Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/15

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

December 15

[edit]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini, Man in church.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini - Anita de la Ferie - The Spanish Dancer.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Elizabeth Drexel.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Giovanni Boldini - Portrait de Georges de Bellio.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Primo ritratto boldiniano di Verdi.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini - Portrait of Madame Doyen.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini - The dump at the door of Asier, 1887.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Giovanni Boldini - The Gardeners of the veil picard.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini - Mlle de Gillespie.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini - Madame Rejane.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:On the bench at the Bois (1872), by Giovanni Boldini.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This painting have already been superseded and a copy of better resolution and quality already exists (File:Boldini Marthe de Florian.jpg) Niketto sr. (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio, now hosts link to new identical copyvio SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Another copyvio from a serial copyvio-uploader. The Banner (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof for public domain in Germany. This magazine is only 70 years old, so it is unlikely that the author is already dead for more than 70 years. 88.70.205.196 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In any case, copyright in this poster will in all likelihood have been restored by the URAA, and thus not be free in the US until 2050. Felix QW (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with insource: twitter.com/hmtreasury

[edit]

COM:PCP. These photos can be found on Alamy by using TinEye. See also the relevant DMCA request.

--SCP-2000 02:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text (personal fiction). Omphalographer (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as File:The Rebirth Decision.pdf; same issues. Omphalographer (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Commons Community and Omphalographer,
Thank you for bringing the deletion request for my file "Whispers of the Moon.pdf" to my attention. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues raised.
I would like to confirm that "Whispers of the Moon" is indeed my original work. I have created this document independently, and I hold the copyright to its content. If there are specific concerns regarding its authenticity or any other issues, I am more than willing to address them.
I understand the importance of adhering to copyright guidelines and the community's effort to maintain the integrity of Commons. If there is any additional information or documentation needed to verify my ownership and the originality of this work, please let me know, and I will provide it promptly.
Thank you for your consideration and for the valuable contributions that each member makes to this platform.
Best regards NexusLegion007 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Please don't use ChatGPT to generate comments. Use your own words.
2) The issue here isn't whether your work is "original" or "authentic". It's that Wikimedia Commons is not a collection of amateur fan fiction. There are other web sites for that. Omphalographer (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: AI-generated gibberish. "COMMUNICNATION" is misspelled, and the text below it is blobby "lorem ipsum" text. Omphalographer (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as a diagram that makes no sense. Belbury (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: more low-quality AI-generated illustrations, this one of "forgivness" (sic). Omphalographer (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused AI-generated image of a hedgehog. Omphalographer (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Digitalatmielle (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: promotional product photos. Uploader indef blocked on enwiki for promotional activity.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete probably trolling, judging by caption, description, and Category:Penis. Nakonana (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 15 December 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:Male erection.jpg
This image is nominated for deletion because it is of inferior quality to the existing (and large quantity) of photos of penises on Commons. Perhaps if there was more attention paid to the photo, it could be considered, but taking a self-shot of one's genitals isn't the best way to go about this.

In summary, per the official guideline, it should be deleted because "it does not help Commons build a higher quality database that adheres more closely to its educational aims."

Senator2029talk 10:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete terrible lighting Dronebogus (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. plicit 09:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: poorly focused random penis snapshot (note: different image from previously deleted of same name). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 30 January 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:Male erection.jpg

Incorrect background Neil4242 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 11 May 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:Male erection.jpg

Random nude photo, act as exhibionism, not educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete i want to add al his uploads to the nomination all of his uploads is just exhibitionism
  1. it's not in use by extension is out of Scope COM:NOTUSED COM:CENSOR COM:PENIS
  2. please take a look on the Username it look like this User account made specifically to publish Nudes which not the intention of commons at all
  3. there is a lot of similar themed photos from another user on wiki commons
i suggest deleting all his uploads. wiki is not for exhibitionism photos and issuing a warning to this User if you agree with my reasoning 197.54.65.78 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant request: covered by Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nudistwood. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:21, 5 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.

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, and blurry. --Túrelio (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No proof this was released under a free license. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building was completed in 1920 by Petre Antonescu (1873–1965). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2036 A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Importer Ishagaturo (talk · contribs) is wrong in their claim. The exterior of the church is not 1960s, but is from 2000s. Only the interior of the building is PD (1960s), but the exterior is not and is still under architect's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Does the exterior or façade have the copyright of the cathedral restarted? Apparently, the renovation was done in 2008. Leandro Locsin died in 1994, so he only involved in the construction of the new cathedral, but not in its renovation. Ishagaturo (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ishagaturo Locsin's work was the old cathedral. Let's ignore the previous incarnations of Ozamiz Cathedral before the 1950s: let's consider the 1960 architecture as the older cathedral. The only thing that remains from Locsin's authorship is the interior of the building. The 2008 renovation drastically altered the exteriors. The façade is no longer the 1960 work of Locsin, but the 2008 renovation work of unknown/unnamed author. Substantial renovation, so new architectural copyright starting from 2008. Since we don't know who the renovating designer is, we will assume this is an anonymous work that will only fall out of copyright on January 1, 2059, 50+1 years after completion. Should the designer's name surfaces, then PD calculation is delayed to 50 more years after that designer's death (so possibly the new generation of Wikimedians will restore this image). Early undeletion is only possible if Republic Act 8293 is drastically reformed to introduce commercial-type Freedom of Panorama. But, as we all know, our Congress is too busy on matters that are better handled by courts, and House Bills 799, 2672, and 3838 as well as Senate Bill 2326 are waiting for their silent "deaths" upon the change of Congress (bills not acted upon die at the end of each Congress and will have to be refiled in the next Congress; that is, "back to zero"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced by the source given, this is a fictional creation from a video game. "DFRF" is an abbreviation for the "Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea", and this file is being used erroneously across projects to represent the organisation. As this image is entirely ficticious and has a misleading title, it serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted to avoid its current misuse, in-line with policy. Yue🌙 04:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sculpture was completed in 1986 by Joseph A. Burlini (1937–). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The statue was completed in 1999 by William Crozier (1930–2011). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2082 A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The statue was completed in 1999 by William Crozier (1930–2011). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2082 A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Infringement of architectural copyright. The Philippines does not permit Freedom of Panorama. w:en:Iloilo City Hall tells us that it was completed in 2011, certainly the architect isn't yet dead for more than 50 years for this building to fall out of copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iloilo City Hall, Plaza Libertad monument (Iloilo City; 10-21-2022).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iloilo City Hall, Plaza Libertad monument (Iloilo City; 10-21-2022).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2008 by Mohammad Reza Hafezi (1931–2019). There is no freedom of panorama in Iran. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2070 A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'm, not in Iran. Commons' servers are not in Iran. So I find following Iran law for a crop... overzealous. Technically you are correct thought. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 16:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building was completed in 2008 by Mohammad Reza Hafezi (1931–2019). There is no freedom of panorama in Iran. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2070 A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2008 by Mohammad Reza Hafezi (1931–2019). There is no freedom of panorama in Iran. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2070 A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2008 by Mohammad Reza Hafezi (1931–2019). There is no freedom of panorama in Iran. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2070 A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iloilo City Hall, Plaza Libertad monument (Iloilo City; 10-21-2022).jpg. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. Will also notify the importer of the Philippine copyright law's lack of any commercial-friendly exception for recent public landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2004 by Jacques Kalisz (1926–2002). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2073

A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iloilo City Hall, Plaza Libertad monument (Iloilo City; 10-21-2022).jpg. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. Will also notify the importer of the Philippine copyright law's lack of any commercial-friendly exception for recent public landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iloilo City Hall, Plaza Libertad monument (Iloilo City; 10-21-2022).jpg. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. Will also notify the importer of the Philippine copyright law's lack of any commercial-friendly exception for recent public landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:54, 15 December 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 tower was completed in 1999 by Ricardo Bofill (1939–2022). There is no freedom of panorama in Morocco. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2093.

A1Cafel (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Can File:Twins - panoramio (5).jpg be applied de minimis? Ox1997cow (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May not be, because the tower occupied almost entire left side of the photo. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, has the two towers really reached the level of creativity here? Lukas Beck (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, architectural work is still an architecture, especially if it was designed by a noteworthy architect, here Bofill. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The building was completed in 1999 by Ricardo Bofill (1939–2022). There is no freedom of panorama in Morocco. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2093

A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in South Korea. This image focuses on the modern building of Haeundae Park, which is not de minimis A1Cafel (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It's pretty distorted, and I'm unconvinced it focuses on any one building, though it's true that the nearest buildings are modern and therefore presumably copyrighted. I'd be tempted to allow it as a panorama and de minimis for any one building, but I won't be surprised if it's deleted per COM:PCP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Fisheye distortion notwithstanding, the buildings are undeniably the focus of the image. The fact that multiple buildings appear in the image doesn't make them all de minimis; indeed, the two closest ones are part of the same work of architecture (it's a complex of three buildings, the third being the one that the photographer is standing on). Omphalographer (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the image is free. Image found on various online websites like [1] , [2] , [3] etc. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in South Korea A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2018 by Cino Zucchi (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2018 by Cino Zucchi (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The building was completed in 2018 by Cino Zucchi (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Greece.

A1Cafel (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


https://www.raspberrypi.com/trademark-rules/ 本来の権利者であるRaspberryPi財団はこのような使い方を禁じているから Kntnkmr (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark is not enforced by Commons. The relevant issue is whether the raspberry icon is above COM:TOO Japan. Does it have an "artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation"? I think that's debatable, but none of the three non-copyrightable examples on the linked page has an icon of a foodstuff, so maybe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:TOO UK is probably more applicable here, as the logo was created in the UK, where the Raspberry Pi Foundation is based. The fact that it was seen and photographed in Japan is incidental. If this is deleted, the images in Category:Raspberry Pi Logo should probably be examined as well. Omphalographer (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If COM:TOO UK is relevant, there's no question the logo has to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge was completed in 2010 by Michele De Lucchi (1951–). There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The sculpture was completed in 1961 by Francesco Messina (1900–1995). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2066

A1Cafel (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The stadium was completed in 2001 by Choon-Soo Ryu (1946–). There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The stadium was completed in 2001 by Choon-Soo Ryu (1946–). There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: unused AI-generated image; this doesn't even remotely resemble actual gameplay. Omphalographer (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent building and wrongful file import. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 05:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 176.59.54.194 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matches via Google Lens. Google also can't find the name of the author from the EXIF data (neither by searching in Latin letters nor in Cyrillic letters). Is there enough significant doubt to question the own work claim under these circumstances? The photo has full EXIF data. The subject might still be out of scope, though, it's an academic from Russia. The Ru Wiki article on him got deleted for lack of notability. Nakonana (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Punker85 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent building and wrongful file import. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Recent building and wrongful file import. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Recent building and wrongful file import. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Recent building and wrongful file import. Local enwiki copy not suitable for undeletion as there is a substantial presence of copyrighted reliefs at the lower two-thirds of the image, and enwiki's followed law (US FoP) does not provide FoP for non-architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in USA, sculptor Patrick Mack is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Recent building and wrongful file import. The author of this travel guide claims the American era-looking building does not seem to be old: "my guide says this has received quite a number of facelifts". Undated "facelifts" that may include modified façade which may receive new architectural copyright, failing {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}.

The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unlikely to be a work of an architect who died more than 50 years ago. Wrongful file import. The local copies of this and other affected Patrick Roque images have been requested at w:en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for local undeletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The sculpture was completed in 2020 by Foon Sham (1953–). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Likely copyvio. Weird crop, no metadata, and their only other upload was taken off Facebook. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JG982 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality diagrams created for a school assignment in the uploader's userspace. Possible F10 candidate.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Udsarmy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused, likely personal fantasy flags.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Dylanowich (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: fantasy flag and coat of arms.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: joke flag? Unclear why these symbols have been combined or what they're meant to signify. Omphalographer (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Aero Icarus says: scanned from a 35mm slide - from my collection, not my own shot... Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr Aero Icarus says: scanned from a 35mm slide - from my collection, not my own shot... Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 07:53, 15 December 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.

https://syndicatedarchitects.com/project/iloilo-international-airport/ - modern architects art by SYNDICATED ARCHITECTS. No freedom of panorama in the philippines

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. The airport was completed in 2007, so the images infringe on the airport architect's copyright. The source does not specify who designed the complex, though. Many of these images were originally local images on enwiki that I intentionally left out as not eligible for Commons (during my transfer of eligible Patrick Roque uploads here), but were imported here by Merd123 without due diligence to the subsisting architectural copyright (example, this and this). All local images are currently being requested for undeletion as of this writing, to reverse the unwarranted file imports to Commons while the Philippine law remains unfriendly to the Wikimedians.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful import of image from enwiki. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Local enwiki image being requested for undeletion as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative works of copyrighted photographs. They contain non-free images in such a prominent manner that a de minimis claim is not applicable. I note that I have nominated for deletion only those that are undoubtedly copyright violations, although there are still some in this and other similar categories that deserve more detailed and careful analysis.

Files
Gallery

RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel and The Squirrel Conspiracy: pinging users who have opened similar DRs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, in these files the images are unrecognizable:

In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files the images are not essential, so removing them will not make the file unusable:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Chenspec is being hugely disingenuous in their analysis. For example:
Looking at the ones they marked "A small part of a larger work" like this one or this one, the poster is clearly the subject of the photo. Sure, there's part of a tree or part of a pole, but these are tight crops on a poster, and the files are literally named "Posters of the kidnapped".
Looking at the ones they marked "Mostly blurred beyond recognition" like this one and this one, they are very clear images. At full size, they're clearly readable and the details of the faces are clearly recognizable.
Ditto with the ones marked "Shown in insufficient detail" like this one and this one.
In fact, I don't see a single comment by Chenspec here that I agree with. I feel they've started with their conclusion; they want these files to be kept and are grasping at straws for evidence to justify that conclusion.
De minimis is for incidental inclusion of copyrighted content. In these images, the copyrighted content is the main focus of the images. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the design and text of the posters already have approval presented in previous discussions. The question is only about the images, which are always smaller than the poster itself. There are also cases where the image is less than a quarter of the size of the poster, which itself occupies a small part of the large image displayed in the file - in my opinion, there is room to take into account the relative weight of the image in relation to the large file, regardless of the size of the poster. Chenspec (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect. If you removed the photo, would the file be in scope? The photo is the reason why the file exists. Look in the last section of the Guidelines table: "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." - It doesn't matter how large the copyrighted element is as a percentage of the photo, it matters that the copyrighted element is the subject of the photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the original photographer has provided permission for this to be used under CC-SA 77.86.103.78 08:57, 15 December 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.

"Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023" distorted images

[edit]

These are copies of File:Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023 33.jpg and File:Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023 36.jpg, but digitally distorted (color/brightness balance). They are unused and unlikely to be used in light of the unedited versions (33 and 36), and the distortions add no educational value.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your considerations, I would love to keep number 35 - I do think it has a unique artistic effect. The rest can be waived. Chenspec (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, the distortions add no educational value. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works of copyrighted photographs. They contain non-free images in such a prominent manner that a de minimis claim is not applicable. I note that I have nominated for deletion only those that are undoubtedly copyright violations, although there are still some in this and other similar categories that deserve more detailed and careful analysis.

Files
Gallery

RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel and The Squirrel Conspiracy: pinging users who have opened similar DRs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, in these files the images are unrecognizable:

In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

In these files, the images are shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity:

In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete per nom. De minimis doesn't work the way Chenspec claims it does. In fact, that page explicitly calls out "a small part of the area of the image, but central to its significance" as definitely not de minimis. My comment in the other DR applies here as well. I feel they've started with their conclusion; they want these files to be kept and are grasping at straws for evidence to justify that conclusion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the design and text of the posters already have approval presented in previous discussions. The question is only about the images, which are always smaller than the poster itself. There are also cases where the image is less than a quarter of the size of the poster, which itself occupies a small part of the large image displayed in the file - in my opinion, there is room to take into account the relative weight of the image in relation to the large file, regardless of the size of the poster. Chenspec (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect. If you removed the photo, would the file be in scope? The photo is the reason why the file exists. Look in the last section of the Guidelines table: "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." - It doesn't matter how large the copyrighted element is as a percentage of the photo, it matters that the copyrighted element is the subject of the photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I' m uploader and photographer of this photograph. My figure in the mirror causes me embarrassment. I think uploading this photo was my mistake. 屠麟傲血 (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused and repetitive AI-generated relationship timeline that hasn't even understood the "four stages" part of the prompt. No COM:EDUSE, uncaptionable. Belbury (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this has rights from the Fabric nightclub to be released into the 'public domain' 77.86.103.78 10:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a duplicate of File:CONRAD.jpg of which no evidence exists that there are rights to release this into the 'public domain' 77.86.103.78 10:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. dringsim 10:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2014. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Фещенко Василь Іванович. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2009. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor В. В. Козиренко. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:06, 15 December 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 І. С. Зарічний. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2012. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor uk:Зарічний Ігор Семенович. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DERIV photo of a photographic menu inside a restaurant. Belbury (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1990. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1992. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1990. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1992. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1995. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 2014. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1990. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1991. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is somewhat elusive, but his death date is alternatively given as 1937 (Artnet) or 1946 (Art UK). Interestingly, according to the Wikidata record, Art UK used to give 1946 too and has changed their record since 2017. Beyond this issue, the painting is undated, and if it was published 1929 or later, it will still be under copyright in the US in any case due to the URAA. Felix QW (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built in the 2020s. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1990. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 2000. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1995. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Moogiibn10 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Apparently fictional flags of Mongolia. Out of COM:SCOPE if so.

Belbury (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PACKAGE Wdwd (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if the artist worked until her death in 1946. Therefore, there is no evidence that these works - undated at the source - have been published before 1929. They may well still be copyrighted in the US due to URAA restorations. If we believe they were published shortly after creation, we can undelete in 2042.

Felix QW (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough of COM:FOP Russia for texts or artwork, including photographs.

Grand-Duc (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, for example file:Ядерный чемоданчик.jpg, photos on photo are under de minimis. MBH 12:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While parsing through the category in the prelude of opening the mass DR, I had COM:De minimis in the back of my head. In fact, I did not include several images where I was certain that photographs were "entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph". Example: File:Nuclear case 02.jpg which already stretches my understanding of the meaning of De minimis quite far. On all of the nominated files, the photographs or texts are not incidental, but inextricably part of the picture. They all fail the test of "If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." All quotes come from the De minimis guideline. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your understanding of rules Commons should delete almost all photos created inside every museum on Earth. MBH 15:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Банка березового сока в Ельцин-центре.jpg this contains absolutely no copyrighted content. MBH 13:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does: the depiction, likely lithographs or photographs, of the twig and the glass. As they are centerpiece of the image, again, 'De minimis is not applicable. See also COM:PACKAGING. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're about a paper label, it was designed by unknown Soviet plant and currently don't have a copyright holder. Also it has no artistic value. MBH 15:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About "With your understanding of rules Commons should delete almost all photos created inside every museum on Earth." – I am no legislator, so, I cannot do a thing about laws. But there are countries that allow FOP exemptions for 2D art inside, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Summary table, Austria is notable in that regard. The other possibility are photographs of public domain works, often exhibited in museums (Mona Lisa, old sculptures...). So, your kind of polemic remark is useless. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that the evacuation plans were another thing where I hesitated if they should be included. I settled for their inclusion, as they are a kind of maps. Even though there are likely technological standards to be followed in their making, that would only reduce the needed COM:TOO to reach copyright protection. See also Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs. I hope for some more input on this matter, as I can very well be mistaken. (User:A.Savin, you come into my mind. Can you provide some insights?) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yeltsin Museum in Yeltsin Center 79.jpg: Sorry, definitively not De minimis, the gallery of heads is not incidental.
  • File:Yeltsin-center-museum-putch.JPG: the quality is irrelevant for copyright evaluations. The video screens are centerpiece to the picture, not incidental. Also, the arrangement of broken furniture could be seen as piece of art. 3D art is not covered by FOP Russia.
  • File:Yeltsin-center-museum-shop.jpg: the human figure may be De minimis, it's again a IMHO borderline case. It's an important part of the depiction of the shop, though.
  • File:Yeltsin-center-museum-troll.JPG: too much photographs that make for the general impression of the picture, so again, not De minimis.
Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about 3D-art, I will request a permission from the museum administration. MBH 16:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows an ugly part of the city. Amirreza7657 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion, and COM:INUSE. Omphalographer (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unklare Urheberrechtssituation. Der Hochlader scheint namensidentisch mit dem Verlagsbesitzer zu sein, (vgl. comicplus+ und Eckart Sackmann), so dass eine Freigabe denkbar erscheint - diese muss aber ordentlich dokumentiert werden. Grand-Duc (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da man mir vorwirft, ich habe schon zu viele Bilder hochgeladen, muss ich wohl auswählen und verzichte auf das Dreieckcover.
Aber ganz generell: Wenn ein Buchcover vom Verlag entworfen wird, aber eine fremde Illustration verwendet – wo liegt dann das Urheberrecht? Wir hatten für alle unsere Gesamtausgaben ein ähnliches, unverwechselbares Coverdesign, immer mit einer Illustration des Zeichners der Serie. ESackmann (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Es gibt absolut keinen Vorwurf, zu viele Bilder hochgeladen zu haben! Ganz im Gegenteil ist es sehr ehrenwert und wird begrüßt, wenn ein Verlagsinhaber (stimmt doch, oder?) versucht, Illustrationen zu Literatur beizutragen.
Grundsätzlich muss man (in Kontinentaleuropa) in etwa zwischen Urheberrechten und Verwertungsrechten unterscheiden. Aus dem Urheberrecht erwachsen die Verwertungsrechte; die Urheberrechte bleiben immer beim Kreativen. Beliebige Verwertungsrechte sind dagegen im Rahmen der allgemeinen Vertragsfreiheit übertragbar und Grundlage der hier erforderlichen Lizenzierungen. Sofern jetzt das Unternehmen comicplus+ mit den Zeichnern der verlegten Werke eine Vereinbarung zu Unterlizenzierungen von (Cover-)Zeichnungen geschlossen hat, welche das Erteilen von beispielsweise Creative-Commons-Lizenzen einschließt, dann kann das Unternehmen (z.B. vertreten durch seinen Geschäftsführer) genau das tun und einen kleinen, aber feinen Teil zum Wachstum und Verbesserung der Mediendatenbank Commons beitragen (und zumindest in einigen Kreisen durchaus auch an Renommee als Förderer freien Wissens gewinnen). Entsprechende weitere Erklärungen und Nachweise nimmt das Commons:Volunteer Response Team sehr gerne entgegen. Grüße, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC) PS. In der zwischenmenschlichen Kommunikation im Wikipedia-Universum ist von Beginn an das Dutzen üblich, bitte also ggf. darüber nicht irritiert sein! :-)[reply]

Painting by artist who passed away in 1990: still protected by copyright. Nutshinou Talk! 12:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by artist who passed away in 1990: still protected by copyright.

Nutshinou Talk! 12:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the artist's son, Alan Lucas, and I speak for his estate. The photographs of these paintings are my own work, and the Estate is happy for them to be published on Wikimedia Commons. Alannewton (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, that was not something I was aware of, generally, you would want to verify your identity with VRT so that these files can be kept. Is the estate also fine with File:Edwin G Lucas, Caley Station, Edinburgh.jpg? Nutshinou Talk! 15:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, you weren't to know :). I've now verified with VRT (a process I wasn't aware of before), and yes the estate is fine with the Caley Station image being on Wikimedia Commons. Alannewton (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is out of Commons:Scope. Ciell (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File superseded by better file. Existing file is unpleasantly loud compared to other clips on same page. File no longer linked to any page. NosferatuBob (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published previously on deezer, spotify, facebook, twitter, youtube. COM:VRT required. Achim55 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a copyrighted video without stating a suitable license 2001:A61:12B6:4B01:C9D1:14AC:4459:9B7F 14:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already that file it’s copy Ihtasham066Ali (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of copyrighted Minecraft models and textures. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows a construction in a festival in Barcelona where neighbours decorate their streets, each one about a different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15. Dec. 2024 (UTC)
They were made in cardboard at the entrance of the square, named for that purpose "Farga Craft" (this was at the Plaça de la Farga). --Enric (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. The Minecraft logo is above TOO and has been deleted repeatedly on Commons (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft text.png); the "FARGA CRAFT" text on this display is a derivative of that logo. Omphalographer (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio, album cover 87.205.242.69 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Yes, this is not mona lisa artwork. 茅野ふたば (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wegen Lizenz Dagoheri (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dagoheri was stimmt denn nicht mit der Lizenz? Nakonana (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-4.0 without any reason. — Redboston 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP Russia: Not OK for artwork. — Redboston 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted video game box art, not COM:De minimis. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Aviationwikiflight as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It is unknown when and where the image was published since the linked source does not mention them, so it is unknown whether or not this image is in the public domain.|source=http://hikokikumo.net/His-Civ-DC3-5045.htm May be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete: Whilst it may have been an image that was taken in the 1950s, it is unknown when and where the image was published. In the absence of any concrete evidence, it's better to assume that the image is copyrighted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Daltro Augusto (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is available under a free license at the source, and compared to da Vinci's original, the entire bottom middle section has been newly added. This should suffice for copyright protection. See some prior discussion at the Copyright Village Pump. Felix QW (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Derivative works from promo photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PCP Image doesn't seems to be created by Bollywood Hungama. No watermark and similar images at source page seen elsewhere on the internet. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph credited at the bottom left part to "Chiché Ed Kutter", which seems the same as Édouard Kutter, who died in 1978. So it’s not in the public domain in the country of origin yet and won’t be PD there until 2049. 81.41.185.128 16:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph credited to Édouard Kutter at bottom right part ("Cliché Ed Kutter"’, see here another image with the same credit format, depicting a sister of the sitter of this photograph). Kutter was a Lucembourgish photographer who died in 1978, less than 70 years ago. This photograph wouldn’t be PD in it’s country of origin (Luxembourg) until 2049. 81.41.185.128 16:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Artifex Illusionary (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.

Mitte27 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not public domain — from AlertCalifornia camera network (previously AlertWildfire), whose TOU specifies that program data is copyrighted under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license Penitentes (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally uploaded under wrong license Ego-Odysseus (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaajohn40 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, insufficient reason. We keep old photos as historical.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not own work: https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gsbubu&hl=de&re=df&p=AbrfA8opzDzVJpPrwZf6EMl0jDTw-eElzELku5R28ouuskCBz60LrbuYGwppkb8WZLFTlMDtiFOY8Mre6BAsniV9I-TGKo-UIvC2Xd-AZm26vvvVOIS73EBPAt21Oa8tQsGLpscitTQJDsUXUTvDvTXWpKXqs-wzn73q5KWc--8pmNaCXYS3lbjcmFWH-ywGsIT0QHg4EULoAPOJkw%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR0V4TUdKbFpEWXhMVGd5WWpndE5HWTVZUzA1TkdFeUxXUTBORGRsWlRZM09UTmxPQklmUlRCdGJqaDNlRzh0UTBsU1RVbG5SM0JuU1V4dVVESnZaRWd0TWxCQ2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxbW251bGwsbnVsbCwiMC0wIl0sWyIwNDcwNDc2ZC02MjBiLTQ0OWYtOGRmZi0yNTg3NjdlM2Q5ZTIiXV0sMSxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsWzAsNDA1LDk5NTk1LDEwMDAwMF1dLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW251bGwsWzAsNDAwLDk5NjAwLDEwMDAwMF1dXSxbIjA0NzA0NzZkLTYyMGItNDQ5Zi04ZGZmLTI1ODc2N2UzZDllMiJdXQ== Xocolatl (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission from given photopgrapher in metadata which read "Author Tom Paquay" Hoyanova (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigener Wunsch (Ersteller) / Own wish (creator) Timjcbs (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person died in 1973, can not be original own work of 2024. Original date? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yardfootbal (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.

Mitte27 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reproduction from a unsourced print Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake in the specification of the author. 37.4.250.229 18:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from the company's website, as are most of the photos from this uploader. Mbinebri (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US has no freedom of panorama for statues. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info 2009 statue. Abzeronow (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Y2hyaXM (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an old image, might be PD - but own work is doubted. Regards, Aafi (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the design patent may be public domain, the character copyright for Betty Boop doesn't expire until 2026. See COM:CHAR and Commons:Character copyrights. The only aspects of this image that would be truly public domain would be those that are original to the design patent, which are likely to be little to none. Nosferattus (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also affects the following files (which I've added deletion notices to):

Files uploaded by 増田孝之 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope, https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B8%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%B3%E4%BC%8A%E8%97%A4%E7%8C%9B check this wikipedia article. if this page got removed, please also remove this image.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Darinmax (talk · contribs)

[edit]

i dont believe these images are free licensed. satellite images are mostly copyrighted. and drawing is also possible copyvio.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jessica Aurioso (talk · contribs)

[edit]

possible out of project scope, huge watermarks on photos indicates that these are not free licensed. we need COM:VRT, please contact.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 20:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Jessica and i'm gallerist (From Italy, Galleria Area Contesa Arte). Our art critic is Mario Salvo and he asked me to make for him a wikipedia page. You can check his artworks on google. I can make for you an email from him that will give me the license to use his pictures for the wikipedia page. Please let me know. I worked very hard for this page. Ciao! Jessica Aurioso (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, Jessica Aurioso! COM:VRT needs permission from the artists for the pictures of art and also permission from the photographer. Sorry it's complicated, but that's in order to protect everyone's copyright - the copyrights of the artworks and the copyrights of the photographers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviol: D'Anzi, the author of the song, died in 1974 Sciking (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete, per nomination. This ogg also comes from a non-CC licensed YouTube video. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQlGyB7_oAg --Arrow303 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely over the relatively low threshold of originality needed for copyright protection in China. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Logo (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Carrefour Group) Kadı Message 20:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940s British photograph, could be PD in the UK if after a reasonable search (which cannot just be an online search) has determined photographer cannot be traced, but was restored by URAA and so copyrighted in the US until at least 2045. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, out of date, raster duplicate of vector version of map here: File:Map of BRICS countries.svg TDL (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This coin is the work of de:Heinz Hoyer, who is alive, so the file should be deleted. It can be restored 70 years pma. Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not public domain in the United States: it would have entered the public domain in India in 2004 at the earliest. It will be copyrighted in the US for 95 years after publication; assuming it was published in 1953 that would be 2049.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded as own work, but appears eg. on this news video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToK2nHuL894 DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kein eigenes Werk, Gründung der Verbindung erst 1958, höchstwahrscheinlich Copyvio. GerritR (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Servus, die hochgeladene Vektrografik ist ein eigenes Werk, welches von einer handgezeichneten Vorlage abstammt. K4210 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source of the photograph is Facebook per metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a free photo. There is no mention of a Creative Commons license anywhere on the source webpage, and the site's copyright terms state: "Some or all of the material on our website are protected under copyright laws. No portion may be copied, reproduced, or redistributed in any manner whatsoever without the consent of the copyright owners." Furthermore, this photo likely comes from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and works by the Pennsylvania state government are not automatically in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the look for the image under Google Images and narrow to Creative Commons licenses, this image of LM comes up. Check the open page where it has a link to license, and it takes you here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
It does look like a mugshot for a government facility, which should most definitely be in the public domain.
Here's a POV from Stanford Law Review about who owns 2023 Trump's mugshot, which may be applicable in the Luigi Mangione situation:
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/the-criminally-complicated-copyright-questions-about-trumps-mugshot/ ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making an argument based on the mugshot being licensed under Creative Commons or the mugshot not fitting the threshold of originality? I don't see why else Trump's mugshot would be mentioned, except if it's for the latter case. Furthermore, "Free Malaysia Today" has no right to license that picture under CC; the PA DoC does. NAADAAN (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unclear copyright status: Uploader claims to be the individual in this photo and says this is their own work, yet this image appears on Getty Images as the work of "Ian West - PA Images" GnocchiFan (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source image is likely non-free; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luigi Mangione.jpg for details. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given no metadata no permission Hoyanova (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small file, apparently scraped with others by this editor, now deleted. Cannot find a fiile older on the net than this onne, but its provenance is not convincing Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small file, apparently scraped with others by this editor, now deleted. Cannot find a fiile older on the net than this one, but its provenance is not convincing Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small file, apparently scraped with others by this editor, now deleted. Cannot find a fiile older on the net than this onne, but its provenance is not convincing Acroterion (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Hans Joachim Dobler, who is apparently alive, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored 70 years pma.

Rosenzweig τ 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kein eigenes Werk. Ist das Wappen in dieser Gestalt alt genug? GerritR (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Hubert Klinkel, who is alive, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored 70 years pma.

Rosenzweig τ 21:06, 15 December 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.

Coins of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70+ years after the death of the engraver. In this case the engraver, Erich Ott, is still alive. So these coins are clearly copyrighted for the foreseeable future. I'm also including an image of a crown designed by him, File:CrownGeolinaMagna KaiserinWPAC.jpg, since I assume it follows the same copyright terms.

Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored 70 years after Ott's death. --Rosenzweig τ 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Erich Ott, who is alive, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored 70 years pma.

Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da der Autor unbekannt ist, wissen wir nicht, ob die Schutzfrist sicher abgelaufen ist. Schöpfungshöhe ist unzweifelhaft. Bis auf Weiteres Copyvio. GerritR (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This coin is the work of Thomas Zipperle, who is alive, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored 70 years pma.

Rosenzweig τ 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No permission for the underlying map Yann (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the background is a 1914 map, it is probably in the public domain. Yann (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No permission for the underlying map Yann (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The background seems to be Open Street Map. Yann (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This coin is the work of Heinrich Schlüter, who died in 2024, so the files should be deleted. It can be restored in 2095.

Rosenzweig τ 21:13, 15 December 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.

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These 21st century coins are the work of de:František Chochola, who died in 2022. The files can be restored in 2093.

Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding
to this deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Rosenzweig, ich hoffe, Du verstehst Dich nicht nur als Liquidator, sondern willst auch den Bestand an interessanten Commons-Fotos möglichst erhalten sehen. Hast Du also vielleicht mal versucht, mit den Erben von Frantisek Chochola Kontakt aufzunehmen? Immerhin würdigt diese Kategorie ja in gewisser Weise sein Werk zwischen 2002 und 2015. Gruß Im Fokus (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of František Chochola, who died in 2022, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2093.

Rosenzweig τ 21:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Herwig Otto, who died in 2022, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2093.

Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 15 December 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.

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany German coins are copyrighted until at least 70s after the death of their designer. In this case the designer, Axel Bertram, died in 2019. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2,090. If not later due to their copyright being restored by URAA. Although I'll leave that up to the closing administrator to decide.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment The Fichte coin was miscategorized, it's not the work of Bertram, but that of de:Heinz Hoyer and his wife, both apparently alive. --Rosenzweig τ 10:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Does Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany even apply here? These are DDR coins, and the page doesn't specify anything about DDR rules. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the East German states joined the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990, they adopted the laws of the FRG. There are some special regulations in the unification treaty, but as far as I know none of them concerns copyright. So yes, German law applies. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Axel Bertram, who died in 2019, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2090.

Rosenzweig τ 21:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Rosenzweig,
dass Du alle Bilder mit dem Hinweis auf das Copyright löschen lassen willst ist absoluter blödsinn!!! Die Münzen wurden im Auftrag des VEB MÜNZE DER DDR Designed und Hergestellt! Das Coypright liegt also bei der DDR. Rechtsnachfolger die BRD. Und hier sind die Bilder von Münzen gemeinfrei!!!!!! Also was soll das Ganze???? So gesehen, dürften auf wikipedia überhaupt keine Bilder von Münzen oder Banknoten vorhanden sein!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2A06:34C0:1200:5A00:3994:774A:9A47:AD1A 21:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falsch. Münzen sind in Deutschland nicht gemeinfrei, sondern urheberrechtlich geschützt, bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers. --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is property of the company which represents the actress in the photo. This photo may NOT be used by anyone. Actress rights (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2014061910003684 --Achim55 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see also ticket:2024121510004874. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Bernd Wendhut, who died in 2019, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2090.

Rosenzweig τ 21:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Hermann zur Strassen, who died in 2019, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2090.

Rosenzweig τ 21:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Justicanegra (talk · contribs)

[edit]

huge watermarks on the lower left corner indicates that these images are not free licensed. remove please.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Mathias Furthmair, who died in 2015, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2086.

Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Christian Höpfner, who died in 2014, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2085.

Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The map is not accurate and is therefore useless. This version of NordNordWest's map was intended for wikis (e.g. Czech Wikipedia) that don't have location map template which can natively (that is, without the editor themselves writing the formulas for x and y coordinates) handle other than equirectangular projections (e.g. equidistant conic MasterStudioCZ (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Gerhard Rommel, who died in 2014, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2085.

Rosenzweig τ 21:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The map is not accurate and is therefore useless. This version of NordNordWest's map was intended for wikis (e.g. Czech Wikipedia) that don't have location map template which can natively (that is, without the editor themselves writing the formulas for x and y coordinates) handle other than equirectangular projections (e.g. equidistant conic), but it just didn't work out. MasterStudioCZ (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Carl Vezerfi-Clemm, who died in 2012, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2083.

Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 15 December 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.

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These 2006 and 2010 coins are the work of de:Dietrich Dorfstecher, who died in 2011. The files can be restored in 2082.

Rosenzweig τ 09:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Dietrich Dorfstecher, who died in 2011, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2082.

Rosenzweig τ 21:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Franz Müller, who died in 2011, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2082.

Rosenzweig τ 21:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Wolfgang Doehm, who died in 2010, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2081.

Rosenzweig τ 21:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by HiMyNameisFrenchFries (talk · contribs)

[edit]

in use, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Parsons but will soon removed. after removed please  Speedy delete it. thanks.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and out of date fork of File:Unitary patent participants.svg TDL (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Robert Lippl, who died in 2009, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2080.

Rosenzweig τ 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The German artist who created this medal, Robert Lippl, died in 2009, so the medal is not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2080. Rosenzweig τ 21:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not own work, image is from a 23 ABC News YouTube video (1:49)— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grjsa-ocLbw?si=zy3nF-DPWFKOVYfd&t=109 Penitentes (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This coin is the work of Hans Karl Burgeff, who died in 2005, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2076.

Rosenzweig τ 21:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Reinhart Heinstorff, who died in 2002, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2073.

Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not enough COM:FOP Taiwan (restricted to buildings); derivative of most likely protected map. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Greta Lippl-Heinsen, who died in 2002, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2073.

Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Klaus-Jürgen Luckey, who died in 2001, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2072 (Hamburg) and 2073 (Kleist, URAA because it is a 1977 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Karl Föll, who died in 2000, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2071.

Rosenzweig τ 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Fritz Nuss, who died in 1999, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2070.

Rosenzweig τ 22:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Siegmund Schütz, who died in 1998, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2069.

Rosenzweig τ 22:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Heinrich Körner, who died in 1993, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2064 (Heidelberg) and 2065 (Fontane, URAA because it is a 1969 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not under a free license, also likely vandalism. Atanásio (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Wilfried Fitzenreiter, who died in 2008, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2079.

Rosenzweig τ 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. These coins are the work of Heinz Rodewald, who died in 1993, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2064, except for the coins showing Liebknecht (can be restored in 2072, URAA because it is a 1976 coin) and Jahn (can be restored in 2073, URAA because it is a 1977 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Just a simple question: Those coins aren‘t work from the BRD - Theo were made in the GDR. Which Copyright claims are correct for official works of the gdr? Grunpfnul (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the German Reunification Treaty (Einigungsvertrag), the copyright law of the Federal Republic of Germany (so the current German copyright law) does apply to East German works as well. --Rosenzweig τ 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Source is NOT the Korean government. The source clearly shows the work is copyrighted, all rights reserved. Blatant copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because of the material I used to download the video kept the video metadata that the YouTube account (SBS) that posted it. It was indeed made by the Korean government, not actually by SBS. The metadata thinks that way because of where I downloaded the video from. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
basically it was reposted on SBS (one of its many YouTube uploads) and that's where I got the video from which is why it says it was made by SBS CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Even though the video was made by the Presidential Office of South Korea, it was not released under a free license. (In my opinion, very few government-created works are released into the public domain or KOGL Type 1.) Original video by KTV (which is operated by Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) states, "ⓒ 한국정책방송원 무단전재 및 재배포 금지" and "Copyrightⓒ KTV국민방송. All Rights Reserved". In addition, it is not fall under the PD criteria of South Korea's copyright law. This could be applied to the full text of his speech, not the video. See also: File:Yoon Suk Yeol declared the martial law.png and File:Yoon Suk Yeol gave speech on 7-12-2024.webm.--Namoroka (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, under Article 7 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, official announcements, public notifications, or other proclamations by government entities are in the Public Domain. The martial law declaration was a public announcement. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This 1975 coin is the work of Manfred Spang, who died in 1983, so it is still protected by copyright in both Germany and the US, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2071 (URAA because it is a 1975 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 22:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: unused AI-generated image of a pitcher of lemon and cucumber slices; uploader indef blocked on enwiki for promotional edits. Omphalographer (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused AI-generated illustration; unlikely to be useful. Omphalographer (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This 1974 coin is the work of Hubert Albert Zimmermann, who died in 1977, so it is still protected by copyright in both Germany and the US, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2070 (URAA because it is a 1974 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:CUR Germany, German coins are copyrighted. This 1955 coin is the work of Alfons Feuerle, who died in 1968, so it is still protected by copyright in both Germany and the US, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2051 (URAA because it is a 1955 coin).

Rosenzweig τ 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Author Abbas permission needed. 186.173.149.64 22:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be a book cover but appears to be a concert poster. Meaningless description Only upload by this editor so I doubt "own work". I'd guess this is a copyright violation. Certainly needs VRT if it is to be kept. Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category was not added by the uploader. Therefore he didn't make any book cover claim. Delete the poster. It certainly needs "OTRS". 186.172.193.92 01:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Own work" seems very unlikely. @User:Kazimates, are you actually saying you took the photo used on the book jacket? If so, this needs to go through the process described at COM:VRT. If not, the license cannot be valid. Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Brandinglogoffice (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: various unused logos with descriptions suggesting they were recently made up (e.g. "the American film studio created on December 2, 2024").

Omphalographer (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User671 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality COM:PORN

Dronebogus (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Patel is not recognized. 186.173.149.64 23:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal image used on irrelevant page 186.173.149.64 23:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you remove it from that page so that it's no longer in use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to my disciples. 186.173.149.64 05:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bubba1300 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: various personal documents and certificates.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Writer.jh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons is not a personal photo gallery. Out of Commons scope. Possibly F10?

Yahya (talkcontribs.) 23:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. F10 feels applicable; there's no indication that these are anything other than personal images. Omphalographer (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 23:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]