Tokuda-1945.jpg

Not actually under a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license- the website states CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0. (https://ddr.densho.org/ddr-densho-383-466/; https://web.archive.org/web/20140715152138/https://ddr.densho.org/ - webarchive to homepage showing they've used the non-commercial variant for a while) Potentially speediable, but I'd like somebody with more knowledge about the duration of copyright of unpublished works to weigh in. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, NC license, they can also release under a more liberal license, but the uploader does not appear to be the copyright holder. --RAN (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aena Alicante.svg

I uploaded this a few years ago and would like it deleted. File is not needed and is not a proper SVG. 20Panorama15 (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foxy Lady - Summer of 67 In Explore 6-9-24 - Flickr - Joey Z1.jpg

Copyrighted artwork, not Flickr user's work A1Cafel (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Global burden of disease(Dalys).jpg

1. no datasource so it could be just made up 2. fourth color is not in chart and has no label Prototyperspective (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bahadireren25 (talk · contribs)

Suspected copyright violations, no Exif and relatively small resolution. Most images can be found at http://www.hinis.gov.tr/-15-derecede-buzda-tirmandilar which dates to at least 2020-02-17 per internet archive, prior to being uploaded here in 2022. Uploader has uploaded other suspected copyright violations per their userpage. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please provide permission to COM:VRT.

Consigned (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ミスマガ放課後RADIO！渋谷クロスFM 2024年9月5日の渋谷 202409051844 IMG 5408.jpg

The photographies on the magazine-cover, included in this shot, are surely copyrighted. De minimis might eventually be discussed.. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just {{de minimis}} ウィ貴公子 (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

Keep, obvious de minimis. The photographer's objective was clearly to depict those people, not the cover of the magazine. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep De minimis, as the magazine covers are blurred and not usable. File:ミスマガ放課後RADIO！渋谷クロスFM 2024年9月5日の渋谷 202409051844 IMG 5412.jpg is the only one that might be a problem, in that the magazine cover on the right is arguably marginally usable. Probably still de minimis as a whole, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger Harty. Optician.JPG

COM:SCOPE, private snap automatically importate from flickr. 62.216.206.167 10:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:زحل.jpg

File:زحل Nati4dpcc4 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:زحل.jpg

dsvfsdfds Nati4dpcc4 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Milan Zacria (talk · contribs)

Doubtful that the uploader took both of these photos of a murder victim and the arrested suspect.

Belbury (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:รถโดยสารด่วนพิเศษบีอาร์ที.jpg

Photo (with the bus plate uncensored) found on other sites: [2][3]. Therefore extremely likely not own work. 沪A 05683D_S5A-0043 11:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Creativebakers (talk · contribs)

Professional logos and product images, unlikely to be the uploader's own work.

Consigned (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT).

→

File:GCRAS logo.svg

Dubious PD claim, see COM:Russia#Logos. Quick1984 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ノヴォロシヤの国歌.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Constantin Medal IRGS.jpg

No verifiable source provided, no evidence that the photographer of this 3D object (PD itself) released his work under a free license. Quick1984 (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Anthem of donetsk people's republic vocal.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вставай донбасс.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Anthem of Lugansk.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Anthem of Lugansk vocal.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Anthem of Lugansk old version.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Anthem of kharkov.wav

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional flag of Dnipropetrovsk People's Republic 2.png

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Odessa People's Republic.png

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional flag of the Sumy People's Republic.png

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional flag of Zaporozhye People's Republic.png

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional flag of Kherson People's Republic.png

copyright violation 2001:2D8:68A1:F36B:3066:DC78:D1D2:1C1 11:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Tomsk.png

Obvious copyright violation: Screenshot from a video game Trasheater Midir (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erection angle and shape of penises.jpg

One or more images in the montage were deleted A1Cafel (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the deleted should be restored since they were in use in the montage at the time of deletion. --RAN (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE. What was the deletion reason, A1Cafel? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright violation, particularly File:Human male reproductive organs-erect penis.jpg was deleted due to CV. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  In that case, yes, the montage has to be deleted unless a file with all good photos is substituted under this filename. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moonbase Alpha Logo.jpg

I don't think this is in the PD. Credits in the game states that RAD Game Tools, Inc. owns the copyright under "All rights reserved". Also the game engine is under copyright from Epic Games, Inc. and the game is seen behind this picture. Kakan spelar (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ES-Danzas pupolares Rumanas-Article.ogg

@Túrelio: When asking "why do you consider the content as not valid?" please make sure you watched or listened to the file. This is an audio file of unidentified music, not a spoken Wikipedia article as the description and file title claim. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem is not validity of the content, but its source/copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is secondary. If it's easier to address if you only consider that then I don't mind but the issue is "Test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content" (G1) as having a completely different content than description and file title claim. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoge varkensruggen bij een parkeerplaats.jpg

Brengt verwarring, deze redirect kan beter verwijderd worden. Industrees (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (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 HASAN1378 (talk · contribs)

Personal files, out of project scope

Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by HASAN1378 (talk · contribs)

Questionable own work claims due to inconsistent metadata, while some contain no information, the others are taken with Canon IXY 430F, Canon PowerShot A430 and SM-J700F.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naturist woman 6.jpg

Wrong file uploaded BikiniCollection (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sybille Hagmann portrait by BAK Körner Union, Lausanne.jpg

copyright violation. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2024 (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.

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge.svg

Karena di sini tidak sesuai dengan harapan saya Es Krim 5 juta Rasa (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 07:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge.svg

redundant file. this file has the newer version (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge-Latn.svg) 미솔파 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notice that those files use different wordings. Not redundant on this basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard name for these files is "Wikipedia-logo-v2-QQF.svg", where QQF is the language code. So File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge.svg should be the file name that exists.

The image at File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge-Latn.svg looks not so correct. The first and the second line of text are supposed to be aligned on both sides, according to the legal trademark instructions at foundation:Legal:Wikimedia trademarks/Word mark creation. Currently, the second line is longer than the first.

Perhaps User:Odder can help to make it better. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've done updating the new logo (File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge-Latn.svg) to follow the legal rule. May you delete this file (File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge.svg)? 미솔파 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Alick Isaacs Co-Director Siach Shalom.jpg

Copyright? This single contribution of the user is clearly a photo of a photo or a screen dump. See this photo. Wouter (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-v1-kge.svg

redundant file. this file has the newer version (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-kge-Lmpg.svg) 미솔파 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Diego Padres Logo History.jpg

probably logos above the threshold of originality in USA, especially 1969, 2004-2011 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I think several of them are. Maybe this can be moved to en.wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Tim Hoa.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedia Commons Admin Team,

I am the owner of Tim Hoa, a legitimate perfume brand from Vietnam. I am writing this letter to appeal the deletion request for the Tim Hoa logo that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

After receiving the notification regarding the deletion request, I reviewed the terms and policies of Wikimedia Commons, and I did not find any violations in the upload of my logo. Please allow me to clarify the situation:

Informational Nature of the Image: Our logo is not intended for promotional purposes. The purpose of uploading it to Wikimedia Commons is to provide information and allow anyone, including our partners and distributors, to easily download and use the logo when needed. The public availability of the logo is to support the development of the Tim Hoa brand.

1. Copyright and Legal Ownership: This logo was custom-designed by a hired agency for our company, and we are currently in the process of trademark registration in Vietnam. We are not violating any copyright regulations, and the logo has been authorized by the rightful owner – Tim Hoa – to be used by our distribution partners and agents. Therefore, there are no copyright issues regarding its use.

2. Authenticity of the Tim Hoa Brand: I can confirm that Tim Hoa is a legitimate Vietnamese perfume brand with full legal business documents. We have an official website (timhoa.com), social media channels (Facebook: facebook.com/timhoavn, YouTube: youtube.com/@timhoa), as well as a registered business address and a physical store in Ho Chi Minh City. While our brand may not yet be well-known internationally, Tim Hoa has gained significant recognition and appreciation from consumers in Vietnam.

3. Demand for the Logo in Vietnam: Many of our partners in Vietnam, including users, distributors, and designers, require the use of our logo. Therefore, I proactively uploaded the logo to Wikimedia Commons to support them in using the brand image easily and correctly.

4. We Are a Startup Business: Tim Hoa is a startup company that is in the process of growing. Making our logo publicly available is one of the measures to promote brand recognition. We sincerely hope to receive Wikimedia Commons' support in this effort.

I believe that retaining the Tim Hoa logo on the Wikimedia Commons platform is not only in compliance with the platform’s rules but also beneficial to the community. I am willing to provide additional information or documents if necessary to verify the ownership and legitimate use of this logo.

Thank you for considering my request.

Sincerely,

Do Quoc Huu

Owner of Tim Hoa Brand Doquochuu (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I understand that Commons is not a platform for advertising or commercial promotion.

However, the Tim Hoa logo I uploaded was intended to serve as official information in relation to our brand in articles about perfumes and related topics. Our intention was not to use this logo for commercial purposes or advertising, but rather to support educational content and provide accurate information about the Tim Hoa brand in relevant articles.

I kindly request that Wikimedia Commons reconsider my case, as the primary purpose of uploading this logo is not for promotion or commercial use, but to contribute to the educational and informational goals of the platform by providing accurate visual materials for related articles. If there are any adjustments I need to make to fully comply with Wikimedia's policies, I am more than willing to cooperate and make the necessary changes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from the community soon.

Best regards, Doquochuu (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice logo. Startups usually are not notable enough for Commons to host their logos, though. If your company becomes notable, the logo should be undeleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. Our company stands out in the Vietnamese market. Doquochuu (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language is not going to help your case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Languages-Dialects of Bihar.gif

Wrong Linguistic Map. Kusinara (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LuAnaDoSER.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (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.

File:Wu-Tang Clan - C.R.E.A.M. for Yo MTV Raps.webm

Video is freely licensed, but the music is copyrighted (Copyright Rules Everything Around Me :/) Bremps... 02:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would one know that is the case? Could the Wu-Tang Clan have given permission to MTV to distribute the performance further, including by releasing the recording with a CC-BY license? A similar deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy. However, in that request, a game studio rather than a TV studio was involved. It was assumed there that the game studio would have acquired any licensing from other parties (for items such as in-game artwork and sounds/music) allowing release of the videos as CC-BY.

Fundamentally the question which appears to be unanswered by policies/guidelines/etc of Commons (example: Commons:Problematic sources) is which types of individuals or types of organisations are assumed to understand and have obtained all required rights needed to release something with a CC-BY license. Past deletion request precedent appears to confirm that music labels and game studios are assumed to know what they're doing when they release something as CC-BY. Does MTV know what they're doing when they release a CC-BY video recording of a music performance? I don't know. But hopefully a gap in policy/guidelines can be addressed in some of the documents at Category:Commons licensing help. Dhx1 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so dope if C.R.E.A.M by the Wu was freely licensed. That was why I didn't speedy it, and have opened a discussion at the Village Pump. Bremps... 02:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV definitely licensed the video components. The performers obviously allowed themselves to be recorded by MTV, so there are no performer's rights issues. The video is definitely a derivative work of the song, so there is a songwriting (and lyric) credit that MTV does not own at play. This is definitely not a license for the song itself; it would just be a license to use clips of this particular performance of it. It may come down to the contract between MTV and the band... does MTV have enough rights to license the video as they wish? The question is if we need a specific OK from the owner of the song's copyright to allow this particular derivative work to have the license, or if we think that MTV's license alone implies that the band authorized any further derivative works of the resulting video. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the music is copyrighted and there is no permission from the copyright holder of the music to put the video under cc-by, the video is illegally at Youtube. Is that plausible? --Krd 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely to be illegal -- MTV almost certainly has rights to use the performance for its own purposes. It's unclear if they have rights to re-license for others, or especially if others would still need to (for example) pay ASCAP to broadcast or whatever. They can certainly license the portion they own, which is the video copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: the video (including the music) is published with a free license by MTV. It is credible that the performers alloewd MTV to redistribute their performance on different media. All the rest are suppositions. Ruthven (msg) 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wu-Tang Clan - C.R.E.A.M. for Yo MTV Raps.webm

Renominating; I do not think all relevant issues were considered in the previous kept. For a video of a musical performance, multiple factors must be considered for the whole to be free licensed. 1)The video itself, authorization of who took it. We're good here. 2) The performance. The artists must authorize their performance to be free licensed. Seems reasonable in context. 3)The composition performed must be explicitly free licensed. If the composition "C.R.E.A.M." has not been free licensed by the copyright holders, this video is a copyright violation as derivative work. "Fair use" of copyrighted materials is allowed many places online, but cannot be used on Commons. Unless it can be shown that the composition "C.R.E.A.M." is explicitly free licensed, this needs to be deleted. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin Knaapen.jpg

The description says “own work” by the uploader (who's also the person pictured), but the metadata says that the photo was taken by someone else and even displays a copyright symbol. Mondo (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дворец искусств Львов 003.jpg

COM:FOP Ukraine, uk:Василь Каменщик (1944-2023) 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raise A Suilen Logo.svg

Headphones may be above COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:The Greatest Demon Lord Is Reborn as a Typical Nobody logos

Ornamental Horns give it artistic value per COM:TOO Japan.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metro screen.jpg

Derivative work of Samus Aran. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Game On characters by Monaux.png

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative of copyrighted video game characters. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:FANART. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still largely based of copyrighted characters. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fanart can violate copyrights too. After all, they are COM:DERIVATIVE. If the work is copyrightable, assume that it is non-free unless proven free. And I mean libre, not gratis.

Delete CarlFilip19 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipediaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.gif

irrelevant gif 131.0.213.87 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not useful. Either delete, or convert to PNG and upload under a better name. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1D Caramelldansen gif.gif

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of Carmelldansen. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dance moves are not copyrightable. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It is arranged in a way that is similar to the original copyrighted Carmelldansen videos and gifs. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dance moves (or any poses, for that matter) are not copyrightable, neither are real people's likenesses. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But these caricatures of the band members may be based of previous copyrighted illustrated depictions of them, I affirm my viewpoint of deletion per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that they are derivative of any previous illustrations? Di (they-them) (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, well it seems like they were all based off a character template based of copyrighted characters. But art style cannot be copyrighted and simple layouts of people cannot be as well. So I'll let this one slide as well. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph Breaks the Internet (fan art by Wolf Chung).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative of Mario Characters. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:FANART. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear derivative of Donkey Kong. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an obvious derivative work of non-free properties by Nintendo (like Donkey Kong and Super Mario), and that Vanellope, a character from Wreck-It Ralph just appears there, that image is copyright infringement. That Wolf Chung has tried to put the infringement into the public domain? Not really cool, to be honest. Next time, I recommend that you carefully watch if seemingly free art is legit or not, and look beyond the alleged or statement of libre freedom by the author. COM:FANART is no excuse here, because that essay mentions that fan art can still violate copyrights, not that fan art can simply work around copyright restrictions.

Delete CarlFilip19 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ralph Breaks the Internet (fan art by Wolf Chung) (Cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative of copyrighted disney character. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:FANART. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, it is a clear derivative of copyrighted vanellope von schweetz. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Almansa 0293D.jpg

Esta imagen no se corresponde con el Catillo de Almansa en Albacete. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almansa Infinita: Pues realmente, no me parece que sea el castillo de Almansa, pero tampoco sé qué otro puede ser. Así que creo que habrá que borrarla. Es un escaneo de una foto de 1993 y no soy capaz de reubicarla. Tampoco es Chinchilla. B25es (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que es Villena. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:B25es, if the original photo is your own work, why can't you scan it again? You lost it? If it's not your own work, don't claim next to "Source" that it's your "own work"! And if it isn't your own work, it indeed does have to be deleted, because it's copyright violation! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: It's a good question and deserves an answer.

I'm proactively reducing the amount of physical stuff I have home, mainly because I'm getting older. And among the things I'm getting rid of there are pictures. A few personal ones I keep in print. Another group are pictures that are relevant to me, but not so important, are digitally stored (I guess at some point they will be also lost). The majority of physical pictures I just destroy. Before my destroying them, I upload those that are useful in Wikimedia projects. They are not all that many. Some are really very poor quality. Others were taken in places without freedom of panorama. And a real lot I cannot say what they are. I trust the notes that go with the pics; some are my notes, some my wife's, sometimes a ticket goes with them and I assume that's the place. So no, I cannot scan them again.

In the case of those three, I will try to check if they are for Villena and rename and recategorize them. But otherwise, I think the pictures are neither all that good nor all that significant, and both Villena and Almansa castles have some better pictures in Commons. B25es (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, totally understood. For similar reasons, my cousin copied the tracks from all his CDs to his computer and threw away the CDs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked and this castle is La Atalaya, in Villena. I have already asked for rename and corrected texts. The donjon of La Atalaya is distinct, showing two parts (lower and upper) and window placements also agree. Now I find this picture can be kept, as to show how it was in 1993. This opinion stands also for File:Castillo de Almansa 0293C.jpg. As for File:Castillo de Almansa 0293 A.jpg, its difficult to say what I was trying to photo. And File:Castillo de Almansa 0293B.jpg is the real castle of Almansa! Only one right out of four, terrible! B25es (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so hard on yourself. So let's

Keep these now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Almansa 0293C.jpg

Esta imagen no se corresponde con el Catillo de Almansa en Albacete. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almansa Infinita: Pues realmente, no me parece que sea el castillo de Almansa, pero tampoco sé que otro puede ser. Así que creo que habrá que borrarla. Es un escaneo de una foto de 1993 y no soy capaz de reubicarlal. Tampoco es Chinchilla. B25es (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que es Villena. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He mirado y corresponde con el castillo de la Atalaya, en Villena. He modificado los datos y pedido que renombren el fichero, de forma que se puede conservar. B25es (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castillo de Almansa 0293 A.jpg

Esta imagen no se corresponde con el Catillo de Almansa en Albacete. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almansa Infinita: Pues realmente, no me parece que sea el castillo de Almansa, pero tampoco sé que otro puede ser. Así que creo que habrá que borrarla. Es un escaneo de una foto de 1993 y no soy capaz de reubicarla. Tampoco es Chinchilla. B25es (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que es Villena. Almansa Infinita (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es posible que sea el castillo de la Atalaya de Villena, pero realmente la foto no enseña nada reconocible. Así como estoy a favor de conservar C y D (he pedido la modificación de los nombres) porque al menos se ve cómo estaban en 1993, en esta no veo utilidad a la foto por su baja calidad. B25es (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squidward Tentacles.svg

Crop of deleted File:SpongeBob SquarePants character montage.png. Should be deleted for the same reason that one was. And I did read the previous DRs here * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warhammer 40K Battleship.jpg

unlikely to be own work Prototyperspective (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nair women from Malabar.jpg

exact dupe of File:Nair Women during Thalappoli (1914).jpg RAN (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huong Giang - Miss International Queen Vietnam 2020.jpg

Screenshot from a YouTube video yet the video no longer exists, and the image hasn't been reviewed by an image reviewer Băng Tỏa 17:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emirates FA Cup Logo 2020.jpg

Possibly above COM:TOO UK which is very low. Jonteemil (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a textlogo, even in the UK? The EDGE Magazine logo has unusual letters. Could the normal fonts used in this logo really be copyrighted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arthur Pic portrait.jpg

Evidence of own work is required. Jonteemil (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because? What's the deletion reason, User:Jonteemil? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect copyvio. Jonteemil (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what, keeping in mind that "small size and lack of EXIF" is expressly stated on the COM:DR page not to be a deletion reason per se? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the user's only photographic upload and one of the two total uploads by the user, the other one being a logo that was deleted as copyvio yesterday per my tagging with {{Logo}}. Therefore I doubt this is own work. Jonteemil (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good argument.

Delete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WCW Nitro logo (1999 to 2001).png

Might be above COM:TOO US. Jonteemil (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh sure! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:UEFA European U-19 Championship 2009

Derivative work of copyrighted logo.

Jonteemil (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UFL championship trophy.jpg

Likely copyrighted. Jonteemil (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:2015 IIHF World Championship

COM:FOP Czech Republic is OK but is this permanently placed?

Jonteemil (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2024 (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.

File:Mithila Map.jpg

It is based on false data about language and culture. Odantapuribs (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The request from 2021 (3 years ago) was forgotten, file got never deleted, and proposal never closed. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mithila Map.jpg

Wrong Linguistic Map. Both East & West Champaran are Bhojpuri speaking regions. It includes several districts which are not Maithili speaking ex - Jamtara, Dumka, Deoghar, Godda, Jamui, Bhagalpur etc Kusinara (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also File:Angika region.png. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. Start a discussion on the file's talk page or create a new map and try to substitute it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"Kultur u. Sportwoche"

These 1921 German Notgeld (emergency money) bills are works of Wilhelm Kleinschmidt, who died in 1967. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2038.

Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1921 Jozef Van De Velde.jpg

1921 photograph; needs an actual source (not an own work) or publication information to determine copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoals ik al eerder vermeldde. Ik ben de eigenaar van de originele foto's.

De persoon op de foto is een grootoom van mij en werd genomen op het huwelijk van mijn grootvader.

Ik snap dus niet dat er enige discussie kan zijn over auteursrechten.

Dat de kwaliteit niet super is ligt aan het feit dat ze meer dan honderd jaar oud zijn.

Hoe dan ook, als iemand vragen heeft, laat maar weten. Eddydemunter (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Het bezitten van een foto betekent niet dat u het auteursrecht bezit. Auteursrechttermijnen kunnen in Nederland langer zijn dan 100 jaar. Weet je wie de fotograaf was en wanneer hij stierf? (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddydemunter: Can you add the image to the correct Jozef Van De Velde at Wikidata? --RAN (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ermanno Zuccarini (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: plain text. These all appear to be modern transcriptions; if needed on a Wikimedia project, they should be inserted as plain text.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1939-03-10 Portrait.jpg

1939 photograph, could be German. Would need more information on this to determine actual copyright status. Not an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet "PD-EU-no author disclosure". --RAN (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- URAA would still matter, and we'd need to know where it was published to know if it applies or not. Abzeronow (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1944-insterburg-artillerie.webp

CC license not supported by source. 1944 German photograph, could be public domain there, but would have had U.S. copyright restored. Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1949-1950 Australian cyclone season summary.jpg

Map that needs a source for the satellite photo. Abzeronow (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1952 nov 29 DIario Carioca ed. 7489.png

1952 newspaper clipping, seems to be PD in Brazil, but not the U.S. as this was still copyrighted in 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia-logo-v3-sd.svg

I created this logo for SD Wiki, but the globe is not correct. I took help from user @Goran_tek-en to create a perfect logo. Please delete this logo so he can upload the new one under the same name. Arslanali (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NOT obviously or dangerously broken. You can upload the new version immediately under the same name, no need to wait for deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Wikipedia-logo-v3-sd.svg&wpForReUpload=1 . Taylor 49 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything wrong if uploader request to delete his/her file? Arslanali (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1958 jul 20 Correio da Manhã ed 20035.png

1958 Brazilian Newspaper clipping. Not PD in Brazil or the U.S. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Płk. Wacław Klaczyński.jpg

Nieopublikowane zdjęcie z albumu rodzinnego. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished photo from a family album Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the absence of contradicting local case law, we follow USA case law which has an image "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer. --RAN (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if it left photographer's custody, it is not published work. In Polish law it is a case of orphaned work and it is not in public domain. Gower (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aadamaas (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: fraudulent diplomas/awards. The "United Nations of Arts & Sciences" is not an organ of the United Nations or UNESCO (whose logo it mimics).

Omphalographer (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and also due to lack of evidence of permission.

I dream of horses (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darke-d sky-ed.jpg

Contextless, low-quality personal pic without any educational use Fl.schmitt (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by YuYangLim (talk · contribs)

Commons is not your personal free web host. Lack of COM:EDUSE.

Achim55 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scribbly Silver the Hedgehog.svg

Was nominated for speedy deletion by Grandmaster Huon, but I'm appealing by nominating this with a regular deletion request. I argue that while art that hugely replicates the look of Silver would be copyright infringement (like this), this rendition of him is really abstract to the point ~~it can be argued it's only inspired by his look, not copying it~~ (better argument of mine below). PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still derivative of the character design and is also named Silver the Hedgehog. Borderline infringement in my view.

Delete per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the drawing is based on a copyrighted character design, but it is so abstractified that it can be considered legally distinct from the original design. The combination of a Mickey Mouse-style muzzle, long cartoon animal nose, and chest fur can't be attributed to only one design, and so do the depiction of Silver's quills; they're too vague to be considered only belonging to Silver's original design. When picking this image, I was trying to choose one that doesn't have many elements that scream only "Silver", while still keeping the essence of him. Also, names are not copyrighted. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helmut Kohl 1987.jpg

Auf Wunsch des Hochladenden, da andere User die Bearbeitung ablehnen. Gisbert K (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helmut Kohl.png

Auf Wunsch des Hochladenden, da andere User die Bearbeitung ablehnen. Gisbert K (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Fan art of Mario (video game series)

Derivative of copyrighted depictions of Waluigi's cap. This in particular has the shape and angle of Cappy from the Super Mario Odyssey logo.

File:Gorra de Waluigi.jpg

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Skyrim visual too substantial to be de minimis.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Fan art of Omori (video game)

Derivative work of copyrighted Omori characters.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana Collegio Araldico - Roma.jpg

Book cover, not own work, does not appear to be in the public domain. C F A 💬 19:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below COM:TOO Italy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilhelm Burgdorf.png

This file was uploaded manually from the Bundesarchiv, and is not part of the cooperation project. As such, the CC license given on the page is invalid, and we also cannot assume it's {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} without information on its publication status. 2A02:908:122:55C0:468A:5BFF:FECC:62BA 19:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Атанас Славов.jpg

Probably not own work, taken from Facebook (FBMD in metadata). Quick1984 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sovereign maroon flag.jpg

Looks like the file was copied from https://maroongovernment.world/. Liz (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah).webp

I find it highly unlikely that Rewards for Justice is creator of this photograph. Discostu (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MeirKovner, Are you the creator of the picture? It's a shame that the image used on many wiki sites will be deleted. Neriah (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вязьмітіна Марія Іванівна (портрет).jpg

Bogus PD rationale — this photo doesn't belong to "laws, decrees, resolutions, court awards, state symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, coins, banknotes" and so on. Quick1984 (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maks Levin.jpg

COM:Flickrwashing, Flickr uploader is not the author or copyright holder, photo by Evgeniy Datsenko: [4]. Quick1984 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocationMaroc.svg

Redundant (File:LocationMorocco3.svg) and unused FakeSVG Rubýñ ^(Scold) 20:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete both or all. File:LocationMaroc.svg is fake SVG (140 KiO), and File:LocationMorocco3.svg ( 2.8 MiO !!! ) is fake SVG too (although in a more cunning way). Alternatively, keep the least bloated one, since all are fake SVG. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocationMorocco3.svg is not a FakeSVG, as there aren't any any <image> elements in the file. It's incredibly bloated, for sure, but not fake. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 21:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoa đào bạc màu.jpg

The image is damaged due to strong lighting and is not suitable for commons Javidd (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of File:PrunusPersica4.jpg. See https://vi.wiktionary.org/wiki/Th%C3%A0nh_vi%C3%AAn:Mxn/H%C3%ACnh_n%E1%BB%81n_Trang_Ch%C3%ADnh there are more such files. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Paulistano Burger.svg

Unused logo of non-notable Brazilian restaurant, probably uploader's own business given the file is tagged as own work. Delete per COM:ADVERT Rubýñ ^(Scold) 21:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Elias Sarkis

Quick1984 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bendigo City FC Logo.jpg

Above COM:TOO Australia which is super low. Jonteemil (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A-League text logo.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Australia which is super low. Jonteemil (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NunawadingCityLogo.jpeg

Possibly above COM:TOO Australia which is super low. Jonteemil (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dulwich Hill Football Club Logo.jpg

Above COM:TOO Australia which is super low. Jonteemil (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moonee Valley Football Club.jpg

Above COM:TOO Australia which is super low. Jonteemil (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craigmorecclogo.png

Unlikely to be own work and COM:TOO Australia is super low so too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cutouts TheSmile.jpg

У изображения должно быть право на добросовестное использование. А у обычных пользователей право выкладывать изображение альбома или другого вида искусства нельзя Simplyhuman05 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puzzle 1500 elementów Trefl - styczeń 2019.jpg

Copyrighted puzzle RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo provincia di Grosseto.png

Copyrighted, from Araldicacivica.it (with license CC-BY-NC-ND, source: https://www.araldicacivica.it/provincia/grosseto/) Ashoppio (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrocumulus042505-b.jpg

The image was previously published on an NWS website.

I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source. They confirmed that they

own the copyright on the image
do not want to release it into the public domain

"I would never give up my rights to an image I took. It's easy enough to just ask to use it if someone wants to use it, but I don't just want it out there without my control. "

I have forwarded the conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024092110007062)

This is not a free image, so we can't host it here.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above statement. Will likely meet F1 and potentially F4 once VRT gets a hold of that statement. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it:File:Chievoverona2024.svg is non-free. On Commons all works must be 100% free and allowed for unrestricted use. Italian, as well as English, Wikipedia have less strict rules. Jonteemil (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

own the copyright on the image
do not want to release it into the public domain

"I do wish to keep the copyright. [It] should not be in the public domain."

I have forwarded the conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024092110008605)

This is not a free image, so we can't host it here.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Rlandmann (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Rlandmann (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above. Could meet F4 (failed license review) criteria once VRT sees it. But I’m going to hold off on using “speedy delete” language in my !vote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Model image.jpg

Unused personal 191.125.174.92 23:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]