Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/27

26 October 2024

28 October 2024

Deletion requests on 27 October 2024

October 27

File:Espace réservé au statut du musée patrimoniale de Baham.jpg

presence de marque de telephone Bile rene (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Watermarks are discouraged but not on their own a reason to delete; source image for a cropped version without the watermark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JOE & THE JUICE signage Westbourne Grove W2.jpg

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually asked you to delete this or are you just running around being overvigilant?
It looks from your list of entries you are of that sort. (Lots of items being tagged for deletion by you, probably without anyone who may own rights having asked you to.)
Please bear in mind that as we walk through our cities, just about everything we see has been CREATED by someone and therefore HAS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME SORT attached to it. If someone builds a wall, it's their creation. If someone lays down a street pattern, it's their creation. Etc etc. Maybe the time to delete something is when someone actually takes the point, rather than you running around using your "initiative" to destroy other people'S work willy-nilly because you feel like it? You could pick on lots of my photos and say, hey, that's someone's art (e.g. railway entrance signs, for instance and you haven't picked on the others (as yet!).)
I actually find this tedious, rightly or wrongly. Because there's no point in taking pictures at all and putting them here if people like yourself come out of the woodwork and censor them - where does the censorship stop?
I will ask Joe and the Juice if they want it deleted. Probably they will, if so I will come back to you and confirm you should delete this. Or maybe they won't care. Colin McLaughlin (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to them. email:

Hi.

I took a photo of your "Joe and the Juice" sign (as it's a cool sign) from the street as I was walking through London W9.

I put a copy of this photo on Wikimedia Commons, among my various photos. The photo is "public domain" - i.e. anyone can use my photo free of charge, without consent, for any purpose.

Technically your sign is copyright (i.e. subject to intellectual property rights as a design) so putting it on Wikimedia Commons has led me into conflict with the supervisors of that site, who want to delete my photograph. See the discussion here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JOE_%26_THE_JUICE_signage_Westbourne_Grove_W2.jpg

Please would you ask the person who owns the rights in the sign (you will need to check who owns the design and copyright rights) if they want and require my photo to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons (in which case it will be deleted) or if you are happy for my photograph to stay in the public domain on Wikimedia Commons as an "anyone can use this photograph for any purpose" photograph.

It's up to you. No urgency.

Thanks,

Colin McLaughlin
Colin McLaughlin (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added the photo to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_%26_The_Juice so please don't just delete this before a reply is received to the email above. Colin McLaughlin (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daecheong Middle School 2015.jpg

South Korea does not have freedom of panorama KimYubin (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Limoges Cercle Saint-Pierre.svg

Uploader is not the copyright holder of this file. – Sbaio (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant here?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QuidditchCanada Official Logo-01.jpg

Unlikely to be CC-BY-SA-4.0, as this was the former logo for an organization. Natg 19 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papás por conveniencia.png

no permission from company uploaded by an account with a copyvio history Hoyanova (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jules-Joseph Lefebvre signature.webp

Duplicate William C. Minor (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destroyed building in Lebedyn, 2022-03-07.jpg

Apparently, AI-generated image Bestalex (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The given camera location is bogus. Google Maps locates it somewhere in an agricultural field. Nakonana (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the front of the building is illuminated at night even though the street light is behind the building, and despite all the destruction around the building. Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep couple of ruzzians calling a fake, no actual evidence of it. --LeeMarx (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the paradox lighting of the scene and the missing EXIF data. The city was shelled but the electric infrastructure remained unscathed and they still have the resources to illuminate buildings at night? They are not running on emergency generators? And isn't it tactically questionable to illuminate buildings at night? This makes the buildings more visible and thus turns them into an easy target for further shelling. Why would Ukraine do this? And is the uploader a war photographer or why are they traveling all over Ukraine's war zone to upload a single photo of each location while removing all EXIF data from their photos and giving nonsense coordinates for the camera location? And why do all their uploads have weirdly curved buildings/windows/doors etc. or some other issues? Nakonana (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the location/building? If so, then this deletion nomination would turn into an obvious "keep" vote. Nakonana (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Il fullxfull.2767657796 jtqp.webp

Despite claim made in source field of image description, does not appear to be original work. Google image search points to several preexisting exact duplicates on etsy.com. DanielPenfield (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mirmakhmudovasamira (talk · contribs)

per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Asia#Uzbekistan. some of them redundant or possible duplicate images. also, i excluded interior of museum(check his uploads). lastly, please wait for this DR. lots of images, doenst need to rush.

modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 09:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:劉曉波病逝 05 (cropped).jpg

Photo of copyrighted work - a photo temporarily held during a march, so {{FoP-Hong Kong}} doesn't apply. (Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:港人燭光遊行至中聯辦悼念劉曉波 12 (cropped).jpg) dring sim 09:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 Hong Kong new year march 10 (刘晓波).jpg

Photo of copyrighted work - a photo temporarily held during a march, so {{FoP-Hong Kong}} doesn't apply. (Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:港人燭光遊行至中聯辦悼念劉曉波 12 (cropped).jpg) dring sim 09:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melissa Becker - Stunts und Spagat.jpg

possible copyvio © Andre Dalla Valle - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grafisk tryk Heike Arndt Bloody Saturday.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehlizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich jedoch um ein Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Heike Arndt Lutheraner (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łowicz 2023 36 Graces Church Jesus Painting.jpg

Copyright owner do now allow use in social media and modifications must be pre-approved. Thuresson (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This extra clause is obviously contrary to the terms of the license. The authors contacted us via VTR - so let's wait if they accept necessary amendments to their extra clause. Polimerek (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although as the 'author' I am not involved in the 'VTR process' and do not know what "necessary amendments" have been proposed to the artist's "extra clause", is it possible that the requirements of this "extra clause" could be accommodated by extending the "Permissions" of the 'author' to the 'artist'? Thanks for your advice on this --SM:!) (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as it is "faithfull photocopy" of 2D work - photographer has in fact no extra creative input to this work, so the copyright solely belongs to authors of the original work. They have just accepted removal the part of the extra clause which was contrary to the terms of the licence and also sent their non-conditional agreement to CC By-SA 4.0 license.

I have just accepted permission for “File:Łowicz 2023 36 Graces Church Jesus Painting.jpg” under ticket:2024102610000281. --Polimerek (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt follow-up in this matter, licensing clarification and acceptance of the artist's permission which presumably will lead to the removal of the deletion tag --SM:!) (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thuresson: Given the artist has now removed the specified caveat can you please now remove the deletion tag - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request hereby withdrawn. Thuresson (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creteflag001.png

Fictional content (such as flags) is out of the project scope. Nutshinou ^Talk! 12:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volta Por Cima.jpg

Copyright violation. See: The user already had upload from version Wikipedia. Not in Wikimedia Commons! 2804:214:D:39:6D6D:FF78:AF71:2CB0 12:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem.jpg

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author. copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep data corrected. --RAN (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former featured picture

Not used, replaced with Template:Assessments Multichill (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FORELLE GUSTAVE.jpg

probably wrong date, author, source... Xocolatl (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly public domain, but who is this gentleman? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sayad nazrul.jpg

wrong date etc. copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karte der Tierqälerei in Deutschland Screenshot 2024-10-24.jpg

Der Screenshot ist Urheberrechtsverletzung gegenüber Googlemaps und der Website https://tierschutz-skandale.de/ AxelHH (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted on weather.gov 2024-10-28

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done under the rationale that:

a process used for a time by the NWS Sioux City regional office that placed photos taken by the public into the public domain as a term of submisison applied to all third party images across all of weather.gov
the wording of the general site disclaimer on weather.gov that says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" means "noted with a formal copyright notice" (and ignoring the wording later in the disclaimer that goes on to say "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products.")

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that:

the NWS has had multiple, conflicting processes for public image submissions over the decades, some running concurrently by different regional offices (examples). Some of these processes made release into the public domain a condition of submission, others did not, and some were ambiguous. In practice, we can almost never link a particular image to any particular submission process.
in every one of several dozen cases investigated, individual photographers and third-party organizations had not released their work into the public domain when they submitted it for the NWS to use, and still asserted their rights over their images.(examples) This indicates that either the site general disclaimer is not intended to be interpreted the way that uploaders to the Commons have interpreted it over the years, or that this interpretation is correct, but that NWS employees have applied notices to images so very inconsistently over the years as to render the disclaimer completely unreliable.

These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to obtain permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, to expedite this process (and because throughout this review period, the people arguing most strenuously for retention have been remarkably reticent to actually ask photographers about the copyright status of their images), I have approached every one of the creators I have been able to identify.

Number	File	Basis of identification	Contact	VRT ticket
1027-1	File:A tornado near Fort Stockton on June 2, 2023.jpg	Confirmed: photographer confirms that the photo is theirs and that they retain the copyright.	Stopped responding September 25 when I asked about their willingness to release under a free license	ticket:2024102610000799
1027-2	File:June 2023 North Antelope Rochelle Mine tornado.png	Confirmed: image is a still from a video posted on the creator's X stream the day after the event. FWIW, in the thread that follows, someone local to the area informs the creator that they were mistaken about their location when they shot the video. The videographer agrees, but the NWS clearly didn't catch this and still posted it as being shot at Antelope. The thread also contains multiple media outlets asking permission to use the footage, and the videographer confirming that they are the sole owner of it.	Emailed September 12; no response	ticket:2024102710001965
1027-3	File:EF4 Keota, Iowa tornado 2023 (1).jpg	Confirmed: image is a still from a video posted on the creator's X stream the day after the event.	Messaged via social media on September 12; no response	ticket:2024102710002017
1027-4	File:An EF1 tornado over Baca County, Colorado on June 23, 2023.jpg	Confirmed: image found on photographer's Facebook two days after the event.	Messaged via social media on September 3; no response	ticket:2024102710002222
1027-5	File:May 24 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado by Haverfield.jpg	Confirmed: image found on photographer's X stream two days after the event.	Messaged via social media on September 3; read; no response	ticket:2024102710002286
1027-6	File:Benkelman NE tornado May 26, 2021.jpg	Confirmed: photographer contacted by email, confirms owning the rights (and owns the media company that first published this)	Stopped responding when asked about releasing under a free license	ticket:2024091210003958
1027-7	File:2020aug-derecho-Cedar-Rapids-IA-tree-carnage.jpg	tentative match with journalist with same uncommon name	Messaged via social media on September 3; no response	ticket:2024102710003196
1027-8	File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Cedar-Rapids-Iowa.jpg	Broadcast meteorologist with uncommon name working in same city where this photo was taken	Messaged via social media on August 31; no response	ticket:2024102710003258
1027-9	File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Tama-County-Iowa.jpg	Tentatively confirmed: professional photographer contacted via their website; "believes" this to be one of their images	Stopped responding September 18 when asked about releasing under a free license	ticket:2024102710003294
1027-10	File:Gabriel Garfield photograph of the 2013 Moore EF5 tornado.jpg	Confirmed: photographer messaged via social media, confirms owning the rights	Stopped responding September 18 when asked about releasing under a free license	ticket:2024102710003276

We do not have any evidence that any of these images are available under a free license and we cannot host them here. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go through these one at a time please? Thank you. ChessEric (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would that help you? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard for me to vote for all of them at once. It’s more of a personal preference since it’s hard for me to understand large things as once. ChessEric (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of people stop responding when you ask about releasing the image under a free license. Could people think it's a scam of some kind? Are you mentioning creative commons? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silence is difficult to interpret. However, we can get some idea of people's reactions from the folks who respond in the negative. You don't see those on these mass deletion requests, because as soon as I've been getting an explicitly negative response, I've been opening a specific DR for that specific image itself. So the spread of responses you're seeing (for example) above is skewed to "stopped responding". You can see a collection of explicitly negative responses here that might give some insight into your question.

The fact that we've been hosting their work without permission in the first place seems to upset some people. Others have expressed regret but rely on their photography as an income and don't want to give anything away.

I mention the Creative Commons in the second or third message, depending on how quickly we establish that I'm communicating with the right person. A couple of people have wanted more details about the license itself, which I provided.

I also speculate that the dense, legalese wording of our licensing template probably looks offputting and suspicious to some people. I mean, put yourself in their shoes: some random stranger emails you or messages you on Facebook asking about a photo you took years and years ago -- obviously, they've tracked you down somehow. Then they ask about copyright and licenses and about signing some mysterious, legal-looking document. At least one person I was emailing was unaware that they even owned a copyright on the photos they took.

I've never had anyone actually respond with an explicit accusation of a scam, but it's certainly possible and IMHO even likely that's what some people might be thinking.

Out of dozens and dozens of these inquiries I've sent out now over the last two months, only two people have been willing to release their work, and even then, in one case, VRT was not initially willing to accept their release and we had to jump through several more steps to get the license cleared. Most people aren't going to be willing to jump through all those hoops when there's literally no benefit to them whatsoever. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder if our procedures for sending permission are too complicated. It seems even some Commons users couldn't be bothered to go through the process for files they do own the copyrights to. A lot of deletion discussions go like this:

Someone uploads what they claim to be their own work to Commons.
The file is nominated for deletion because it has been previously published.
The uploader says they are the copyright holder.
The uploader is instructed to go to Commons:Volunteer Response Team and follow the directions there.
*crickets*

And then the file gets deleted even though it is plausible that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per above. Although treat this as a conditional delete. Conditional to whether or not any of them respond. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolfgang Hattmannsdorfer 2023 (c)Philipp Albert.jpg

possible copyvio (c)Philipp Albert - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Haubner 200.jpg

possible copyvio (c) HELGE KIRCHBERGER - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carmen Jeitler-Cincelli 2018-6.jpg

possible copyvio (c) Marek Knopp - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Stich-SJ.jpg

possible copyvio © Peter Drechsler - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:16 Portrait Georg Strasser (Bauernbund).jpg

possible copyvio © Philipp Monihart - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMF-Norbert Totschnig.jpg

possible copyvio © Corina Bauer - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:XBOX Plays Age of Empires IV - The Siege of Kiev Campaign Playthrough.webm

This file was initially tagged by Jarnsax as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Video is a derivative work of a video game4 copyrighted by Microsoft. The provided license can only apply to the content authored by the licensor. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-12#Age_of_Empires_videos, snapshot by Wayback Machine offers a CC BY note to that video --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the CC-BY license. I don't claim that it "itself" is invalid. It can only apply, though, to content that was owned by the person who licensed it.

This video is a derivative work. It contains not only material created and owned by the "immediate author", but also material (the graphic elements of the game itself) that is copyrighted by Microsoft. We do not have a license from Microsoft for that material (which was presumably used by the "immediate author" under fair use, as the video as a whole is clearly commentary and transformative). That doesn't help us, though.

Since the included copyrighted (and unlicened) material is obviously not incidental, hosting it on Commons is a copyvio. The video would need to be redacted (which would make it pointless). Jarnsax (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, from skimming the prior related DRs, I don't see this as an issue that was discussed. This is an issue with the content of the specific video, not with the "validity" of the CC-BY license given at the source. The author of this specific video licensed content they don't own. Jarnsax (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that I am misunderstanding the situation, and that this video is actually being licensed under CC-BY by Microsoft itself, here. That is extremely unlikely, however, as by doing so they would be licensing all of the content in the video under that license. It seems extremely unlikely that Microsoft has intentionally released parts of the actual game (that are included in this video) under that license, since it would allow competitors to clone them. Jarnsax (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is complicated, but I get the point, sounds reasonable :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the videos by AoE, are there videos with the similar/same problem? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think it's most likely that the CC-BY license is actually "from" whatever ad agency Microsoft hires to run their social media accounts.

The key thing to keep in mind is that any video like this (that shows software) is a derivative work, and essentially a series of screenshots. Read Commons:Screenshots#Software (which specifically uses Microsoft as an example of "not ok").

My feeling is that videos like File:Age of Empires II- DE - Lords of the West - AVAILABLE NOW.webm are okay. The license pretty clearly seem to apply to the video "as a whole," which is basically an advertisement... it's inherently a "work" in and of itself. While it does show bits of the game, it's in no way "about" the bits that it shows. They are just incidental. You could substitute any or all of them for different bits of the game, or pan them differently, and while the result might not be as good artistically, none of individual changes would really make any difference. It's totally a judgement call as to where this line falls, but IMO any DW that's essentially "about" the specific copyrighted content that it includes, or uses a specific bit of copyrighted content extensively is pretty unarguably "not ok" for Commons.

It's perfectly "legal" for a third party to make a video that includes such stuff, and freely license their video, as long as they meet the requirements of fair use. An example off the top of my head would be a video teaching how to do something with a specific program. That content just isn't ok on Commons if the underlying work itself isn't free or freely licensed. Jarnsax (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to berate all this, but since it is complicated, an egregious counterexample. If I happen to be wearing a t-shirt that has a copyrighted logo on it, and I make a hour-long video giving a tour of some museum while wearing it, then it's pretty obviously incidental use. That I'm wearing a shirt is certainly relevant to the video, but.... the legal criteria would be w:de minimis. Jarnsax (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a more pointed example. If I use a free web browser to make a video showing how to use Google, I don't need a license for the thumbnails of copyrighted content that Google shows me.... not only are they incidental, but Google won that lawsuit. :) Jarnsax (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anura Disanayake press.png

Commons:Youtube washing. NewsAlert, an YouTube ccount with three subscribers, has taken a video of the NPP's press conference on 13 August 2024 from Anura Kumara Dissanayake's YouTibe account (434k subcribers), cropped it and passed it off as its own work, releasing it under a Creative Commons licence. The NewsAlert video starts at 17.11 on the original AKD video which has not been released under a Creative Commons licence. Obi2canibe (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pohjois-Savon vaakuna.png

This file was initially tagged by 2001:999:78C:7CD9:FC2E:2538:2BF1:C922 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was:

File:Pohjois-Savo.vaakuna.svg is a vector version of this file.

File:Deletion requests/2024/10/27 → File:Pohjois-Savo.vaakuna.svg

For more information, see Help:SVG.

In other languages

Alemannisch ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ British English ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Frysk ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Ido ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ Scots ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ vèneto ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ нохчийн ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ татарча/tatarça ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ தமிழ் ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete the file. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Pohjois-Savo.vaakuna.svg

is a vector version of this file. --2001:999:78C:A210:9C40:8EA2:A62:7673 19:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are however not identical. There is a value to keeping different emblazonments (valid heraldic interpretations of the same arms) in Wikimedia Commons’ collection. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renho poster, Hiroo 5-chome, July 2024.jpg

No FoP for 2D poster in Japan. Netora (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been meaning get this deleted due to the above but have procrastinated, so yes please remove this file. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NHS Lewisham and Greenwich Trust logo.png

Low resolution, poor quality PNG version of a logo now available in SVG version here, with the correct right-aligned text. No outstanding transclusions for this low quality file. Elshad (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burgee of Iate Clube do Espirito Santo.svg

The image is not displayed because the file is broken. Vichycombo (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vichycombo I shouldn't have nominated this corrupted file for deletion, because there is a workshop where experienced people can try to fix it. I was planning to ask for this and several other similarly damaged ones to be repaired once I finished putting the gallery together. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dopamine DeepAI.jpg

AI image generation apparently making a bad guess at what a dopamine molecule might look like. (Compare File:Dopamine-based-on-xtal-3D-bs-17.png.) Belbury (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stylized nonsense. Omphalographer (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dancer Arman Guman in Haarlem November 2020.jpg

Because the person involved did not wanted his image to be published.. Dancersforlive (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7 All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Majlis Istiadat Persantapan Pengantin DiRaja 29 Julai, 1965.jpg

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metamorkid Picture White Dress.jpg

Laut dem Facebook-Posting, stammt das Foto vom Fotographen Vlad Dobre und war für das Magazin "Vangardist". So bezweifle ich das weder das Magazin oder der Fotograph seine Zustimmung gegeben hat bzw der User dies fälschlicherweise als "Eigenes Werk" vorgelegt hat und eine falsche Lizenz verwendet wird. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid035sKUomBo8qYJmYx38WZvWNZX9Qbaq353WgF9sRFjjce5UuhsJWmgLW3JacnJSENfl&id=100063655863090 Dozor (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Dozor! Ich habe das Foto direkt von Metamorkid (die Person auf dem Foto) bekommen! Oskarzqt (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By writing that you confirm that you're not the copyright holder. So it's an obvious copyright violation. --Dozor (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary in english: Copyright violation. Web search indicates uploader is most likely not copyright holder. --Dozor (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metamorkid.jpg

Laut dem Facebook-Posting, stammt das Foto vom Studio Himmelbauer . So bezweifle ich das weder das Studio seine Zustimmung gegeben hat oder hochgeladen hat bzw. der User dies fälschlicherweise als "Eigenes Werk" vorgelegt hat und deswegen eine falsche Lizenz verwendet wird. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid05yyz6a2NdgnnY84q2c7d4TtJeoD4rpDEXi8M1aAAebKQ52Ghhhset7saF679SmFnl&id=100063655863090 Dozor (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary in english: Copyright violation. Web search indicates uploader is most likely not copyright holder. --Dozor (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DragLab Poster.png

Short summary in english: Copyright violation. Web search indicates uploader is most likely not copyright holder. Dozor (talk) 17:48, 27 October 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:Sistema energia fotovoltaica - photovoltaic.png

AI generated diagram of electrical objects being connected to each other at random, with everything mislabeled and/or misspelled and some of the connections fading out. Out of COM:SCOPE, no educational use. Belbury (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --Krd 06:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sistema energia fotovoltaica - photovoltaic.png

Out of scope: nonsense AI-generated diagram, per previous nom. No longer in use. Omphalographer (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hang noodles on the ears 1.png

non-notabie IA stuff, probably prone with copyright problems, and unusable in any encyclopaedic context Anvilaquarius (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’keep’’’ as uploader. I just added it to the article on [noodles on the ears]. Victorgrigas (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hang noodles on the ears 2.png

non-notabie IA stuff, probably prone with copyright problems, and unusable in any encyclopaedic context Anvilaquarius (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hang noodles on the ears 3.png

non-notabie IA stuff, probably prone with copyright problems, and unusable in any encyclopaedic context Anvilaquarius (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lemon and apple.jpg

I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Realpublicdomain2004 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly good quality and uploaded a year ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:University of Miami Head Coach Mario Cristobal.webp

Invalid license. No evidence that this was ever published under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Video Shows Lava Erupting from La Palma Volcano.webm

""AP/Exclusive video courtesy of TV Canarias" Prototyperspective (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VOA tour of Amazon 4b587f83-6aef-4829-a111-5004c9ab5663 hq.oggtheora.ogv

video is broken Prototyperspective (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plays fine for me. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little jerky but does play without trouble. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Йорйфлоът2.jpg

selfie without further information - out of project scope HerrAdams (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Category:Buildings in Costa Rica

No FOP in Costa Rica, per COM:FOP Costa Rica. Copyright in Costa Rica lasts the author's life + 70 years (COM:COSTA RICA), and none of these buildings are older than 70 years (year between parentheses). These buildings are still within copyright and these files are copyright violations.
Clarifying edit: The year between parenthesis refers to the year construction ended.

File:Vista las Palmas.jpg (2008-2009)
File:Condominio Altamira.jpg (2018)
File:CFIA.JPG (1978)
File:Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica.jpg (1978; same building as above)
File:Mall San Pedro.jpg (1995)
File:Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social Costa Rica.jpg (1967)
File:Asamblea Legislativa CR Aerea.jpg (2020)
File:Villa Montana.jpg (2006-2012)
File:Vista del área central de la Casa de los Hongos.jpg (2016; architect is es:Rolando Barahona-Sotela and is still alive)
File:Torres paseo colón.jpg (2012-2014)
File:Bambu rivera condominio.jpg (Started 2018)
File:Clínica de Alajuelita. Costa Rica.JPG (1997-2009)
File:EdificioUlacit.jpg (1989-1998)
File:Edificio Torre la Sabana.jpg (1997-2009)
File:EuroCenterHeredia.JPG (2003-2009)
File:WalmartCartagoCR.jpg (1997-2009)
File:Torre las Loras.jpg (Started 2020)

--Rubýñ ^(Scold) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijan national dance.jpg

Нет источников 173.48.34.232 19:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo campagne.png

copyvio, same image but different background as shown on https://mrpourliege.be/candidat.html?c=323738313439393839. The person depicted is w:nl:Valérie Bluge, so she cannot be the author. She was born in 1977, so the file cannot be public domain. Wimmel (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Vanilla57 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: plain text (aside from the header image). If this content is in scope on a Wikipedia, it should be included there as text, not as an uneditable PDF file.

Omphalographer (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Derivative works. No attempt has been made to give a Source or Copyright status to the images on the headers.--Headlock0225 (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monpa dress.jpg

Dubious claim of own work: There is a watermark on this image that suggests that this photo is taken by another author. [1] No reason to believe uploader is the same person as Takam Takar. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khmer wedding 1979.jpg

Copyright for anonymous work has not expired in Cambodia, where this photo was allegedly taken. Both Tineye and Google Reverse Image search reveal zero hits on it's origin, suggesting this wasn't taken from Facebook. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ديانا السندي.jpg

صورة لها حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 20:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan-gb-nexbi-presentacion-radio.png

Out of scope, not for any purpose. Taichi (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom personal unused photo. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medina Aliyeva.jpg

Potentially non-free derivative work. Appears to be a photograph of a printed-out image. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steamed cheeseburger.jpg

The image has been taken off of any liscence that allows it to be shared. As a note, the image is included in the Wikipedia article for w:22 Short Films About Springfield in its english, portuguese & spanish editions, all classificiated as good articles, so something needs to be done about that. LucasMRB (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing the license on Flickr after the fact doesn't revoke the CC license that it was originally posted with. Omphalographer (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flickr does have documented license history now. This file was originally licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milan Tesař, portrét.jpg

Author and copyright holder in metadata is stated "Tomas Dittrich",which is not the uploader "Richard Valousek". Confirmation via VTRS is needed. Gumruch (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central park condominio.jpg

FOP in Costa Rica is non-commercial only, per COM:FOP Costa Rica. Copyright in CR lasts 70 a.p.m.a, per COM:Costa Rica, and construction for the buildings in this photo started just 15 years ago in 2009, per satellite imagery from that year. These buildings are copyrighted. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 23:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Inocente futuro maestro de español

Parce que j'ai plusieurs comptes wikipédia Inocente futuro maestro de español (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Збережена плиточка.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors) アンタナナ 23:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this photo is the only available photo of original tiles from the historical building. yes, there are some feet there visible, of the protographer themselves it seems. but rather than speedy delete a useful image, one can crop it (one can also argue that with feet one can better understand the size of the tiles) --アンタナナ 23:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are those the historic tiles? They look modern to me. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Delete per nom. Yann (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is photo of tiles in historical building, and human legs are needed to underastand what size of tiles (for comparison). This photo may be useful for article about this building. We have many photos of tiles in buildings of Lviv: Category:Floor tiles in Lviv.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digitale Geländemodelle from Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung

reason: empty, not in use --HerrAdams (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Large digitale Geländemodelle from Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung

reason=unnecessary (when is an terrain model large?) --HerrAdams (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/27

October 27

Files uploaded by Mirmakhmudovasamira (talk · contribs)

Third-party photos hosted on weather.gov 2024-10-28

Images in Category:Buildings in Costa Rica

Files uploaded by Vanilla57 (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search