Commons:Deletion requests/2025/01/04

3 January 2025

5 January 2025

Deletion requests on 4 January 2025

January 4

File:Galveston - 1900 wreckage.jpg

This is an altered photo of damage in Pennsylvania which is purporting to be in Texas. Apparently several wikis are mistakenly using it (including English Wikipedia until I just fixed it). There are more accurate photos on en:Galveston Hurricane. The original has already been uploaded under a better name. Beland (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batistuta newells.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor ramos newells.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart).--Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detour (1945) by Edgar G. Ulmer, trailer.webm

Not an original trailer, it was made by Janus Films for a 2019 re-release. Mayimbú (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing new here. This is just some images from the film, which is in the public domain. Yann (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The newly-added titles are ineligible for copyright (though the Janus Films logo might not be, but that could be de minimis even if not), though I would question what the use of this trailer would be if it's so recent. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scoponi newells.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerardo martino newells.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfaro newells.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zanabria.jpg

This work may not be in the public domain in the United States because its U.S. copyright was restored by the URAA as it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases but see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for details). In most cases, it is copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years after the year in which it was initially published (exceptions are works published after 1977; see Commons:Hirtle chart). --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I noticed that the photo is from 1974, which means it entered public domain on 1994 in Argentina before the URAA date. Tvpuppy (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bricks ditena by MOMO THE CHOSEN 01.oga

Out of scope: unused, probably self-created music. Omphalographer (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stan Ridgway and a Harmony guitar.jpg

Possible copyvio, on the internet since 2008, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Killerfrog17 (talk · contribs)

Random screenshots of unused graphs and a table: not within the project scope.

Nutshinou ^Talk! 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Axolotloloxa (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: various screenshots of text.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete1st file is like a prompt for chat bot to make an extension, not instructions on how to actually make one which could be useful 999real (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Axolotloloxa (talk · contribs)

Unused random screenshots of mostly plain text content: not within the project scope.

Nutshinou ^Talk! 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cadmium sulfide quantum dots on cells high res.jpg

(own upload) See Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with picturethis.pnl.gov, en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE and https://www.pnnl.gov/notices.asp. Note: The original source is dead, and it was changed to Flickr with CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:25 Abavas-bataljons.png

1943 photograph, publication needed to determine actual copyright status as I doubt cc-zero is the real license here. Abzeronow (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:51LnPOd6KDL.ACSY780.jpg

Old photograph and sheet music, probably public domain, but an actual source is needed to confirm that. Abzeronow (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FLAC5D company.png

Out of scope: I can't identify any actual company with this name and logo. Omphalographer (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Apparently it was meant to be used for Russian Wikipedia in the article "FLAC5D" which was deleted for being out of scope. See ru:Обсуждение участника:Eiganseer. Thuresson (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Actor Holbrook Blinn (SAYRE 7991).jpg

Inferior version of File:Holbrook Blinn, silent screen actor (SAYRE 24120).jpg (as uploader). – BMacZero (🗩) 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree for deletion SDudley (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Line 2 Marikina–Pasig station exterior 2.jpg

Copyright violation. Looks like it was grabbed from [[1] without the author's permission. PhiliptheNumber1 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the post by Ang Litratista ng Daang-Bakal dates to July 1, 2021, which is earlier than this July 2 upload. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yesnoyesno.png

Useless image CzarJobKhaya (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bryski 25 (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be the uploader's own works. Images were originally posted on Facebook by Ang Litratista ng Daang-Bakal (hereafter abbreviated as "ALNDB"). There is no evidence of uploader being given permission by the ALNDB Facebook page (which should have been done through COM:VRTS correspondence).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these uploads were from July 2, 2021, which is a day later than the original Facebook images that are dated July 1. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:56, 4 January 2025 (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:Sheikh Zayed Mosque, Fujairah.jpg

The mosque was completed in 2015. Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in United Arab Emirates, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheikh Zayed Mosque, Fujairah.jpg

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thy Kingdom Come.jpg

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kubahmasjid.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Mutchmor and Providence Peace Cafe.jpg

Although the picture is freely licensed, the mural on the side of this Canadian building is likely not. (If you are the artist who created the mural, please send permission to COM:VRT.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Robert Viragh (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused screenshots making bizarre claims (especially by way of categories like Category:War crimes).

Omphalographer (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid Manarul Islam Bangil-6.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid Al-Birru Perumahan Griya Indah Jombang-13.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cloudy Grand Mosque.jpg

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid At-Ta'miriyah Peterongan Jombang-1.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musholla Al-Amien Kalimalang Sengon Jombang-5.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logog-goda-2b.png

Not own work, seems above COM:TOO Indonesia? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Al Jabbar Mosque

The mosque was completed in 2022 by Ridwan Kamil (1971–). There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, permission from the architect is required

A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:IdSF1 p5UX logos.jpg

Not own work, seems above COM:TOO Indonesia? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:IdWZdWgWkS logos.png

Not own work, possibly above COM:TOO Indonesia? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 January 2025 (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 in Category:Great Mosque of West Sumatra

Construction began in 2007, so this building isn't in the public domain. Indonesia doesn't have freedom of panorama.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im not agree. This mosque was built by the Indonesian government. Built with government funds. Please... Rhmtdns (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2021 (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 in Category:Great Mosque of West Sumatra

The mosque was completed in 2014. There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, thus permission from the architect is needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forum now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area. Consensus remains: no Commons-acceptable or commercial FOP in Indonesia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. The current text COM:FOP Indonesia is clear, No Fop, for instance no commercial purposes. The material on Commons might be used for commercial purposes. therefore the photo's have te be deleted. --Elly (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Great Mosque of West Sumatra

The mosque was completed in 2014 by Rizal Muslimin. There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, permission from the architect is required

A1Cafel (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukiran songket Masjid Raya Sumbar.png

The mosque was completed in 2014 by Rizal Muslimin. There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia, permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masalikoul djinan.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Senegal A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosque 294A2745 Massalikoul Djinane.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Senegal A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquée Massalikoul Djinâne Dakar 2019.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Senegal A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masjid 99 Kubah Makassar.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The 99 dome mosque Makassar.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Saleh Mosque - Sana'a 2013.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Yemen A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Gouw 2016-11-21 (Unsplash).jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plastic dinosaur toy (Unsplash).jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Person-holding-pokemon-ball-toy-1310847.jpg

Pexels images published after July 2018 are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurocopter AS532 Cougar Turkish Air Force.jpg

I forgot to hide the tail number hence i don't feel save having this military equipment's picture online this way. Yilmazwiki (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is still COM:INUSE at tr:2. Ana Jet Üssü. --Rosenzweig τ 19:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CASA CN-235 Turkish Air Force.jpg

I forgot to hide the tail number hence i don't feel save having this military equipment's picture online this way. Yilmazwiki (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload but file is still COM:INUSE at tr:2. Ana Jet Üssü. --Rosenzweig τ 19:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:L to R, Brown Bear Patter Pillow, Mr Potts and Red Ridinghood- All Mattel Pull String Talkers! All restored by myself! 2014-06-23 22-25.jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:John Witherspoon memorial (Princeton University)

The memorial was completed in 2001 by Alexander Stoddart (1959–). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required

A1Cafel (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sculpture is easily accessible to the public on a university campus. Photos of the sculpture are widely available online, so there has obviously been zero effort to protect any “copyright.” Removing the image from Wikimedia serves nobody’s interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euthman (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Euthman. Per our policies, "arguments that amount to 'we can get away with it'", such as the ones listed at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, "are against Commons' aims". For more, please see our licensing policy. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:WalshHallArchitecture2.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 2019 by Alexander Stoddart (1959–). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:At Sardinia 2024 061.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 2005 by Piergiorgio Gometz (1940–2016). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2087 A1Cafel (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lonely, and with no egg in sight, a giant chrome spermatozoa adorns the lawn behind the UCSF Centre for Reproductive Health. (26431569945).jpg

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaking Man - 2082692440.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 1993 by Terry Allen (1943–). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoan My Sai Gon Hospital.jpg

FOP in Vietnam was revoked since 2023, image upload afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sherwood Suites.jpg

FOP in Vietnam was revoked since 2023, image upload afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2025 (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:2017-02-03, Deutsches Haus HCM, View from the street III.jpg

Whether this photo - of a photo, of a building - is properly free depends on factors about freedom of panorama and accurate replicas of 2D work. I think it needs to be addressed, and I don't think I know enough to address it. DS (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my English is not so good and I´m not sure if I understood you correctly. I made several pictures from the building and also this picture from this advertisement (sign with self-description) of the building which stands at the street and is for the public. So I´m not sure what the problem is. Because the building is going to finish the sign is probably not there anymore anyway, so it´s a kind of archive picture now, which has a worth itself I think.--Riadchikova (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, Freedom of Panorama in Vietnam and Freedom of Panorama in Germany. --Y.haruo (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017-02-03, Deutsches Haus HCM, View from the street III.jpg

Billboards are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What were the copyright laws in Vietnam before 2022? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCK 2023 Hanoi.jpg

FOP in Vietnam has been revoked since 2023, so image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come on A1Cafel this is not FOP. Please understand "all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam". This is from my phone camera during the concert, not from any televised screen or something else similar. DangTungDuong (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is a derivative work, so the permission from the copyright holder is required. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:MCK 2023 Hanoi (cropped).jpg

FOP in Vietnam has been revoked since 2023, so image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nukualofa Tonga 6.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Tonga A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alex Celiadin at GetJet's headquarters in Vilnius, Lithuania.jpg

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinépolis Natal Shopping.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cine Pireneus

The displays on the screen mounted centered on the stage do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two files in Category:Arcoplex Rua da Praia Shopping

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinesystem Praia Grande SP.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two files in Category:Cinemark Barra Shopping Sul / FOP

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinemark Barra Shopping Sul - 04.jpg

Lack of educational usefulness, blurry. A file that could better serve as illustration is available: File:Cinemark Barra Shopping Sul - 03.jpg. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinemark Bourbon Shopping Ipiranga Porto Alegre.jpg

To delete this file, one of two policies could be invoked. It's either no FOP or lack of educational usefulness.

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Additionally, the file is abysmally small.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cinemateca Capitólio

The displays do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only one where this might apply is File:IBPA 2399 - Abertura Oficial da Semana de Porto Alegre - 2017-03-19 - Ricardo Giusti-PMPA.jpg, where the poster is central. For all the others, the posters are trivial and far from the focus of the photograph. Copyright law is there to protect an original work of art. It is a stretch to claim such protection on a utilitarian poster such as this extending quite so broadly. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poster itself is a production of the Porto Alegre Municipality for the festival week they organize to commemorate the birthday of the city, and the municipality is entitled to state it is free to use. The only caveat for me (which is not small, by all means) is that this applies as long as it does not incorporate derivative work which is not their own production, and looking at the poster it seems to incorporate a number of naif art behind, which may be from an artist or students, I couldn't find out, so better presume the Municipality doesn't own that specific copyright. I can blur it at File:IBPA 2399 - Abertura Oficial da Semana de Porto Alegre - 2017-03-19 - Ricardo Giusti-PMPA.jpg and keep that photo, as it is still valuable even with the blurred artwork, for being a speech at the official opening of the event. In all the others that artwork and the other in the 1st photo are clearly COM:de minimis IMO, and not even worth the trouble of hiding it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that strikes me as possibly de minimis is File:Cine-theatro-capitólio.jpg, where the announcement is possibly incidental to the portrayal of buildings and a street scene. It's arguable, but I'd vote to Keep that photo as is (and it's conceivable that the announcement might not exceed Brazil's high COM:TOO Brazil as well, though I wouldn't want to stake my life on that). In the other 4 photos, the poster is highly obtrusive and commands more of my attention than anything else, so I think it would have to be blurred in every one, and otherwise, unless it can be shown that the artists involved consent to commercial use of their work or that the municipality is the sole copyright holder and has given a license for it that Commons can use, they would have to be Deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek I inquired people that live there, and they recognized the art as Porto Alegre street art. Since there are and already were by then many documented partnerships of the municipality with the Porto Alegre graffiters, I suspect this poster was kind of a showcase for these works, and in that case that specific representation (the poster) would be allowed under the current Brazilian copyright law - if it was indeed part of one of those partnerships. I'm writing this here just as a clue for anyone willing to further research in this case, not as a real argument.

To the admin closing this: Please ping me here telling which images should be fixed. As for now, and without further information on the copyright of that work, my opinion is that File:IBPA 2399 - Abertura Oficial da Semana de Porto Alegre - 2017-03-19 - Ricardo Giusti-PMPA.jpg should be either cropped or blurred, but I can do it to others if you think De Minimis don't apply, though it's hard to see that cases like File:IBPA 2394 - Abertura Oficial da Semana de Porto Alegre - 2017-03-19 - Ricardo Giusti-PMPA.jpg where the artwork in the poster (which is not any essential part of the photo, btw) can hardly be seen, are not covered by it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let us contrast the given image with the contents of the COM:De minimis policy. There's a section "An example" which reads: "However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster.

In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." It is quite obvious in my eyes that the poster is integral to the overall photographic composition, as it is an integral part of the stage set. It is neither small (being comparable to the surface area covered by 1,5 to 2 depicted humans) nor blurred/out of focus or simply part of the background. So, a De minimis defense is liable to fail. Well, the stand-up display could be cropped away, mitigating the FOP / DM issue. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cinemateca Paulo Amorim

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cinespaço Bourbon Wallig

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

A counterargument for the sake of keeping the images could be made by denying the McDonald's ads a sufficiently high originality.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Espaço Itaú de Cinema Bourbon Country

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

File:Unibanco Arteplex Porto Alegre 02.jpg is also uselessly small.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GNC Cinemas Iguatemi Porto Alegre - 04.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:GNC Cinemas Lindóia - 03.jpg

The Jurassic World display does not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence it becomes a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable as the protected work depicted is not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:GNC Cinemas Praia de Belas

The displays do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two files in Category:GNC Moinhos Shopping / FOP

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MustiKass (talk · contribs)

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. E.g. File:Sirkel&Mall 6.jpg is from the company's website: https://sma.ee/projekt/rahvusraamatukogu-rekonstrueerimine/

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. The images are from page https://www.rara.ee/rekonstrueerimine/rekonstrueerimise-lugu/

Sirkel&Mall has submitted these photos for open procurement and these photos are the property of RaRa, meaning that they can be used everywhere when the name of the original author is there. MustiKass (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Creative Commons license on that site? Sorry if I missed it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MustiKass (talk · contribs)

problematic user. Unlike that own work. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MustiKass

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. The images are from page https://www.rara.ee/rekonstrueerimine/rekonstrueerimise-lugu/

All these works have been submitted as the open procurement and these photos are the property of RaRa, meaning that they are public and can be used everywhere when the name of the original author is there. MustiKass (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MustiKass (talk · contribs)

permission from Teet Malsroos is needed. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All these images are ordered by the National Library of Estonia and rights for the images belong to NLIB. These are published on their web site and are for public use.

https://www.rara.ee/osale/naitused/rahvusraamatukogu-vana-ja-uus-algus/ MustiKass (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the precise terms of the library's license, and where can we see them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case pinging @Kruusamägi. Maybe he has dealth with RaRa files Estopedist1 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MustiKass: just the fact that some images are published on library's web site, does not mean they are under public domain or some free use licence. If the library owns all rights to them, then reprecentative of that library could send an email to permissions-et[ät]wikimedia.org and we could sort that out. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blazer Logo with characters around.png

Out of scope --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:45, 4 January 2025 (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 Nandakotkorea (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused company logos uploaded by non-contribution user.

Netora (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 04:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nandakotkorea (talk · contribs)

Clear spam.

--Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Formula 1 resting (The sculpture by Hanne Varming) - panoramio.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in Denmark, artist Hanne Varming died in 2022 A1Cafel (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stellwerk Soltau - geo.hlipp.de - 31127.jpg

Scaled-down version of File:Soltau - Stellwerk.jpg not in use. Tohma (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kleberite (talk · contribs)

File:Estonian shelly phosphirtes.jpg author is Institute of Geology TUT. I suspect the other file is also not own work. Deletion per COM:PCP

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is my own work, and I am one of researcher of TUT working on current phosphorites project.

The images can also be found on MinDat on the same username, samples originate from Ülgase.

Kind regards. Kleberite (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: both files to be kept per talk--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulldog-drummond 1929.webm

Exact duplicate of File:Bulldog Drummond.webm. Spinster (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Duplicate uploaded later and worse filename. I don't even know how this happened, as I thought that the site's software will not allow this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that the Samuel Goldwyn Films logo made this not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I'm uploading an edited version with that logo removed. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Monument and Stairs" - Stairway sculpture in Hirtshals - panoramio.jpg

The sculpture was completed in 1997 by Dorte Dahlin (1955–) and Mogens Møller (1934–2021). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Berit22 (talk · contribs)

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drifters.webm

This is a film from the United Kingdom, not the United States, so the publication date of 1929 doesn't make this film public domain. Director John Grierson died in 1972. Spinster (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyrighted in the UK until 2043. Safe to delete without first transferring to enwiki, since there's a higher-quality version at en:File:Drifters (John Grierson, 1929).webm. hinnk (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Monuments and memorials in Athens

Unfortunately, the sculptor of this specific work of art, Thanassis Apartis, only died in the mid-70s. As a result and since there's no FOP in Greece, these files should be deleted, maybe, with the only exception being photo #4 per the de minimis criterion, since we have only a combination of letters, nothing artistic or textual here.

🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeanne Manet in One Step Beyond (Premonition).jpg

Cette photo n'est pas de Jeanne Manet/Gilberte Lackmann. Dans cet épisode, elle joue le professeur de danse avec l'accent français à couper au couteau Bernard Jon (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image remplacée. Merci de m'avoir signalé cette erreur. Patrick CecilF (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main entrance of Godagari Govt. School & College.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurmitola General Hospital, Dhaka 01.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:কুর্মিটোলা জেনারেল হাসপাতাল.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seroil Colony High School.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bangladesh Shishu Academy, Rajshahi.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag map of Cape Verde.svg

Looks like the code is broken (?) here. 😕 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Crescent International School Rajshahi.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural of Sheikh Mujib after July Revolution in 2024.jpg

According to this discussion, there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists in the 2023 copyright law in Bangladesh. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Simotissir (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: questionable educational value and in some cases potential copyvio screenshots.

HyperGaruda (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as well as additional similar files:

Omphalographer (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sakarya'dan haber logo.jpg

Unused file. Photo without much information about purpose. No educational value. Zafer (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mmetoxicology.png

This file was initially tagged by Nitraus as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio. Not uploader's own work. PD-ineligible, in use. Yann (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spain with Second Spanish Republic Flag and Coat of Arms.svg

Looks like the code is broken (?) here. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 10:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asian Football Confederation 2025.svg

It is unspecified on article please delete and I replace specified ones July2806 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yayan550 (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:何家产大校.jpg

It is not PD in US per URAA. 1955+50=2005 PD in CN but Not in US. Hehua (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:PLAMC 1950s LVT.jpg

Not PD in US per URAA. Hehua (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panjim, Goa in 2024 at different times of day 24.jpg

Because it is totally blurry mfx ^Q&A 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Busty Edi.jpg

Unexplained pornographic image which user has been using to vandalise various WP articles. Possible copyvio. Furius (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museum of Christian Art, Old Goa in 2024 2.jpg

Because it is Breach of Freedom of Panorama mfx ^Q&A 10:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ada Wong Futa.jpg

Unexplained pornographic image. Possible copyvio; uploader has been adding images like this to WP articles as a form of vandalism Furius (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ada Wong 2.jpg

Unexplained pornographic image. Possible copyvio; uploader has added this image to WP articles as a form of vandalism Furius (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raven gets blacked.jpg

Unexplained pornographic image. Possible copyvio; uploader has been adding images like this to WP articles as a form of vandalism Furius (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elevator fun.jpg

Unexplained pornographic image. Possible copyvio; uploader has been adding images like this to WP articles as a form of vandalism Furius (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philosopher-2001-History-Issue-Cover.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted journal cover, not sure whether PD-text applies
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO the depicted cover-content is not above threshold of originality. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe it would be in the UK. The picture of a book should be sufficient to exceed COM:TOO UK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:20240626 YU Pressebilder 373 AnnikaYanura.jpg

possible copyvio © AnnikaYanura - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Violentsia (talk · contribs)

User with bad history, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by سلاح 1 (talk · contribs)

Previously deleted files! out of project scope.

— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 11:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Süleymaniye Camii Haliç.jpg

Author: Ahmet Hikmet Cesme, no permission. Yann (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jade culture distribution.jpg

This map is sourced from a book published in 1948. There is no way it was licensed under a Creative Commons license...before Creative Commons was invented. Toadspike (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ballets russes de Serge de Diaghilew. Programme de la Gaité Lyrique, mai 1921. GT.153(16).jpg

Picasso is not yet in PD Goesseln (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pablo Picasso, The Frugal Repast (Le repas frugal), 1904, NGA 53092.jpg

Picasso is not yet in PD Goesseln (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universidad de Zamboanga.jpg

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. The Edificio Academico was constructed in 2024 according to this article, making it unlikely to be free from copyright. Aristorkle (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Snack Day.jpg

Copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Marki 7DAYS.png

Possible copyright infringement Zlanek (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Techoliver298 (talk · contribs)

Low resolution no-EXIF photos claimed as own work. Other uploads from this user like File:Michael (Shamblin) Black Channel 5 news interview February 2024.png are provably taken from television news stills, captured from YouTube, but described as the uploader's own work of which they are the copyright holder.

Belbury (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aleksander Świdwiński - Świdwiński Aleksander - IN THE CAFETERIA, 1923 - 47.jpg

we have better quality: File:Aleksander Świdwiński W kawiarni 1923.jpg Gower (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luagan Lalak Forest Recreation Park visit 2024 14.jpg

No COM:FOP for text in Brunei MPF (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, línea 1 Metro Alstom Metropolis Serie 9000 8 vagones (Dos caras).png

diseño del metro Cnortedesantander21 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diseño del metro de Cúcuta, línea 1 Metro Alstom Metropolis Serie 9000 8 vagones (Dos caras) 2800:484:DF89:2100:C07E:E301:B4D9:14D2 19:52, 6 January 2025 (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:Ukara cloth.jpg

Author request Ukabia (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For better or for worse, Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, and the image is in use. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Granger; It's in use on several projects. --Ahmad^talk 09:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ukara cloth.jpg

Unused, lower resolution image, superseded by File:Brooklyn Museum 1990.132.6 Ukara Cloth.jpg Ukabia (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Obviously not the same cloth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, this is a detail I should have added previously (didn't previously know about this page, inactive on the wikis). The replacement image is a presumably verified specimen of the cultural style of cloth known as ukara from an archive of the Brooklyn Museum, while the nominated image above is of a cloth from an unverified source. Please see the material in this link, for reference. Ukabia (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, if Wiki's thing is reputable sources, the image isn't in use, and it's obvious that this is not the same cloth, why shouldn't a museum's professional judgement take precedence over an object I've stated is unverifiable on providing a record of a cultural and historical artefact to the public? What is being depicted here? Ukabia (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A cloth in Nigeria, probably, not one in the Brooklyn Museum. Why would anyone think that every cloth requires a professional source? Do all t-shirts need one, and should those that don't have one be deleted? Do you think there should be only one photo of this type of cloth on Commons, and that that one photo should be of an artifact that's not in its place of origin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: "Why would anyone think that every cloth requires a professional source?" because it's a very specific cultural and historical artefact, part of an esoteric society, it's made by specialist artisans, it's not sold in stores, the information provided by the museum is important in contextualising this, it's not comparable to a t-shirt. Ukabia (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further context is that this is a very niche cultural and historical artefact, it's also important to read the information from the museum.

Ukara are made exclusively for members of the Ekpe society, an interethnic men’s association found throughout southeastern Nigeria and western Cameroon. The designs are part of a dynamic language known as nsibidi, which uses image and gestural performance to communicate knowledge guarded by society members. Ukara cloths are made for a specific individual, who chooses designs of personal significance.

There are more images that can be uploaded from there. I don't know what the origin of the cloth in question is. The Brooklyn Museum has provided provenance. The question is, is the above an actual ukara cloth? We can already see they have obvious differences. We're not talking t-shirts as much as we're talking WWI uniform. Ukabia (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed (duh! sorry) that you are the photographer of this cloth. What do you know about the cloth? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was gotten from a third party who was a vendor of machine manufactured textiles and is not connected to a member of the society mentioned above. Ukabia (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to upload more photos whose provenance you're happier with, I would be fine with this one being deleted. I don't think this photo is valueless, but I respect you as the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogene.svg

Used this as an illustration before an actual photo was discovered, now an unused file superseded by File:Ogene.jpg Ukabia (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vladimir Tatlin, Bather, 1930–40.jpg

Painter died in 1954, but was made between 1930 and 1940 so not PD in US yet Multichill (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get all these PD-US formalities, but for the discussion it is maybe of importance that this painting was most probably first published in the Soviet version 1986/87 version of the publication I give as source and was also probably not exhibited before. Don't what that means for the copyright, but original publication seems to be of importance. Carl Ha (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tatlin worked during the Second World War, and per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia, that earned him a copyright extension of four years in Russia. As he died in 1953 (not 1954), his works are still protected in Russia until the end of 2027. The URAA matter is only on top of that. --Rosenzweig τ 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:SustransMP578.JPG

no location LatLong and doesn't render by any mean in a wiki page Herr Rott (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Self Portrait in Olive and Brown .PNG

Max Beckmann died in 1950. This work is from 1945 so not PD in the US yet Multichill (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD no notice; PD no renewal. no registration at [2]. --Frypie (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was exhibited, see Commons:Hirtle chart & Commons:Publication#United_States:

Max Beckmann Paintings from 1939-1946. Exh. cat.,Buchholz Gallery. New York, 1946, no. 12.
Max Beckmann. Exh. cat., Albright Art Gallery. Buffalo, 1947, no. 8.
Max Beckmann. Exh. cat., Benno Reifenberg and Wilhelm Wausenstein. Munich, 1949, no. 566 (pl. 74).
European Masters of Our Time. Exh. cat., Museum of Fine Arts. Boston, 1957, no. 7.

Etc. Multichill (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong evidence that this was published in the 1940s. URAA would apply. Abzeronow (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean brusselmans, il bagno dei vagabondi, 1936, 01.jpg

Jean Brusselmans died in 1953. Painting is from 1936, so not public domain in the US yet Multichill (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The painter is European and the painting in an European collection, so we can just ignore the US claims, as we did in other DP. --Sailko (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can U.S. claims be ignored when Wikimedia's servers are in the U.S.? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See examples here, here, here, here, here, here, and relative further discussions linked... --Sailko (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just don't understand some Commons policies on copyright. Sometimes, U.S. copyright rules are paramount and other times, they are ignored. It makes no sense to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Richard Herdtle

While these paintings are now in the public domain in Germany, their US coyprights (restored by the URAA) have not expired yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored after 95 + 1 years from creation (I'll add undeletion categories).

Rosenzweig τ 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by VannucciDidier (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pub Vélhop.jpg

Potential copyvio per COM:POSTER Nutshinou ^Talk! 16:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Giannotti Henson Statue.jpg

This statue by living sculptor John Giannotti is located in the US, where there is no freedom of panorama for 3-dimensional works like statues. DS (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue for this one. DS (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norbert Rillieux.jpg

This bust of Norbert Rillieux is located in the US, where freedom of panorama does not apply to photographs of 3D artworks; therefore, the copyright of sculptor Inge Hardison (d. 2016) still applies, and will continue to apply until 2087. DS (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue for this bust of Matthew Henson, this bust of Lewis Latimer, this bust of Granville Woods, this bust of Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, this bust of Garrett Morgan, this bust of Frederick McKinley Jones, and this bust of Charles Richard Drew. DS (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Joseerik0110

Mixture of unsourced / fictional content. In particular, File:Flag of Niagara Falls, New York.svg has been uploaded in the past. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Fry1989. I have visited the current websites of a random 5 city or county governments within this DR. I did not find any flag on any page within these websites. Some apparently had no seal or flag. One has a seal or logo that is not the design that appears on the file within this DR. These flag files do not have any source link to support the claimed design for that local city or county government. I note that other flag files by this User, not included on this current DR, are also without source links that support the claimed local government flag artwork design. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either it's made up, and therefore unencyclopedic, or the uploader isn't the copyright holder and therefore couldn't have released it under CC0. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Flags uploaded by User:Joseerik0110. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flagsnvisioner, User:Joseerik0110, and User:Treehouse2000 have all removed several pages from this nomination. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BullyDogs.Pakistan.jpg

Collage of unsourced photos Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardar ibrahim khan with Kashmiri flag.jpg

COM:DW photo of photo Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardar ibrahim khan with Kashmiri flagg.jpg

COM:DW photo of photo Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:President of Pakistan, Marshal Ayub Khan with Sudhan tribe leader.jpg

COM:DW photo of photo Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sncf-logo.svg

Exceeds TOO in France: Colour gradient and stylised font. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo SNCF 2011.svg. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greta Grineviciute portrait 2023.jpg

The Exif data credits this photo to the "BRIGITA", that's likely Brigita Beniušytė, who also made File:Andrius Blazevicius director.jpg, an upload by this user. It's also a very professional photograph. I think someone named Brigita should verify the license through the volunteer release team Vera ^(talk) 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:EnMK23 armin willingmann nilz boehme.jpg

see EXIF: photographer "www.nilzboehme.de", no permisson via VRT DCB (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cote Vertu metro station Lamontagne artwork.jpg

This is Éric Lamontagne's 2005 work, "Homo Urbanus", at Cote-Vertu metro station in Montreal. It consists of 360 photos of people (front and back of 180 people), mounted in front of a mirror so that they're 'looking at' each other. Canadian law on freedom of panorama doesn't apply to 2D works even if they are permanently on display inside a publicly accessible building. I'm not sure that I'd say this work consisting of photographs displayed in a space instead of on a plane counts as 2D, but I'm not sure I'd say that it doesn't. DS (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue for this one. DS (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Naples logo

Unclear copyright status. According to the copyright tag, the logo was published before 1976, but no evidence has been provided that this representation of the coat of arms is old enough, or even that any representation of the coat of arms is old enough. One of the logos has a copyright tag stating that the logo is below the threshold of originality, which is clearly wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peinture de raisins (José Gómez Abad).jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk", es handelt sich jedoch um ein Werk des Malers José Gómez Abad, welcher er 1993 verstorben ist. Lutheraner (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lutheraner Ja, außer dass das Gemälde einem Mitglied meiner Familie gehört. Gzouillle (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Das Mitglied müsste die Freigabe in die Wege leiten und dazu nachweisen, dass es die Rechte des verstorben Malers an diesem Bild übernommen hat. Lutheraner (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lutheraner Mein Fehler, ich wusste es nicht, man lernt jeden Tag dazu. Gzouillle (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte Wikipedia:Bildrechte genau lesen und beachten Lutheraner (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Licensing is more relevant to Commons and much stricter than at least some Wikipedias. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madison flag

Two versions of the same flag.

The PNG version says that the copyright holder has licensed the flag under {{Cc-zero}}, but I can't find any evidence of this.

The SVG version says that the flag is below the threshold of originality, which is clearly not the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singen (Hohentwiel) Rathaus.jpg

Painter Otto Dix died 25. Juli 1969, so this work should not be in PD. The town hall was build in 1960s, maybe the painting also was done in 1960s. The Commons Category of Otto Dix is marked with NoUploads. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1960 work per de:Otto Dix. --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singen Hochzeitssaal.jpg

Painter Otto Dix died 25. Juli 1969, so this work should not be in PD. The town hall was build in 1960s, maybe the painting also was done in 1960s. The Commons Category of Otto Dix is marked with NoUploads. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The work is probably from 1960 too like the one in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singen (Hohentwiel) Rathaus.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singen Rathaus Hochzeitssaal.jpg

Painter Otto Dix died 25. Juli 1969, so this work should not be in PD. The town hall was build in 1960s, maybe the painting also was done in 1960s. The Commons Category of Otto Dix is marked with NoUploads. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The work is probably from 1960 too like the one in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singen (Hohentwiel) Rathaus.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singen Rathaus.jpg

Painter Otto Dix died 25. Juli 1969, so this work should not be in PD. The town hall was build in 1960s, maybe the painting also was done in 1960s. The Commons Category of Otto Dix is marked with NoUploads. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The work is probably from 1960 too like the one in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singen (Hohentwiel) Rathaus.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:La robe de bal (035303).jpg

"Peint en 1948" not yet in the public domain in the US Multichill (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD no notice, PD no renewal. no registration at [3] --Frypie (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frypie: you keep saying that, but unless you have a solid reasoning why it's PD in the US, it will just be deleted. This is also a foreign work so I think you're looking at the wrong part of Commons:Hirtle chart. Multichill (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you keep saying that it is copyrighted in the US, but you have made up an artificial rule of thumb (published after 1940s) with no basis in law or precedent. You do not have any actual evidence. Why don't you follow the advice of WMF legal, who have actual law degrees and codes of ethics. --Frypie (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can just follow the actual law which says that for all works that were in copyright on January 1, 1996 in France had their US copyrights restored. Unless you have evidence that this was unpublished until 2003 or afterwards which would present its own complications, something unlikely since Derain was a well-known artist.

Delete Undelete in 2044. Abzeronow (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1--Andreas Helfer, Lebensbaum, 1990, Eitempera auf Nessel, 148 x128.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber hier um ein Werk des lebenden Malers Andreas Helfer Lutheraner (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2--Andreas Helfer ,, Hans Baldung Grien, Der behexte Stallknecht 6,,6 – 1990, Siebdruck, Eitempera auf Nessel. 141 x 81.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber hier um ein Werk des lebenden Malers Andreas Helfer Lutheraner (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'arbre (le sol).jpg

Unexplained claim of authorship. False date. Photo published in 1967 in the issue no. 132 of the magazine Graphis, in the article by Gustave Maeder, "Le Pavillon du Québec", p. 373. According to available sources [4] [5], it seems attributed either to Gustave Maeder (who is the designer of the building interior and the author of the article and who died in 2024) or to Walter Herdeg (who is the publisher of the magazine and who died in 1995). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Wikipedias as appropriate; must be

Deleted here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Partidul Social Democrat logo.svg

Copyrighted non-simple logo —Andrei^talk 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:معمارزاده.jpg

راضی نبودن فرد Qxzuq (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nude Girl on a Fur.jpg

Copyright has not expired (Dix died in 1969), in addition tagged NC on the source page. Achim55 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:מפת מרכז העיירה פורץ'.jpg

Unlikely to be own work, it looks like a photo of a map situated in a public place (somewhere in Poreč). Razvan Socol (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:OMAR HARHACH.jpg

Unused personal photo by non contributor not in scope. Also the image is supposed to depict the uploader but is clearly taken by someone else, so it might not be an own work 999real (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Omar Sedky.jpg

There is a somewhat popular singer with this name but I am not sure if it is the same person. Also the image is supposed to depict the uploader but is clearly taken by someone else, so it might not be an own work 999real (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Omidsalehi.jpg

A somewhat popular cinematographer (https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/439330/Omid-Salehi-named-Iran-s-film-photographer-of-the-year) but the image is supposed to depict the uploader but is clearly taken by someone else, so it might not be an own work 999real (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:0127 klzwick DSCN0817.JPG

Too blurry to be of use to the great and most glorious Project JayCubby (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, useless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-08-14-Tallinn-RalfR-138.jpg

How on earth is this of any use? JayCubby (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how on earth is this DR of any use? Maybe this file is in use in a Wiki that uses it via InstantCommons. In either case "how on earth" is not a valid deletion rationale. (a file that is online for more that 10 years) C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"How on earth" is a valid deletion rationale if read as "outside of COM:SCOPE" - there needs to be a realistic educational use, hard to see in this case. @Ralf Roletschek: Ich kann den Löschantrag verstehen. Oder welche potentielle Verwendung für das doch sehr verschwommene Bild siehst du? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unnecessarily harsh in my use of 'how on earth', I was in fact referencing how this image, being blurred, is out of project scope.

Ich war möglicherweise unnötig scharf in meiner Formulierung mit „wie um alles in der Welt“. Tatsächlich bezog ich mich darauf, dass dieses Bild, da es unscharf ist, außerhalb des Projektumfangs liegt. JayCubby (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think so. Delete per nom.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unscharfe Fotos haben auch eine Daseinsberechtigung, werden gezielt verwendet. Das ist was anderes als ein scharfes Foto mit Weichzeichner. Bispiel seit Jahrzehnten sind die Reiseführer von Marco Polo, auf jedem Deckblatt unscharfe Elemente, ganz gezielt. Unscharfe Bildr als Hintergrund sind etwabliert, werden etwa bei dpa in Sonderkategorien geführt. Nur auf Commons sind mal wieder alle ahnungslos. Ralf Roletschek 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Sowas kann wie https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:13-01-09-test-solmeta-n3-203.jpg auch ganz andere Hintergründe haben... Nutzung außerhalb auf https://www.fahrradmonteur.de/Solmeta_N3_Kompa%C3%9F Scope ist hoffnungslos veraltet und gehört gelöscht.[reply]

Ralf, klar, wir haben hier durchaus auch bewusst unscharf aufgenommene Bilder, dafür gibt es sogar eine Category:Intentionally blurred images. Dein anderes Beispiel File:13-01-09-test-solmeta-n3-203.jpg wird übrigens auf Wikiversity genutzt, wie ich sehe. Es geht hier nicht um eine Grundsatzfrage zu unscharfen Bildern, sondern ob dieses unscharfe Bild etwas bringt. Es ist ja nicht nur unscharf, sondern das Motiv ist auch sehr generisch. Interessant könnte allerdings das Schild sein, das oben klebt, und ein Bussgeld für Reisende ohne gültigen Fahrausweis androht, anscheinend auf Estnisch und Russisch. Die Gestaltung ist interessant. Leider ist es jetzt so dunkel, dass es auf den ersten Blick kaum zu sehen ist. Wenn du das etwas aufhellen könntest...? Ich nehme an, dass auch der Antragsteller dann eine Verwendbarkeit sehen würde. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Das war sogar ein Auftragswerk für den Busbetrieb, es sollte ein Bild mit viel freier Flöche oben sein. Also auf das gelbe Schild scharfgestellt und unterbelichtet, fertig. Sie haben das für eine Broschüre für Schulbusse genommen. Von der jetzigen zur Ausgangsversion ist fast unmöglich, ich habe deshalb die flexiblere dunkle Version hochgeladen. Ralf Roletschek 10:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gefällt mir! I like it. @JayCubby: Now that the image has been enhanced to more clearly show the warning sign for passengers without a ticket, I think it's clearly in scope, maybe you could consider withdrawing your deletion request? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll hat this in a few minutes. JayCubby (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has value now, but is the fine warning sign in the public domain or below COM:TOO Estonia? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my knowledge of Estonian copyright law is virtually nonexistent, but I don't think that the combination of a hammer and paragraph character with circular shapes would be considered above the threshold of originality in most of Europe. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pr00208.jpg

I'm not seeing any indication of why this 1957 artwork should be PD. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist is apparently Andrew R. Janson (1901–1963). This 1957 work is apparently American, so its copyright status would depend upon things like first publication, notice, renewal etc. First publication might have been Fossil Mammals of Florida by Stanley J. Olsen, Special Publication no. 6, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, 1959, p. 21. as mentioned on the source page. --Rosenzweig τ 18:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Staff Sgt. Shamsuddin B. Jabbar in Fort Polk, Louisiana.jpg

Should merge to the higher-quality File:Shamsud-Din Jabbar in the army1.jpg. I couldn't find a venue for merging, so hopefully this is the right place. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have multiple versions of the same photo in Category:Staff Sgt. Shamsuddin B. Jabbar using a computer in Fort Polk, Louisiana 16 November 2013. File:Shamsud-Din Jabbar in the army1.jpg is currently the highest res we have (it had much inferior information in the description but I have copied the more accurate description and exact date there, so that has been corrected). I suggest only this largest version, along with cropped version File:Shamsud-Din Jabbar 2013 (cropped).jpg be kept. The other 3 (at writing) images are smaller res duplicates, and usage around Wikimedia projects should be replaced with the higher res version and then they be deleted and the file names redirected to the kept high res version. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suzanne-saroff.jpg

Please see image at https://www.hisuzanne.com/info and All photography is copyright Suzanne Saroff. No use without written permission. © 2024 Suzanne Saroff Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by CaptiveWarrior (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused, low-quality AI-generated illustrations, in which the subject (Unniyarcha) isn't even shown. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Unniyarcha fighting jonakas at Nadapuram angady.jpg.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this below image :

this is the event - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unniyarcha#Nadapuram_fight , also references are provided in the description of the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptiveWarrior (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

caption says : Unniyarcha traveling through Nadapuram Angady after killing the Jonakas (Mappilas) with her Urumi.

The paintings are artistic , and need to be having characters. This painting is where unniyarcha travelling in her palanquin after the dispute.

The caption says after killing jonakas. she is returning after killing jonakas. Painting have artistic angles. In some you cannot explicitly see the character as like here. This painting is where she is returning in her palanquin after killing jonakas. the core for this incident is this: - While she was travelling through nadapuram town in kerala in her palanquin , some jonakas tried to sexually assualt her. she killed them with all with her urumi and returned back. The painting: - captures exactly the same event depiction. A human painter will draw this event as this , or more or less somewhat same as this. Model is trained with images drawn by humans and images taken from camers, and it has immense images from kerala, so it correctly depicts the attire, coconut trees at background, and kerala style buldings with brick mud blocks as roof. even the palanquin is of Kerala style. model is well trained and it's encoder decoder attention mechanism captures very details.

CaptiveWarrior (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Posters by Theo Matejko

While these posters are now in the public domain in Germany (and Austria), their US copyrights (restored by the URAA) have not expired yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored after 95 + 1 years from creation (I'll add undeletion categories).

Rosenzweig τ 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the legal situation regarding copyrights in the U.S. is not as clear as presented (see also the article “Uruguay Round Agreements” in the German Wikipedia with examples). If it comes to a deletion decision on Commons, please transfer the files concerning me to the German Wikipedia, if possible. Otherwise, I would upload these files manually and add the note “Do not transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons without an individual review!”. There is no doubt, that the movie posters are in the public domain in the DACH countries. I hope for your understanding. With kind regards. Randolph33 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Randolph33: If you want them transferred to de.wp, start transferring them now. And why would the legal situation regarding these posters not be clear? They were certainly published at the time in Germany or Austria, and as Matejko died in 1946, they were still protected there in 1996. Were any of them registered for copyright in the US and not renewed? A search for Matejko in the Catalogs of Copyrights Entries only finds other people named Matejko. --Rosenzweig τ 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short answer. In my humble opinion, after looking at the following statement in the German Wikipedia: “However, a uniform practice for dealing with such images has not emerged on Wikimedia Commons; images that are presumably protected under the URAA in the US have been both deleted and restored.” there is probably no uniform practice. The underlying question does not seem to be so clear-cut in this respect. However, I do not attach any particular importance to publishing the files that concern me in Commos. It is only important to me that the movie posters are shown in the respective movie articles in the German Wikipedia. I can also achieve this by uploading them there. I think we should leave it at that. Kind regards. --Randolph33 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am against this hasty (see the spelling mistake) deletion request.

A. First of all: WW2 and its legal consequences is the elephant in the room - most of the rights were lost by Germany itself:

Loss of Rights by Germany: After World War II, Germany experienced significant legal changes, including those relating to intellectual property. The Allied occupation of Germany (and other affected countries) had widespread effects, including the loss of rights over various works.
The legal systems in the occupied zones (post-WWII) often saw German copyrights being nullified or subject to specific limitations due to the aftermath of the war. In particular, the Surrender of German intellectual property rights was part of the broader denazification and debellation processes after the war. This impacted works created during the Nazi era or in the years leading up to and during the war. The occupation authorities (including the U.S., the UK, the Soviet Union, and France) took control over various legal matters, including intellectual property rights.

B. Second: the "restored by the URAA" argument is oversimplification of how things work also post-URAA. Here is a quick take (also somewhat simplified):

1. Pre-1945 German Posters and U.S. Copyright Law:

Copyright before 1945: Prior to 1945, works from Germany (like posters) were generally protected under German copyright law. If these works were published in Germany, they might have been granted copyright protection.
Public Domain in the U.S. Before 1996: For works created in foreign countries (like Germany), U.S. copyright law did not automatically grant protection unless those countries adhered to international copyright treaties like the Berne Convention. Before the URAA was implemented in 1996, many foreign works, including German works, lost copyright protection in the U.S. due to the failure to comply with formalities (such as registering or renewing copyright). Therefore, many foreign works published before 1945 would have fallen into the public domain in the U.S. due to non-compliance with U.S. formalities, regardless of their status in their home country.

2. The URAA and Restoration of Copyrights (1996):

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) was passed in 1994 and enacted in 1996. This act restored copyright protection in the U.S. for foreign works that were previously in the public domain due to non-compliance with formalities.
Specifically, the URAA restored copyrights to works from foreign countries that were:
- Members of the Berne Convention at the time the URAA came into effect (1996).
- Not in the public domain in their home countries.
For Germany, this means that certain works published before 1945 that were previously in the public domain in the U.S. could have their copyrights restored under the URAA if they met these criteria.

3. Key Points Regarding German Works Published Before 1945:

If the German posters were created before 1945 and were in the public domain in the U.S. (due to failure to follow copyright formalities), they could have been restored to copyright protection under the URAA if they met the criteria.
This restoration applies to works that were created by German nationals and published before 1945 and were still protected in Germany at the time the URAA came into effect. If those works were in the public domain in Germany before 1996, they might still be in the public domain in the U.S.
Works that were already in the public domain in Germany before the URAA came into effect would not be restored to copyright protection in the U.S.

Thus this is wrong: "Restoration after 95 + 1 years from creation", because the URAA does not have a blanket rule of "95 years" for all works. Instead, the restored copyright is based on the publication date and whether the work was still protected in its home country (Germany, in this case) when the URAA was implemented. Works published before 1945 would have already been in the public domain in Germany and likely in the U.S. as well, unless their copyright was restored due to other conditions (e.g., failure to renew the copyright in the U.S., but still active in Germany). These works do not need to wait 95+ years to enter the public domain in the U.S. unless they are still under protection due to a technicality.

Do you have the proof that these are under protection in Germany then, especially in light of Point 1? Zezen (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have also consulted this legal analysis, pertinent to this case: Pessach, Guy; Shur-Ofry, Michal (28 April 2019). "Copyright and the Holocaust". Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. 30 (2): 9. ISSN 1041-6374 (after OCRing it etc.) and indeed:

● Loss of Rights by Germany: After World War II, Germany experienced significant legal changes, including those relating to intellectual property. The Allied occupation of Germany had widespread effects, including the nullification or limitation of German copyrights. This could mean that some of the works in question may not have had their copyrights restored under the URAA, if the rights were considered nullified due to the war.

● Control of Intellectual Property by Occupation Authorities: The occupation authorities (including the U.S., the UK, the Soviet Union, and France) took control over various legal matters, including intellectual property rights. If the occupation authorities took control of the rights of these works, then it could be argued that they are not subject to restoration under the URAA or that the rights are owned by the successor governments.

● Copyright Misuse: If the original copyright holder was associated with the Nazi regime, then the doctrine of copyright misuse could be invoked. The doctrine of copyright misuse allows a court to deny enforcement of a copyright if it is being used in a way that violates the public policy. This could mean that even if the works have a valid copyright, that right could be unenforceable if the copyright holder is seen as benefiting from actions associated with the Nazi regime.

● Holocaust-related materials: Holocaust-related materials are unique, as copyright law should be interpreted in a way that encourages the dissemination of knowledge about and remembrance of the Holocaust.

Which Wikipedia and WikiMedia do ipso facto - I have landed here by chance as I was checking and updating this plwiki article that is using one of the above: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szpiegostwo . Zezen (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are posters and were certainly published in Germany at the time. Maybe one or two of them were created late in one year and published early the next year, but the years we have are likely the years of dissemination/publication anyway. And yes, they were still protected by copyright in Germany in 1996. Even the works of Hitler himself were protected by copyright in Germany until the end of 2015. I don't see any relevance of all these arguments about alleged "loss of rights", "copyright misuse", "Holocaust-related materials" etc. How are these relevant for 1930 or 1932 film posters? Some of the posters are obviously propaganda posters from World War II, but not all German material from that period is automatically void of all copyrights in the US as some seem to believe. I'm not aware that the rights to any of Matejko's works were ever owned by the Alien Property Custodian (like those of Hitler or photographer Heinrich Hoffmann were). --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Theo Matejko - Achtung Spione Vorsicht bei Gesprächen!.jpg, for the same poster as File:Theo Matejko - Achtung Spione Vorsicht bei Gesprächen! Nationalsozialistische Anti-Spionage-Propaganda Plakat 1939 (German WW2 anti-rumour anti-espionage campaign posters on secrecy and careless talk) No known copyright restrictions.jpg. That file was uploaded by User:Zezen while this deletion request is still open (and after Zezen had participated in it). --Rosenzweig τ 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. You have not answered some of the itemized challenges hereinabove: "Holocaust-related materials are unique, as copyright law should be interpreted in a way that encourages the dissemination of knowledge about and remembrance of the Holocaust" etc. - see the academic discussion in the href provided (which had been in turn deemed a WP:VER worthy source in the relevant Wikipedia article). The copyright specialists (the article authors etc.) saw also this as a relevant aspect for any such works' copyright status, as discussed in extenso therein.

B. Some internal Commons policies (bolding mine) plus calculations, some of which are supporting your argument:

"Because the constitutionality of this law was challenged in court, Commons initially permitted users to upload images that would have been public domain in the U.S. without the URAA. However, the constitutionality of the URAA was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Golan v. Holder. After discussion, it was determined that the affected files would not be deleted en masse but reviewed individually. " (source: Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law)
"Section 64 General Copyright expires 70 years after the author’s death." (source: Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG, nota bene: "Die Übersetzung berücksichtigt die Änderung(en) des Gesetzes durch Artikel 25 des Gesetzes vom 23. Juni 2021 (BGBl. I S. 1858)" )
The author died in 1946, so in 1996 the copyright holders (the German State? The heirs?) may have been held the copyright on that date. However, for sure since (1946+70 =) year 2016 his work is in Public Domain in Germany, the EU and most of the world, in line with what you wrote: "[they are in] public domain in Germany [etc.]". Thus, as per that Common's policies, at most: A. "These files should reviewed individually" (and not "en masse", as per the deletion request above) B. "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws." C. "Files affected by the URAA should be [kept and] tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}" (as many may had been "uploaded [before] 1 March 2012", c.f. the provisions of Template:Not-PD-US-URAA itself).

Zezen (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these posters are in any way related to the Holocaust, so I don't see why you continue to repeat this Holocaust text snippet and demand "answers" to supposed "challenges". {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} must not be used for uploads after March 1, 2012. Almost all files in this DR were uploaded either in 2017 or 2024, with one exception: File:Вояки Гитлера-приятели народа.jpg was indeed originally uploaded in 2007, so we'll see if the deciding admin decides to keep that one with Not-PD-US-URAA. Though it should be noted that in 2007, none of Matejko's works were in the public domain in Germany yet, so that upload in 2007 was apparently a copyvio.

The thing you're citing about files not be deleted en masse refers to Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA from 2012. It does not mean that there must be a single deletion request for each and every file affected by the URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby pram and lift.jpg

Out of scope: Not realistically useful for educational purposes. Low resolution, blurry image that cuts off its subjects Headlock0225 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salmon - 3.jpg

Extremely poor photograph. User has posted other photos of salmon from the same day that are superior to this one. Operculum ben (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, really not useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022綠未來-智慧綠能創新與新創展4.jpg

The government office licensed the photograph. But would that be extended to the depicted model? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan doesn't have infos about models, but at least neither FOP, nor TOO or De minimis would cover the exhibit in the foreground. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the one who uploaded the image. Thank you for raising the issue. I did some research and found the company who built the model, and the model was featured in this news article: https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20221223003557-260410?chdtv

It is a model of the company's product (energy storage system), so I am pretty sure it is copyrighted (certainly it is patented). So, should I just crop the image so the model gets removed from the image? Tvpuppy (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info! Yes, a crop could solve the problem. In fact, I just went ahead and made it. The result should be IMHO clear copyright-wise, I think that there's nothing protected left but the image context got preserved. @next admin who happens to read this: please delete the likely infringing first version! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thank you for your help! Tvpuppy (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tourists and baby.jpg

Out of scope: Not realistically useful for educational purposes. Low resolution, blurry image that cuts off most of its subjects Headlock0225 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the image quality (I’m not sure whether it’s about the hardware or more about setting). The images are uploaded for use in articles such as impacts of tourism, overtourism and tourism carrying capacity to illustrate the idea that tourism may bring some unexpected impacts to the destination. FYI, the upper part of the people were cut off on purpose to preserve their privacy. IMO both the baby pram and luggages (that identify the tourists) are all distinguishable and thus the image is not “out of scope” and is realistically useful for educational purposes. I’ll see if I can have the local files edited and upload better quality ones later. Thanks. Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trinexapac-ethyl.png

Incorrect bond angle at carboxylic acid ester group, replaced by File:Trinexapac-ethyl Structural Formula V1.svg as correct version. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FUHRMANN-CDUSLT-Ronald-Pohle-1782.jpg

I would suggest this image should have a VRTS permission from the professional photographer Mr. Alexander Fuhrmann or Mr. Ronald Pohle or from Landtag of Saxony. Current license questionable/not sufficient. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Superman78.jpg

AI phantasy, claiming to be the real thing = lack of educational usefulness for any Wiki project that enforces verifiability rules Grand-Duc (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3, hoax. Belbury (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Statue of Taras Shevchenko, Chernihiv

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Ukrsine. The statue dates to 1992 and was authored by sculptor Volodymyr Chepelyk. These images infringe on his copyright on the monument.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Большой Московский Государственный цирк на проспекте Вернадского. Стоковое фото № 16.jpg

No sufficient FOP in Russia for photographs. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:آرامش گم شده.jpg

Artwork by (likely) non-notable artist, hence lack of educational usefulness. No sensible description. May be a borderline CSD F10 case. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ElectoralCollegeBobbyverse.png

Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 21:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds in Brasília Zoo 11.jpg

Just wire mesh fence visible, Not used in wikimedia projects. Looks like the uploader establishes his personal gallery of a visit at the zoo. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, fences are in scope, but second, birds (ratites?) are shown and simply need to be identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds in Brasília Zoo 02.jpg

Just wire mesh fence visible, Not used in wikimedia projects. Looks like the uploader establishes his personal gallery of a visit at the zoo. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see the bird, I think a toucan? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds in Brasília Zoo 07.jpg

Just wire mesh fence visible, Not used in wikimedia projects. Looks like the uploader establishes his personal gallery of a visit at the zoo. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great photo, but a bird with mostly white plumage at the lower center could be identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds in Brasília Zoo 08.jpg

Just wire mesh fence visible, Not used in wikimedia projects. Looks like the uploader establishes his personal gallery of a visit at the zoo. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorer quality than 07.jpg, could be

Deleted, but I have to wonder why you can't see birds. And "not in use" is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds in Brasília Zoo 06.jpg

Just wire mesh fence visible, Not used in wikimedia projects. Looks like the uploader establishes his personal gallery of a visit at the zoo. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A peacock is visible but not shown really well. Could be deleted, but no pro or con vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:DEFAMA Logo.svg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this logo, as stated in the file description Arabsalam (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ammonium hexacianoferrate2D.png

Unused disputed image with unnecessary shading. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The chemical structure is incorrect because the charge on the iron should not be included. Marbletan (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buste de femme aux seins nus(100023).jpg

Painted circa 1946-1950, not yet in the public domain in the US Multichill (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD no notice, PD no renewal, no registration here [6] --Frypie (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simrail-sa-mobile.jpg

Copyright violation. The page mentioned as source does not mention CC0 licence Masti (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir-Richard-Couch.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Ratekreel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://npgshop.org.uk/products/sir-richard-couch-npg-x30653-card. However, in 1907 when the picture was made Bassano studio presumably functioned as a collective with no personal authorship. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added the picture - I am fairly new as an editor so I am hoping you can educate me so that I can learn about adding images for future. The licence note that I received from the National Portrait Gallery when I downloaded the picture is below:

"Please find, attached, a copy of the image, which I am happy to supply to you with permission to use solely according to your licence, detailed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

It is essential that you ensure images are captioned and credited as they are on the Gallery's own website (search/find each item by NPG number at http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/advanced-search.php).

This has been supplied to you free of charge. I would be grateful if you would please consider making a donation at https://my.npg.org.uk/dev/contribute2.aspx?don=11&fieldAmt= in support of our work and the service we provide.

Regards

Rights and Images Department

National Portrait Gallery St Martin's Place London WC2H OHE"''

Does Wikipedia support embedding the picture based on the licence as written above? I have since added the NPG reference number explicitly under the portrait. GishiP (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GishiP and welcome to Commons! Please have a look at our policies and guidelines. Our licensing policy states that non-commercial and non-dervis are not an acceptable licenses here. But the file in question is a 1907 work of an unknown photographer, which is in public domain because it was published more than 70 years ago in UK and it's term of copyright has expired. If you need any further help, please visit COM:HD. Ratekreel (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining about the licencing policy and the links, this helps. GishiP (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I switched it to PD-UK-unknown, if we accept that the studio hired anonymous workers. --RAN (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per {{PD-UK-unknown}}. My rationale when tagging was that I was unable to determine the source and date of publication of the photo. --Ratekreel (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FORMATION Images of the Body-Tobi Kahn.png

Catalogue cover 186.174.144.58 22:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tobi Kahn is alive, so copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Organo Formentelli-0.jpg

COM:DW photo of photo. Maybe newspaper or magazine. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esterno Chiesa-1.jpg

COM:DW photo of photo. Maybe newspaper or magazine. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memory and Inheritance Paintings and Ceremonial Objects by Tobi Kahn.png

Catalogue cover 186.174.144.58 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elemental A Decade of Paintings by Tobi Kahn.png

Catalogue cover 186.174.144.58 22:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ALOMH.jpg

Is this FOP? 186.174.144.58 22:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No commercial FoP for sculptures in the U.S. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigBazarDibrugarhAssF.jpg

Facebook ass 186.174.144.58 22:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FBMD. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nacktwandern.jpg

Faceless, unnecessary (OOS). There are many better ones 186.174.178.148 22:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tülay Hatimoğulları Oruç and Tuncer Bakırhan (cropped).png

Crop of deleted file 186.174.178.148 22:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol G - Sejodioto.jpg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this album cover. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if u want to delete bc it hurts u then delete idc this was my first time trying to upload a photo and ofc theres some sort of problem Rekbelle32 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol G and Maluma - Créeme.jpg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this album cover. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it quite literally says im not tho??.... Rekbelle32 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial for Commons. Please read COM:Licensing. There are plenty of other sites where you can upload copyrighted material as "fair use," but Commons has no COM:Fairuse and is very strict. That's really damn annoying a lot of the time, but it's the way Commons works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol G and Maldy - Gatúbela.jpg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this album cover. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i never said i was?? Rekbelle32 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol G - Punto G.jpg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this album cover. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karol G and Ovy on the Drums - Cairo.jpg

Copyright violation, for sure the user is not the author of this album cover. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bagujohn10 (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work. Small images, missing metadata, uploader already has lots of deleted copyright violations.

Didym (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2025 (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:Sierra Verde flag (marble mountain).png

out of COM:SCOPE. flag of fake city. eien20 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. --eien20 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were you able to identify what "marble mountain" refers to? Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find the point. but I'm not expert. I leave it to any. --eien20 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sierra Verde flag (marble mountain).png

Out of scope: renominating this for deletion. The "depicts" statements for this flag ("Cities: Skylines") indicate that it's probably from the uploader's game of the city-building simulator Cities: Skylines. I can't find any other content online indicating that this is from a notable work of fiction. Omphalographer (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Werner Krauss.jpg

See w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs. It is not enough that the director has been dead for at least 70 years. You must also wait until several others have been dead for that duration. The last person to die seems to have been w:Giuseppe Becce, who composed the music. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems inconsistent with previous Commons discussions around this film specifically and German film stills in general. Since this question impacts multiple other files in Category:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, in other projects, and potentially from other films, I've opened a discussion at COM:VPC#Composers for silent films so we can get more clarity on this. hinnk (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The composer is not relevant for a silent film. Becce's music would not have been composed for use in the film, as that was not yet possible technically. It would have been composed to be performed alongside the film when it was shown. But this is not even the whole film, but apparently a frame of the film. The cinematographer would be the relevant person in German law for such a frame (for details see Pajz's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg). The cinematographer of this film was Willy Hameister (1899–1938). --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by You for Me and Me for You (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused flags and maps which - apparently intentionally? - don't clearly represent anything. Some of these are modified versions of real flags; others are simply abstract creations. If any of these designs represent real flags, they should be reuploaded under names which represent their meaning, not just their visual appearance.

Omphalographer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally? Some were accidental. No point in deleting. They are ok. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mangifera indica John Wesley Gardens 7th Brigade Park Chermside IMGP1117c.jpg

Duplicate image, please see File:Mangifera indica John Wesley Gardens 7th Brigade Park Chermside IMGP1118d.jpg and fruits better captured in the other image. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Holstenwall.jpg

See w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs. It is not enough that the director has been dead for at least 70 years. You must also wait until several others have been dead for that duration. The last person to die seems to have been w:Giuseppe Becce, who composed the music. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems inconsistent with previous Commons discussions around this film specifically and German film stills in general. Since this question impacts multiple other files in Category:Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari, in other projects, and potentially from other films, I've opened a discussion at COM:VPC#Composers for silent films so we can get more clarity on this. hinnk (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, the Copyright Duration Directive sets the same copyright term to the entire film, even if you don't use the soundtrack. However, I didn't realise that this was a silent film. I don't know if music for a silent film is counted as a part of the cinematographic work under the EU directive. I assume that the orchestra at the cinema theatre was meant to play the music when the film was shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The wording of the Directive seems fairly clear (emphasis mine):

2. The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

The conclusion is inevitable: if Becce did indeed compose original music to accompany this film, he's considered one of its authors, even if his music wasn't recorded with the film. Omphalographer (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: Becce's music would not have been composed for use in the film, as that was not yet possible technically. It would have been composed to be performed alongside the film when it was shown. --Rosenzweig τ 18:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a distinction without a difference. Had the law been intended to only apply to music which was recorded as part of the film, it would have said so. (I'd be interested to see if some of the other translations of the Directive take a clearer stance.) Omphalographer (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The composer is not relevant for a silent film. But this is not even the whole film, but apparently a frame of the film. The cinematographer would be the relevant person in German law for such a frame (for details see Pajz's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg). The cinematographer of this film was Willy Hameister (1899–1938). --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that deletion request, it seems that:

to use the film as a whole (w:File:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).webm), you need to ensure that all of the film people have dead, i.e. you have to wait until Becce has been dead for at least 70 years (per Article 2.2 of Directive 2006/116/EC), but
a single frame is not a film work but a photograph, so you need to wait until the cameraman (in this case w:Willy Hameister) has been dead for at least 70 years but you can ignore the death years of the four film people.

This information should probably be documented somewhere on COM:GERMANY so that it can easily be found in the future.

Now a question: Does Article 10.1 of Directive 2006/116/EC require you to verify that all cameramen have been dead for at least 70 years if you wish to use a pre-1995 film as a whole? In Sweden, that article in the directive seems to have the effect that you need to verify that lots of additional people, such as all animators of an animated film, have been dead for at least 50 years, if the film was made before 1995. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any court decision about this. § 137f (1) UrhG, first sentence, does say that the old rules (before July 1, 1995) still apply if the new rules would shorten the duration of the term of protection. COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works calls this the old method and the new method. Before the mid-1995 changes, the duration of the term of protection of a film was (I think) determined by the life span of all Miturheber (co-authors; § 8 UrhG). There was no exact definition who these co-authors of a film were. Germany's highest court (BGH, Federal Court of Justice) has decided that the cinematographer of the film Das Boot was a co-author of the film and is entitled to additional payment, see de:Jost Vacano#Rechtsstreit wegen Nachvergütung für „Das Boot“. This was about remuneration (payment) and § 32a UrhG though, I'm not sure if it has any implications for § 8 UrhG and § 137f (1) UrhG, first sentence. Probably that's another thing for the courts to decide. --Rosenzweig τ 23:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Rosenzweig. --Carlosmarkos2345 talk 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Benoybalan (talk · contribs)

Personal photos by non contributor. Also the images supposed to depict the uploader but are clearly taken by someone else, so it might not be an own work

999real (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Severiano Ribeiro Shopping Boa Vista Recife.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. On the other hand: uselessly small. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cine São Luiz Recife - 02.jpg

Useless due to size. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinema Cinépolis no Shopping Iguatemi em Ribeirão Preto-SP - panoramio.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cinemagic Rio das Ostras 5.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multicine Rio Verde GO vista da entrada.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Also: uselessly small. Grand-Duc (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files on File:The Cabinet of Dr Caligari Conrad Veidt.jpg

See w:Copyright Duration Directive#Films and photographs. It is not enough that the director has been dead for at least 70 years. You must also wait until several others have been dead for that duration. The last person to die seems to have been w:Giuseppe Becce, who composed the music.

Stefan2 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the uploader. Caligari it's a silent film (no synchronized soundtrack), so the music score doesn't apply in this specific case. --Mayimbú (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No music in the still image. I agree the creator of the still image is the cinematographer. --RAN (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The composer is not relevant for a silent film. For a frame of the film (which this appears to be), the cinematographer would be the relevant person in German law (for details see Pajz's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg). The cinematographer of this film was Willy Hameister (1899–1938). --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Rosenzweig. --Carlosmarkos2345 talk 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also agree with Rosenzweig. --Reneradelsilver (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Matisse not public domain in 2025

File:La_Danse_de_Merion,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Dance (Q28128236) created in 1932, undelete in 2028
File:La_Danse_de_Paris,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Dance (Q4345145) created in 1933, undelete in 2029
File:Nu_au_peignoir,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q118976359 created in 1933, undelete in 2029
File:L'Intérieur_au_chien,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Interior with Dog (Q61692773) created in 1934, undelete in 2030
File:Portrait_au_manteau_bleu(035422).jpg - Q66486402 created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Grand_Nu_couché,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Pink Nude (Q3879257) created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Nu_rose_assis,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q61676981 created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Le_Rêve,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q61693055 created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Papeete-Tahiti,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119247253 created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Les_Yeux_bleus,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Blue Eyes (Q121141811) created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:Figure_au_corselet_bleu,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Woman with Blue Bodice (Q121863253) created in 1935, undelete in 2031
File:La_Blouse_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Red Blouse (Q67089153) created in 1936, undelete in 2032
File:La_Biche,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Young Girl Seated (Q67515678) created in 1936, undelete in 2032
File:La_Blouse_verte,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Green Blouse (Q20355763) created in 1936, undelete in 2032
File:Femme_nue_drapée,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Draped Nude (Q28552419) created in 1936, undelete in 2032
File:Fenêtre_à_Tahiti_II,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119267408 created in 1936, undelete in 2032
File:Robe_violette_et_Anémones,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Purple Robe and Anemones (Q7341113) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:Femme_au_manteau_violet,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Woman in a Purple Coat (Q8030721) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:Nymphe_dans_la_forêt,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q17494542 created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:Odalisque_à_la_robe_persane_jaune,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Yellow Odalisque (Q17611627) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:La_Grande_Robe_bleue_et_Mimosas,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Woman in Blue (Q20816630) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:Blouse_roumaine_aux_manches_vertes,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Romanian Blouse (Q46942405) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:Petite_Blouse_roumaine_au_feuillage,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Small Rumanian Blouse with Foliage (Q121141791) created in 1937, undelete in 2033
File:La_Conversation,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - La Conversation (Q50320503) created in 1938, undelete in 2034
File:La_Robe_rayée,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Striped Dress (Q115902269) created in 1938, undelete in 2034
File:Femme_en_jaune_et_bleu_à_la_guitare,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Girl in Yellow and Blue with Guitar (Q20263630) created in 1939, undelete in 2035
File:Les_Marguerites,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Daisies (Q20275937) created in 1939, undelete in 2035
File:La_Musique,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - La Musique (Q61693266) created in 1939, undelete in 2035
File:La_France,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The France (Q83179763) created in 1939, undelete in 2035
File:Liseuse_sur_fond_noir,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q120490208 created in 1939, undelete in 2035
File:La_Blouse_roumaine,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - La Blouse Roumaine (Q3651370) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Nature_morte_à_la_dormeuse,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Still Life with Sleeping Woman (Q20193255) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Femme_assise_dans_un_fauteuil,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Woman Seated in an Armchair (Q20193299) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Intérieur_au_vase_étrusque,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Interior with an Etruscan Vase (Intérieur au vase étrusque) (Q60472163) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Danseuse_au_repos,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Dancer Resting (Q78686187) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Robe_rayée,_Fruits_et_Anémones,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Striped Robe, Fruit, and Anemones (Q119259436) created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Intérieur_à_Ciboure,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q125217272 created in 1940, undelete in 2036
File:Nature_morte_au_magnolia,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q60452957 created in 1941, undelete in 2037
File:Lierre_en_fleurs,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q115618660 created in 1941, undelete in 2037
File:Nature_morte_à_la_table_de_marbre_vert,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q121333903 created in 1941, undelete in 2037
File:Femme_assise_sur_fond_noir,_par_Henri_Matisse.png - Woman Seated before a Black Background (Femme assise sur fond noir) (Q64583695) created in 1942, undelete in 2038
File:Intérieur_aux_barres_de_soleil,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119294471 created in 1942, undelete in 2038
File:Jeune_Fille_assise,_robe_persane,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q121267513 created in 1942, undelete in 2038
File:Danseuse,_fond_noir,_fauteuil_rocaille,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q130339127 created in 1942, undelete in 2038
File:Le_Luth,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Lute (Q79790791) created in 1943, undelete in 2039
File:Tabac_Royal,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q115618661 created in 1943, undelete in 2039
File:Michaela,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q115618662 created in 1943, undelete in 2039
File:Tulipes_et_huîtres_sur_fond_noir,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q121139948 created in 1943, undelete in 2039
File:Annelies,_tulipes_blanches_et_anémones,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Annelies, White Tulips and Anemones (Q4768963) created in 1944, undelete in 2040
File:Lectrice_à_la_table_jaune,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119175651 created in 1944, undelete in 2040
File:Matisse_Pelisse_P2100385-P2100387_boosted.jpg - Q119228302 created in 1944, undelete in 2040
File:Le_Cahier_bleu,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Blue Portfolio (Q107452532) created in 1945, undelete in 2041
File:Jeune_Femme_en_blanc,_fond_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse_(Lyon).jpg - Young Woman in White on a Red Background (Q23926209) created in 1946, undelete in 2042
File:L'Asie,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - L'Asie (Q6455607) created in 1946, undelete in 2042
File:Dame_à_la_robe_blanche,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Woman in White (Q81333613) created in 1946, undelete in 2042
File:Intérieur_jaune_et_bleu,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q120491335 created in 1946, undelete in 2042
File:Intérieur_rouge_de_Venise,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q120499102 created in 1946, undelete in 2042
File:Deux_Fillettes,_fond_jaune_et_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Two Young Girls in a Red and Yellow Interior (Q5266370) created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Jeune_Fille_en_vert_dans_intérieur_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Young Girl in Green at Red Interior (Q83179767) created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Intérieur_rouge,_nature_morte_sur_table_bleue,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q114615393 created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Composition_fond_vert,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q131584122 created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Nature_morte_aux_grenades,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119228926 created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Nu_rose,_intérieur_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse.webp - Q119445141 created in 1947, undelete in 2043
File:Branche_de_prunier,_fond_ocre,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Plum Blossoms (Q7757535) created in 1948, undelete in 2044
File:Grand_Intérieur_rouge,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q60302881 created in 1948, undelete in 2044
File:Branche_de_prunier,_fond_vert,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q115618663 created in 1948, undelete in 2044
File:Femme_à_la_gandoura_bleue,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q119359270 created in 1951, undelete in 2047
File:Nu_bleu_II,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Blue Nude II (Q882587) created in 1952, undelete in 2048
File:Nu_bleu_IV,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Blue Nude IV (Q1853880) created in 1952, undelete in 2048
File:La_Tristesse_du_roi,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Sorrows of the King (Q3213326) created in 1952, undelete in 2048
File:Feuille_noire_sur_fond_vert,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Black Leaf on Green Background (Q4921163) created in 1952, undelete in 2048
File:La_Perruche_et_la_Sirène,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Q131611892 created in 1952, undelete in 2048
File:L%27Escargot%2C_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - The Snail (Q3203218) created in 1953, undelete in 2049, already nominated in Commons:Deletion requests/File:L'Escargot, par Henri Matisse.jpg
File:Le_Bateau,_par_Henri_Matisse.webp - Le Bateau (Q3220347) created in 1953, undelete in 2049
File:Grande_Décoration_aux_masques,_par_Henri_Matisse.jpg - Large Decoration with Masks (Q20194642) created in 1953, undelete in 2049

The files are by Henri Matisse. He died in 1954 so in most European countries these works are in the public domain now. Files also have to be in the public domain in the US. That's the case for all paintings made before 1930, but not for the most recent ones. See also Commons:Hirtle chart -Multichill (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we should attach every "undelete in" category from 2028 to 2049 to this DR, except 2045 and 2046. - Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should ignore URAA at least for works by European artists in collections outside US. Examples here, here, here, here, here, here... --Sailko (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These works were created by in France, by a French man. There is no copyright for works of people who died more than 70 years ago (clearly in public domain). I am not so familiar with copyright laws outside Europe, but donnot worry : nobody will ever claim copyright for these works ! --Zen 38 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was willing to sue over these works in 2024, they'll sue in 2025, provided the law is on their side, and it is in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sailko: DR is not the venue to contest current Wikimedia Commons policies. Files should be PD in both: the country of origin and the US. Ankry (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States law is quite clear in that the copyright expires 95 years after a work was first published, not 70 years after the death of the author. Per COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, it is necessary to wait until the copyright has expired in both the source country and the United States. Unless someone can verify that these were published more than 95 years ago, we will have to Delete them as they are not free in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public domain. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Public domain" is meaningful only with respect to a particular country. Commons policy is to consider (1) the status in the country of origin of the work and (2) the status in the United States, which as I understand it is where, for legal purposes, Commons is based. If a wiki based somewhere else (e.g. any EU country) wants to host copies of these images, please, download and upload copies promptly. I know the German-language Wikipedia regularly hosts images that are in the public domain in the EU but not in the U.S.; I assume some other Wikipedias in European languages have similar policies. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While PD in EU, copyrighted in US. Per Wikimedia Commons policy they should be PD in both: the country of originn and the US in order to host them here. Ankry (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commons images need to be free in the US. I'm not saying I like this, but it's currently the only way. As for the URAA argument, that's only relevant for works that were out of copyright and had it restored in 1994. As far as I can tell, that would be: works made between 1931 and 1948 that did not have their copyright renewed. (Because pre-1976, the term was 28 years, with another 28 years if renewed. In 1976 it was extended retroactively to 75 years, which covers all these works.) Is there any evidence that Matisse's works from 1931–1948 had/did not have their copyright renewed in the US? GanzKnusper (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite; renewals still had to be done after 28 years until 1992, so all works up to 1963 had to be renewed. A very quick search revealed no renewals for Matisse, at least in the years I looked at, but whether they had their renewals done or not, they'd still be under copyright in the US now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one renewal for a color reproduction of a Matisse painting: [7] (original registration: [8]). There may be more. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's one in U.S. Copyright Renewals: Artwork 1960–1964, but given the works it was linked with, I didn't think it would be a valid renewal of the underlying painting. U.S. Copyright Renewals: Artwork 1951–1959 has one for Kürbis for 1929, and again I don't know how it would be a valid renewal on the underlying painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [9], the Kürbis (pumpkin) is a 1929 print of this 1916 painting. --Rosenzweig τ 01:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. And am I correct in thinking that since these works were made up to 1953, if their copyright wasn't renewed, then they were public domain in the US for most/all of the 1980s? Would be interesting to know if anyone was aware of it at the time. GanzKnusper (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the majority of these paintings were not copyrighted in the US until the URAA. The notice and registration requirements were cumbersome. Publishers of books and sheet music mostly complied with them, everybody else not so much, especially anybody outside the US and UK. --Rosenzweig τ 17:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and many were PD longer than that. And if copyright notices were missing, they became public domain a lot earlier than the renewal deadline. Many countries had bilateral copyright relations with the U.S. which made notices important for protection there if the authors wanted it, but they were often forgotten, or unaware of the law until it was too late. When the United States joined the Berne Convention, which mandates minimum protection for foreign works without such formalities, and the U.S. tried to get away without restoring the copyright to foreign works as mandated by the treaty, you can bet other countries were acutely aware of it (and the potential revenue lost in the U.S. market) and started GATT processes to force that to be fixed. The issue was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of trade talks, resulting in the URAA law in the U.S. which restored the U.S. copyright to foreign authors, which is in turn what is forcing the deletions here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are you coming down hard now on Matisse, when Klee, Kandinsky, Kirchner, Kars, Beckmann, Dufy, Ensor, Delaunay, Derain, Picabia, Pollock, Valadon... in fact, every artist who died between 1930 and 1954 got a pass? It looks like gesture politics to me. --Edelseider (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the gesture would be. I only got here because Matisse is my favourite artist, and I was looking at his commons category. Maybe nobody ever got around to checking the licenses on the files of Klee et al. Some of them are a bit shaky: without much searching I found File:Vassily Kandinsky, 1939 - Composition 10.jpg, which was uploaded in 2015 uses a URAA exception that explicitly says it shouldn't be used for images uploaded after Feb 2012.

Personally I hope that some European Wikipedia comes up with a way of hosting these locally. The Germans were discussing it last summer (for Frida Kahlo), not sure what they decided. GanzKnusper (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was some kind of activity around Beckmann in 2021, but it was dropped rather quickly. Edelseider (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which feels like a political answer. Make any attempt to enforce the rules a difficult, hostile process, and then when someone makes an attempt anyway, claim it's special treatment and the rule is not being enforced equally.

As for your claim that every artist got a pass, it doesn't seem well researched. Category:Paintings by Jackson Pollock is empty. Not only that, Jackson Pollock is irrelevant to the discussion; he's an American author, so the question "are his works free in a life+70 EU nation?" is and always has been irrelevant on Commons. The question is "are his works in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" (COM:L) and those two are one and the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Prosfilaes. I'm probably one of the more active art uploaders here, but I'm also a user who upholds the precautionary principle. I hate to see these paintings go, but I don't see another option. Nothing political about that. I also nominated other files and he will probably go through the years to sort them out unless someone else beats me to it. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. Unless there were particular paintings which were actually first published in the U.S., which would avoid the URAA, these were all restored by the URAA to 95 years from publication so their U.S. copyright is still valid (regardless if they were renewed or not -- that would only matter for ones first published in the U.S.). Many of his paintings were PD in the U.S. before now, but we haven't hosted them because of the copyright in the country of origin. Those we can now upload, but the ones still under U.S. protection we cannot. They will gradually become OK year-by-year. For works from before 1978, the U.S. terms are based on year of publication, not death of an author, so they only gradually become PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2025 (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 Aratan Isildurion (talk · contribs)

Lord of the Rings themed videogame screenshots and movie screencaps, Khandlord.png possibly also copyvio

TFerenczy (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

First of all, it should be kept in as ilustrative images, so its not all just long texts.

Second, it is not my fault that setting up or uploading images into wikipedia is incoherent mess,as i had a constant struggle uploading the images in the beginning.

Third, yes, it is mine, as the game screenshots are screenshots from my gameplays and playthroughs that i did in order to get ilustrative images, therefore it is right. If that is wrong then you should delete all movie posters and every game screenshot that you have on your pages, because, of course, theyre videogame screenshots as well, therefore keeping those while deleting all listed here is nonsense, or straight hypocritical.

The Khandlord screenshot is also a game screenshot, it is not in fact an artwork. So simply, keep the illustrative images in, or delete all game screenshots that entire wikipedia has. Aratan Isildurion (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but since Wikimedia Commons is strictly (except for some documentation) a repository of images, there is no such thing as fair use here. If you believe your screenshots are fair use for a Wikipedia article, you need to make that argument on Wikipedia and see if you can achieve a consensus to upload them locally. Here, because they are screenshots of copyrighted games, they are inadmissible. -- 06:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aratan Isildurion (talk · contribs)

Copyvio: these maps are derivative works of Christopher Tolkien's maps of Middle-earth [10] and [11].

The copyright status of fictional maps is a complicated issue which I'm not going to delve into here, and I've left out some images which recreate these maps in a more abstract style. But these images are unambiguously derivative in nature; they recreate the original maps to the extent that nonessential decorative features like peaks in mountain ranges, meanders in rivers, and trees in forests are preserved. As CJRT lived in the UK and later France, and died in 2020, these maps will be under copyright until 2090.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:FlagOfNDP.png

Out of scope: unused flag - doesn't clearly represent anything. Just a simple abstract creation. If this design represents real a flag, it should be reuploaded under a name which represents their meaning. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Logo of a minor (single-person) political party in the UK - en:Draft:National Distributist Party (British Political Party). No objection to deletion if/when the draft is deleted. Omphalographer (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBN NationalParks StateForest.jpg

It says that This product was produced by the NQ Dry Tropics so it seems that we need evidence of permission from that organisation. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Góry Hubertuskie.jpg

File:Spielende Pferde auf der Koppel.jpg

Copyright violation, user is not the author of this painting. If signed in 1993 (as stated in description) it should not be available in PD. Lodewicus de Honsvels (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mad a picture of this painting. surely i am the author of this picture. how would I categorise correclty a picture of a painting in my posession whcih i want to share with the gen public? Sonne-strom-waerme (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not (as far as I'm aware) the author of the painting. You would need to obtain permission from the artist to share images of it - owning the physical painting doesn't grant you that right, no more than owning a book lets you make copies of it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Painting by artist Karl Schricker (1912–2006), see here. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]