Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/16

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

November 16

[edit]

Files uploaded by Raulsjil (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal files by non-contributor. Low quality photos and professional certificates. COM:NOTHOST

William Graham (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note one file that has already been nominated separately by uploader: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Senadores Socialistas - Camilo Escalona Medina - Raúl Angelo Salazar Jil - Lilian Silva Concejal.jpg. William Graham (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete all. Problem user, out of scope. edit warring disruptive editing. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Falsche Lizenz 186.175.63.43 02:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was ist denn falsch an der Lizenz? Nakonana (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, I see. AlvaKedak (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The file is broken (dimensions 0 x 0 pixels). Renerpho (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently 7 files on Commons which have dimensions 0 x 0 pixels. Apart from the nominated file, those are:
The first is clearly on purpose, and should probably be kept for that reason. The last four have a note on the file page, saying: This file is broken but is being kept while phabricator ticket T354007 is open. Should we delete the remaining two, file a new phabricator ticket, or ask for them to be fixed on the existing ticket? Renerpho (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, can someone explain to me the license for File:Test file png with incomplete iend chunk.png? Is it CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain, as claimed under "licensing"? If so, why am I not allowed to "copy this image illegally by ignoring the terms of the license below, as it is not in the public domain", per the file description? Renerpho (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work. plicit 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Infringement of mosque architect's copyright, considering the United Arab Emirates not allowing complete Freedom of Panorama. Based from timelapse (historical satellite imagery) feature of Google Earth, the site was a vacant lot until August 2011, and construction had begun by the next date (July 2012). This means the building is still under the architect's copyright and is unfree to be shared and marketed on the Internet. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been cropped. Urang Kamang (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted poster A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press image, likely not own work ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in China for 2D posters 茅野ふたば (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This image appears to be a photo of a book, not the uploader's own work. Steelkamp (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1985. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also other files in Category:Les Kurbas monument in Kyiv

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2002. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович and architect uk:Дормідонтов В'ячеслав Анатолійович. Микола Василечко (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1984. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2007. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович and architect uk:Дормідонтов В'ячеслав Анатолійович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2008. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1995. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович and architect uk:Дормідонтов В'ячеслав Анатолійович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1992. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The file is clearly Bung Karno di Tengah Perang Revolusi by Dullah and isn't own work 110.137.192.180 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1992. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1987. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1990. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Рапай Микола Павлович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file has no metadata because the Flickr account it was taken from has no metadata. The Flickr account this was uploaded to only has 4 files. This is the only high quality image of the four. The rest are random low quality shots, which indicates the user is not a skilled photographer, or even a photographer at all. I suspect the Flickr user got this image from somewhere else and simpy rehosted it with no regard for copyright. CeltBrowne (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it passed Flickr review. The closing admin will have to weigh that against your points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it passed Flickr review
The review that it passed was an automated one. A bot simply confirmed that it was placed under a cc-by-sa-2.0 on Flickr. No human was involved in that. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize Flickr review was fully automated with no human input. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. License reviewers sometimes make mistakes. Per nom, this is an extremely dubious source. Omphalographer (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound that way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know. Maybe the Flickr user didn't take any of the 4 images and just got them and uploaded them. In terms of copyright, if the image doesn't exist anywhere else online, then where did they get it from? WP:AGF? But if we have to go by the book and people say it should be deleted, it should be deleted. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne worthwhile to reach out to the Flickr uploader? Or makes no difference? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how it could hurt to contact them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek @CeltBrowne Would you like me to do it? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask them if they would agree to be in touch with COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. messaged them through Flickr. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They said they didn't have the time now to write to VRT, but would put something on the picture description affirming that they took it. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting them! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. They updated the description - make of it what you will.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/194269958@N07/53642538198/in/dateposted-public/ MaskedSinger (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I'm satisfied with it, for whatever that's worth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep And if it's good enough for you. It's also good enough for me. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1995. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor (Unknown) and architect uk:Дормідонтов В'ячеслав Анатолійович. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Fictitious election map, out of scope N Panama 84534 08:13, 16 November 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 Icone444 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Bogus self claims - bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs - all low res, few with camera EXIF (and, of those, many different models: Canon EOS 1100D, NIKON D80, ALE-L21, CYBERSHOT, FinePixS2Pro, etc.) and appeared elsewhere before Commons upload (e.g., File:NRP Figueira da Foz.jpg is here; File:AW119 Koala of Portuguese air force.jpg is here; File:Special Actions Detachment of Portuguese Navy.jpg is here; etc.) Duck/COM:PRP issue.

Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 07:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Icone444 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

these files uploaded by user Icone444 are likely suspicious for copyvio. these lack any metadata (unlike the user's two later uploads), are very low-quality (less than 1000px) and possibly taken from Google StreetView.

Juwan (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh hey, there were here before too. Juwan (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


COM:TOYS + COM:DW of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Dubious upload with professional quality and no metadata. Image was uploaded two days after Robbie Savage caused controversy in a match against Arsenal [1] and how his name has been edited on his shirt speaks for itself. And no, I don't think changing someone's shirt name to "Cunt" makes this an original image. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cover of book which is likely still under copyright. Furthermore, there is no proof of the file having the license provided by the uploader. Kaythehistorian (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Fenikals (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files imported by Luiz79

[edit]

All of these were imported from Flickr by colleague User:Luiz79. They are clearly personal family and party pictures, and not in line with COM:PERSONAL.

I propose to make exceptions for these, because they do exhibit educational value:

Kind regards, DimiTalen 11:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep at least the ones that qualify for Category:Female humans with arm bandages and Category:Children's winter sports as we have hardly anything in those categories. And there are also some that make good stock photos. Nakonana (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:Russ (46136959015).jpg, which is an incredible view and a somewhat poetic portrait of a man in a snowstorm with heavy snow, though his sticking his tongue out makes it a little silly (I suspect most people who grew up in areas where it snows have done that, though usually straight out). I'm really not up to right-clicking on all these photos and looking at them, but I would definitely suggest keeping any good-quality photos of people sledding per Nakonana. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


شعار له حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no educational value Veliensis (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


no educational value Veliensis (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Eyitzanthony (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Fictional election maps, out of scope

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


URL goes to an error page. There is no indication under the source mentioned that the photo is under a free license איז「Ysa」 13:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also uploaded by a globally blocked user: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Sumill איז「Ysa」 13:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad lighting TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect exposure TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of perfectly acceptable quality. Nakonana (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

white balance TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of perfectly acceptable quality. Nakonana (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Yes, and interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to much noise TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there images of this subject matter that have less noise? I'd say that this is still a perfectly acceptable photo quality to serve educational purposes. Aren't you being a bit too self-critical? Nakonana (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why or how is it useless? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This too needs deletion Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I made it but Its usless now Editor account 2222 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


source does not indicate a compatible license EdrianJustine (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete this file because it is include the Content ID in some parts in that video, so it is not eligible and not marked for CC-BY-3.0 license for that YouTube video.
More info: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468 Apipattana (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Licensing, not only this video were published on Miss Cosmo's YouTube channel; including on other social media platforms of the organization, all of the photo and video footages from the Miss Cosmo organization; also including the almost of the international, national, and local beauty pageant organizations, were fair use, they're protected by copyright and it is not marked as a free license or a Creative Commons license. Apipattana (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think will should be recommended to  speedy deleting this file now. Apipattana (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file also per Commons:NETC and WikiProject Beauty Pageants, most of the beauty pageant images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are not suitable for a fair use protected by copyright or a Creative Commons licenses with NoDerivatives, or NonCommercial, or both. Apipattana (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading a captured or saving a video or a picture file with a copyrighted material and then post it on the internet such as YouTube, or Facebook, or Flickr and publish it with giving a free license or a Creative Commons license, this will be considered to be a license laundering, and the file that will be uploaded if detected the aforementioned above will be speedy deleted by the administrator of the Wikimedia Commons. Apipattana (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file is also against the Commons:YouTube files. Apipattana (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Miss Cosmo website, it is stated a copyright notice on the bottom page stated: Copyright © 2024 Uni Media - Unimedia, plus it is neither did published any materials with any free license, which is actually it is a fair use material and it is unacceptable and prohibited on Wikimedia Commons.
Source video: link Apipattana (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is copyrighted .It is taken from a screenshot of a YouTube video that is not licensed for reposted. This file isn't licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. 103.65.214.62 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but previously the original uploader was changed the license to CC-BY-2.0 (mostly used on Flickr) after seen a file nominated for deletion and then removed tne file nominated for deletion template for file deletion evasion, although the file deletion discussion is not closed yet. Apipattana (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong details Mr Hurricanes (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 22516ali (talk · contribs) 2

[edit]

Unused files of doubtful provenance, uploaded for use on fawiki by a user indefinitely blocked there for unsourced edits there.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, rain-soaked image, several better images available, e.g. File:Oughaval Monastery & Cemetery, Co. Laois (506871) (28933841680).jpg andrewmc (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auteur mort en 1960 Père Igor (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictious Flag 2A01:CB08:8EB:7100:8518:5EA8:611F:F85D 15:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Ozteller (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused charts. Seems to be replaced by latest version.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unused poor copy of File:DugaldStewart.jpg Kareyac (talk) 16:01, 16 November 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 MARQUE FRANÇAISE (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Works from various authors, so invalid license. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.

Yann (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 08:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MARQUE FRANÇAISE (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Newspaper clippings, album and book covers, not own works, so invalid license, no permission.

Yann (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MARQUE FRANÇAISE (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons:Derivative works from modern art.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraki claims that: This image is copyrighted, not simple geometric shape.


Discussion

[edit]

The graphical element is no more complex than many other Mass Transit logos on Mediawiki, for example: Athens Metro. Text is not eligible for copyright on Mediawiki. The second claim ('not simple geometric shape') does not follow from the first claim ('this image is copyrighted'). It does not meet the threshold of originality. Specifically in the case of Greece it's not enough to just create a work. For it to be eligible for copyright it must also involve "skill, labor and judgment emanating from the author and that no other person, acting under the same circumstances, could produce the exact same work" (see Commons:TOO Greece). The logo is a trademark, and it is marked as such. This logo is compliant with both the Greek definition of minimum originality, and past precedent on Mediawiki. As such, the file should not be deleted. --Sarah fides (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]

copyrighted photo - https://www.flickr.com/photos/137241490@N07/48008817793/in/album-72157704170761632 VilianEst2007 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighted photo - https://www.flickr.com/photos/cometbg/36019304771/in/album-72157686649987116 VilianEst2007 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did a mistake in the way of uploading this, please delete it as now the file: (File:Hamoon Khelghat-Doost -Flickr.jpg) exists RamiPat (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Fourthords as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work by the uploader; original work by the government of Alabama, in whom the copyright was automatically vested.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether the depicted sign really is above threshold of originality. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Procedural keep In use on en.wiki, and it appears to be a valid use. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.  Keep. This one is definitely one of the "in scope" type of nudity images. Nakonana (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Yep. COM:INUSE, and even if not, I'd argue that it should probably be kept as useful if it were really the uploader's photo. However, the Metadata says only "Software used: gnome-screenshot." So why do we think this is really User:Rogerthat9001's own work as claimed? The combination of the metadata and the size suggests to me that this is likely to have been stolen from some website, so I support deletion unless the uploader can convince COM:VRT that they shot the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes I took the photo (and the others I have uploaded), with the consent of the two individuals in the photos. The reason the metadata says screenshot is simply because rather than edit the image I took a screenshot in order to crop it. Please feel free to reverse image search the image. I cannot provide a non cropped image as this will show the individuals face, however perhaps I can upload a version with the original metadata intact. Thank-you for agreeing with regard to the usefulness of the photo, there are many images of breasts on the commons however the vast majority of these are not particurly useful as they are taken from a distance - this may also be the only image showing the use of a breast pump on the commons. Rogerthat9001 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Contact VRT, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Fourthords as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work by the uploader; original work by the government of Alabama, in whom the copyright was automatically vested.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether the depicted sign really is above threshold of originality. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also tending  Keep. Calling someone a "non-contributor" who just registered today and has already uploaded several images which aren't just exhibitionist in nature but might have educational value (like demonstration of a manual breast milk pump) might be a bit premature. Those are clearly not personal photos as they show at least two different women. (In that regard, what's probably more concerning is the lack of EXIF data.) Nakonana (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo by non-contributors, see COM:NUDITY. Astrinko (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also tending  Keep. Calling someone a "non-contributor" who just registered today and has already uploaded several images which aren't just exhibitionist in nature but might have educational value (like demonstration of a manual breast milk pump) might be a bit premature. Those are clearly not personal photos as they show at least two different women. (In that regard, what's probably more concerning is the lack of EXIF data.) Nakonana (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. "Gnome-screenshot" is the sum total of the Metadata. I will not call for keeping this photo unless the uploader clearly shows this isn't actually just a screenshot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to copy and paste what I posted on the breast pump discussion: Yes I took the photo (and the others I have uploaded), with the consent of the two individuals in the photos. The reason the metadata says screenshot is simply because rather than edit the image I took a screenshot in order to crop it. Please feel free to reverse image search the image. I cannot provide a non cropped image as this will show the individuals face, however perhaps I can upload a version with the original metadata intact. Thank-you for agreeing with regard to the usefulness of the photo, there are many images of breasts on the commons however the vast majority of these are not particularly useful as they are taken from a distance - this one may also be the only which shows areolar enlargement, which is an important physiological change during pregnancy. Rogerthat9001 (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say definitely provide that metadata to COM:VRT, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


not own work [2]. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Xeverything11 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Screenshots of text, software and video games protected by copyright

Trade (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep These files are derived from File:Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC.djvu, which is an US government document, therefore these files are PD. See source for evidence. Xeverything11 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Tears of the Kingdom is a work by US federal government? Trade (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete File:Nintendo of America Inc. v. Tropic Haze LLC.djvu is not a US government document; it is a work of Nintendo of America. Were it a work of the US government, these would not still not be freely licensed; works don't lose their copyright just because a judge includes them in the decision. There is and has been some discussion about leaving such excerpts in place in the court decision, but this is not a court decision, and these files are out of the decision. (I might support some of these being PD-text or PD-text with the blurring of an avatar; if anyone thinks they're in scope after the others have been deleted, I'll take a look and call them out.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete including the above mentioned .djvu document per Prosfilaes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The document is already subject to a separate deletion discussion (here). The files listed here (along with File:Yuzu Subreddit - illustration - page 21.png) should be deleted for the same reasons as I gave in the other discussion. These files would be fine to upload if they were part of a judge’s opinion, but a complaint isn’t a “work of the U.S. government” (unless it’s actually filed by the U.S. government, which this one is not). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File created as advertisement. Astrinko (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


not own work Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of COM:TOYS. Copyrighted characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete I don't see where it's in scope and it uses copyrighted figures. It also is a trademark infringement; while we normally don't care about trademark, this poster trades on Disney's trademarks in a way that implies endorsement, not using the trademark in a merely descriptive way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Out of scope regardless; this appears to be a fan poster for a YouTube video, not an official Disney production. Omphalographer (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uploader specified which 2011 book he took this image from, and offered no justification as to why it is properly licensed DS (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue for File:Page006.jpg and File:Page007.jpg. Also, if we could block those filenames from being used, that'd be helpful. DS (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:NOTHOST, out of scope. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Unusably dark images of poorly lit locations at night.

Belbury (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These uploads only show a few building signs, with the windows and general light pollution completely absent. Perhaps a camera setting to only capture the very brightest of the lights? If so, these aren't representative of the view and don't seem to have any obvious COM:EDUSE. Belbury (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In File:Wanchai North AI 0177.jpg, the exhibition centre is very clear but the central plaza is in mist EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury you can also consider per File:Hong Kong Island at night (3319284126).jpg EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also requested this image for deletion
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Victoria harbour blur 維多利亞港矓 (6210808250).jpg EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cannon0001-0004, Wanchai North AI 0161, 0162, 0163, 0164, 0167, 0168, 0169, 0170, 0176, 0180, 0181 no need to delete EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_EX_Centre_from_Star_Avenue_2018&diff=prev&oldid=958188750 EX Centre from Star Avenue 2018 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical AI-altered image replacing all road markings with tram lines, so that the AI-inserted train runs on a single rail and between two lanes. Belbury (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: plain text; orphaned "pt. 2" after other image was deleted as an unsourced DW. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Theoneauthor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope / copyvio: low quality infographics consisting primarily of plain text; unsourced images (some with watermarks).

Omphalographer (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Diprimapaolo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. This content should be integrated into the text of the draft article, not stored as separate files.

Omphalographer (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure where the licensing tag is from, the site has no mention of copyright in FAQ: https://www.lindaueronline.co.nz/background/faqs and at the bottom of the source is a copyright tag: https://www.lindaueronline.co.nz/maori-portraits/king-tawhiao-potatau-te-wherowhero The Auckland Art Gallery website states: 'Unless specifically stated otherwise, none of the content on this site may be reproduced, communicated to the public, transmitted or copied without the Gallery’s express written permission, except for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review or education, in accordance with the Copyright Act 1994.' and we can presume similar terms apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission from the painter Trade (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been taken from Facebook [3]. As for the painter, Zakaria Shioshvili (ზაქარია შიოშვილი) might be still alive, or at least was still alive around 2012 to give an interview[4]. Nakonana (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work is unlikely and UK has low threshold of originality. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible license laundering by Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/201646647@N06/ is the actual source. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviolation?? Appears to be a still capture from YouTube video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kphz2D3c748&list=PLmBF7kfKTMv4v38WK3IsnYmpKGTHzJqN6&index=1. No indication that it is realeased under a licence acceptable to Wikimedia Commons. Not Uploaders own work as claimed. Headlock0225 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused fantastic map without any sources. -- Kaganer (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a map showing the borders around 1914. Needs description and renaming. If the uploader does not provide any further information the files should be  Delete. GPSLeo (talk) 09:48, 17 November 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.

The U.S. copyright status of this photograph is technically uncertain with the current information we have about it (dated "1970s"). Frederick IX died in 1972. Unless we can verify that this photograph was created before 1970, the U.S. copyright may be restored by the URAA as being copyrighted in Denmarck with the 50 years after creation term applied to post-1970 non-artistic photographs per {{PD-Denmark50}}. 83.61.247.43 02:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: We don't have the practice to delete Not-PD-US-URAA files which are PD in the country of origin; see case 1, case 2, case 3, case 4, ..., and Discussion where we decided that URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Ruthven (msg) 10:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear date of creation for this portrait photograph. Unless we can precise the date, this photograph from the 1970s may be still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the URAA. Note also that if the creation date is after 1970, according with {{PD-Denmark50}}, the copyright term for non-artistic photographs expires 50 years after their creation date. See this entry for more details. A previous deletion request was closed arguing that “We don't have the practice to delete Not-PD-US-URAA files which are PD in the country of origin” and that “URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion”. However, in fact, the current consensus per Commons:Licensing and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights is (and has been for quite some years) that if a work is still protected in the U.S. by the URAA that can be the sole reason for deletion. Reply to @Rosenzweig for clarification. 81.41.176.97 21:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep, already discussed, no precedent to delete Not-PD-US-URAA files which are PD in the country of origin Dmartin969 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Info @Dmartin969, in fact there are various precedents about deletions of non-US works currently in the Public Domain in their country of origin but with their U.S. copyright restored by the URAA, see this DR resolution, see also this other one for more details. In fact “a confirmed URAA violation definitely can be the cause for deletion of a file” (quoting @Holly Cheng). We have to assume the URAA may be applied to this photograph unless we can determinate and confirm that it was created before 1970 (or, if created later, it was simultaneously published both in Denmark and the United States). 81.41.176.97 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmartin969: There is ample precedent to delete files which are protected in the US because of the URAA while being in the public domain in their source country/country of origin. This is Commons policy (COM:URAA). Template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is a stopgap for older files affected by the URAA; it must not be used for files uploaded after March 1, 2012. So it is not applicable to this file which was uploaded in 2023.
Using reverse image search, you can find a copy of this file at Reddit, where the uploader says it is from 1969, which seems plausible when comparing it to other images of the person. Shutterstock dates it to January 1, 1972, which seems rather implausible (January 1, really?) and unlikely given that per en.wp, he became sick the day before, received treatment for pneumonia on that exact date of January 1 and then died on January 14, 1972.
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark#Photographs, a 1969 “simple“ photograph was protected for 25 years from creation, until the end of 1994, which means it escaped the URAA (URAA restoration date for Denmark was January 1, 1996). If this photo is a “simple“ photograph or a photographic work (with a term of protection of 70 years pma) is a matter of debate, apparently there are no court decisions about this, and I remember the threshold for such a distinction being traditionally rather high in the Scandinavian countries. Meaning that this could be a “simple“ photograph even though it is clearly posed.
As noted, there are some artefacts apparently caused by AI use for upscaling or watermark removal. That could be a cause for deletion even if copyright was not. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig, if the 1969 claim is correct, then  I withdraw my nomination as I created it concerning about the copyright, which appears to be resolved now. However, feel free to keep this DR for discussing the AI use at this photograph if needed. 81.41.176.97 15:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that 2D works like interpretation boards are not covered by FOP in the UK, and the text will be copyrighted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if I am the designer and those are my words and research? Dr-Mx (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr-Mx if you're the copyright holder and you release it, as far as I'm concerned it's fine. Someone might argue that the images within the board are problematic but I assume the photos of the mural are also yours? Which leaves just the photo in the top right but that could be argued to be de minimis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vectorised artwork of the mural is mine. The credited photo of the artists is of secondary importance to the board really. Dr-Mx (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayantoc Ordinances

[edit]

The following documents were tagged as having been released under the Creative Commons CC0 licence, which does not see very likely. They might fall under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}, but I am not sure whether this applies also to documents issued by Phillippines municipalities.

File:Mayantoc Ordinance No. 00-14.pdf
File:Mayantoc Ordinance No. 00-13.pdf
File:Mayantoc Ordinance No. 00-12.pdf
File:Mayantoc Ordinance No. 00-11.pdf

-Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there are serious issues with the svg code, as these won't render for me and I get an error when I click on them.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've corrected the SVG markup error which was making these files not render; once the thumbnail renderer catches on, these should show up properly.  Speedy keep File:LGBTCannabis white.svg as COM:INUSE; no position on the others. Omphalographer (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer: Thanks for the fixes. I've withdrawn the nomination for the one that's in use. I'm leaving the other two up because I question their value vis-a-vis COM:SCOPE, but I wouldn't be bothered if they all got kept. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF may indicate social media, other contributions of uploader deleted for copyvios. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date. source??? Xocolatl (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date can be easily fixed / narrowed down because the boy in the center was born in 1937 and died in 1945. {{PD-Italy}} and/or {{PD-1996|Italia|1 gennaio 1996}} might apply. Nakonana (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per The Children of Bullenhuser Damm association the photo was taken on 29 November 1943 (Sergio's 6th birthday). Not sure of the source for this version. Most of the instances I'm finding online credit it to the Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the concentration camp took photos like these. The children lived in Italy before deportation, that's the likeliest country of origin of the photo. And Italy has a copyright protection time of only 20 years after creation (not after the photographer's death). It would be PD-Italy. Nakonana (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to The Children of Bullenhuser Damm association, the photo was taken before the children were deported. So, yes, it was definitely taken in Italy. As far as I know, the children didn't live in any other country in Italy. And as for the credit to the Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial, institutions can't be copyright holders in Germany anyway, only a person can be, so the credit is definitely incorrect. Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the date to 29 Nov 1943 according to Tcr25's findings. And added PD-Italy because that's where the three children lived at that time, as far as I know. Nakonana (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]