Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/01/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haaz Snoot.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hafid laskri.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haider Rizvi at Karachi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mess with Ha.png Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syed Haider Hussain Rizvi.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haider Rizvi.jpg
Out of scope - unused personal image Aubrey Jett 88 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Facebook. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Aubrey Jett 88 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Facebook. Taivo (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
no educational value Aubrey Jett 88 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, "We don't surrender. We win or die." If this text is really useful, then it should be written directly into some Wikipedia. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Haldia Township @.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balughata te.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:@ School.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Halls negras.png Commons:Deletion requests/File:Halseyhandwrttingss.png
Rather obvious Flickrwashing. Newly created account with an image that was recently deleted and another a crop of an image that’s up for deletion. 🙄
Ytoyoda (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- And adding File:Rocío Dúrcal la española más mexicana.jpg, also from the newly created Flickr account. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, yesterday I deleted the files as Flickrwashing, today again. Taivo (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files from obvious Flickrwashing account.
Ytoyoda (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and previous DR, more copyvios. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
zxccvvvbnmasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuuiop 122.2.232.5 03:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep No reason given.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)- Keep Someone trolling??? --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep vandalism? Orchi (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！
碧海风 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:42, 19 Januar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: 文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！ --Krdbot 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！
碧海风 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:42, 19 Januar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: 文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！ --Krdbot 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！
碧海风 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:42, 19 Januar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: 文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！ --Krdbot 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！
碧海风 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:41, 19 Januar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: 文件名起错了，为避免歧义，请求删除！ --Krdbot 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Without data EXIF Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Found on https://welections.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/honduras-2017/ among many othher sites. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Without data EXIF Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: from http://noticiasrogeralonso.blogspot.com.es/2010/10/ and other news sites. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. The user uploaded some plagios. Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: From http://hondudiario.com/2016/09/15/alcalde-tito-asfura-inaugura-fiestas-patrias/. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work (don't have data EXIF). The user uploaded some plagios. Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently in the internet nine years ago. strakhov (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded for use on vanity page posted to EN Wiki, out of scope. RA0808 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - self promotion & metadata indicates it was copied from Facebook. Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Davey2010 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work - taken from https://www.instagram.com/p/BcbJHFVAky6/?taken-by=thegabbieshow
Probably copyrighted but there is no copyright tag. Sanandros (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Editor is apparely clueless when it comes to copyvios - blatant copyvio so closing this pointless DR. –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope Bukhari Talk 17:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? 
Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Files seem to be uploaded as a sick joke or, worst, as a racist, xenophobe attempt of a joke. Files were in use in en:Americans, before being removed, by someone else.
- Also affected:
- File:Diversity.png
- File:I'm german.png
- File:La creatura.png
- File:Lá aberración.png
- File:Negative faces.jpg
Tm (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: All speedy-deleted, as they were obviously not own work (many hits found). --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to create a subcategory instead Juniperwuf (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
ESTE ARCHIVO NO DEBE SER ELIMINADO, EL ARCHIVO NO SE ENCUENTRA EN INTERNET, USTEDES LO BUSCAN Y NO SE ENCUENTRA, EL AUTOR QUE PUBLICÓ ESTO PUEDE QUE LA HAYA SACADO DE UN PERIODICO O ALGO POR EL ESTILO PERO NO POR INTERNET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.80.157.222 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
¿Ustedes por qué son tan abusivos?
perdón la expresión pero es así, todo archivo que subo a la Wikipedia; reconozco que cuando subí unas fotos que fueron borradas violaban los Derechos De Autor De RTVE pero esta imagen es de uso libre y no se encuentra en ningún lugar de internet.
Yo solo quiero colaborar a completar archivos que están faltos de información pero ustedes no dejan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilo324 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete File was copied from Flickr. So Own work is incorrect and proper source with a free license evidence or on OTRS permission is required. Ankry (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like flickr-washing to me. JuTa 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per above and as a copyvio of http://cdn.elimpulso.com/media/2016/03/rociodurcal.jpg from March of 2016. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 17:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Sourced to a Flickr account with a single image, clearly not the origin of this photo. Possible Flickrwashing, given the user's upload history. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; COM:CSD#G4 Recreation of content previously deleted twice per community consensus above. I added to the speedy. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, 10 times previously deleted, always as copyvio, and this is copyvio too. Taivo (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
should have made: Category etc. Vysotsky (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Should have been a category. --Achim (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 17:43, 22 Januar 2018 UTC: spam --Krdbot 19:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
AirBase was merged to Sharebase ぽちたま (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a simple text-logo. I don't understand reason for deletion. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Dubious origin, metadata non existent to prove ownership Jamez42 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No source, possibly a webcam caption. --Taichi (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, considering other uploads of the user, I'll delete it speedily. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not notable persons. Superseded by the photo of the same object without those people: File:546, Taiwan, 南投縣仁愛鄉合作村 - panoramio (4).jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Apparently, we don't know what the source country's threshold of originality is, so we have to err on the side of caution. In most jurisdictions, this would not be below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection.
- File:TV3 HD Lithuania.png (higher resolution version of the same logo but with a made-up PD release claim) should also be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination - Jcb (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial flag of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination - Jcb (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laptopservicein (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement, SPAM: Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — regards, Revi 01:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aks.shubham (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement, SPAM: Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — regards, Revi 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; personal image/selfie theinstantmatrix (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused logo with unknown importance, maybe out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Useless , Needs to be delete Tusshar33 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: private image which is unlikely to be used in a project. Additionally, the image shown on the screen is probably a copyright violation. Takeaway (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Santy therock (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of the project scope. Promotional.
- File:VCA NIEVES.jpg
- File:LA MANO PROHIBIDA.png
- File:COO DOS GOTAS.jpg
- File:VACA NIEVES.jpg
- File:LA MANO PROHIBIDA Y OTROS CUENTOS.jpg
- File:Sobre 2 gotas de agua.jpg
- File:Patricia Enderica Espinosa.jpg
Edslov (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - also copyvio. --Jcb (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No indication of a free license, authors' permissions missing.
- File:Pakke-brochure 2012 front.jpg
- File:Namdapha flying squirrel.jpg
- File:Poecilotheria hanumavilasumica.jpg
- File:Gooty Tarantula, Metallic Tarantula or Peacock Tarantula (Poecilotheria metallica).jpg
- File:Namdapha flying squirrel.tif
- File:Malabar Civet.jpg
- File:Millipora boschmai.jpg
- File:Kondana rat.jpg
- File:Jenkins shrew.jpg
- File:Elvira rat.jpg
- File:Ganges Shark (Glyphis gangeticus).jpg
- File:Carcharhinus hemiodon.jpg
- File:Andaman white-toothed shrew.jpg
- File:Involving the Nyishi community in protection.pdf
- File:How Pakke is protected.pdf
- File:Plants of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Moths of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Threats to Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Fish of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Reptiles and amphibians of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Hornbills of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Butterflies of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Mammals of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Tiger Reserves in India till 2012.pdf
- File:Time line of Pakke Tiger Reserve.pdf
- File:Map of Pakke Tiger Reserve.jpg
Sealle (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
dnfvknbike bv214805 7yuan 105.142.150.105 10:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism – no valid reason for deletion. --jdx Re: 13:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I inadvertently uploaded this file, please delete it. Ewlmarketing (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a photo of me and I'm not sure how it got up here. I do hot have a Wikipedia page nor have I done anything significant. 209.160.138.158 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I would really like to have this photo of me removed. I have no idea why this is here but there is no reason for it to be here. I did not authorize a photo of me to be on Wikipedia 209.160.138.158 18:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The page that this photo was associated with is no longer active on Wikipedia (has been deleted) JoeAtHFM (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please simply wait, do not repeat the nomination. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Does not appear to have been created by a US government employee while on the job. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I just want to clarify this. This is being nominated for deletion because of what? Is it technically the property of the author of the paper referenced, and not of the MicroBooNE Collaboration? Is this true even if the authors mention that the paper is presented on behalf of the MicroBooNE collaboration (which they did)? I'm not sure where the line is here... Thanks for clarifying. Rlinehan 21:55, 18 January 2018 (PST)
- I just transferred the file from EN-Wiki to Commons, as it a) was categorized as "move to Commons" and b) I saw no contradicting information in the file / in licensing not to do so. As the file exclusively is in use on EN-Wiki, I would not object to delete the file on Commons while keeping the EN-local file i.e to restore status quo ante, albeit with "Do not transfer to Commons"-indication. --Archie02 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Files of User:Hikaru Samco
[edit]- File:Samco logo large.jpg
- File:Deposition-Icon.jpg
- File:Samco partners.jpg
- File:Etching-Icon.jpg
- File:Surface-Treatment-Icon.jpg
Advertising; logos uploaded as promotion for a business, the files are not in use. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:1989 stamps of Hungary
[edit]- File:1989 IAAF World Indoor Championships stamp of Hungary.jpg
- File:1989 World Modern Pentathlon Championships stamp of Hungary.jpg
- File:Az aradi vértanúk emlékére HUN-1989-20FT-UNC.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Hungary --Regasterios (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused problematic SVG logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Copy of https://medias.unifrance.org/medias/6/164/107526/format_page/bambi.jpg, found elsewhere on the Internet, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have the personal permission by Marie Pierre Pruvot alias Bambi, who has sent me this foto and some others for this purpose and gave me the permission to download this image and the other photos for the use here on Wikimedia! I am very sorry, if I made something wrong with the Download, but that is very very very complicated, I am not a computer specialist and not a jurist, and it was the first time, that I made such a Download. Please don't delete this.--Orange Nr. 5 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The matter with this picture is that it can be found everywhere on the Internet under non free licences as the poster of the biopic on her as well as the cover of a book by Mrs Pruvot herself. So she can't hardly be the model and the photographer herself. You need to find the name of photographer and modify the file description from Marie Pierre Pruvot to the name of the actual photographer. Kind regards, Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, permission from photographer, not from Bambi is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Tagged, missing permission : photographer can't be the model. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(c) André Nisak, copy of http://nsm08.casimages.com/img/2013/04/28//13042805533815789311131006.jpg, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- S'il vous plait voir ma réponse à cause de l'autre image de Bambi. Elle m'a envoyé cette photo et j'ai la permission personnel d'elle !!!--Orange Nr. 5 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Copy of general reply : Hello. The problem with some of these files is that Mrs Pruvot may own a copy of these pictures but she's not the copyright holder of them. For example File:BAMBI chapeau melon 2.jpg is copyrighted by André Nisak and only him may consent to renounce to his copyrights by putting his work in Commons under a free licence. So you should provide a written permission from his heirs (or his permission dated before his death) to publish any of his works under a free license. In the meantime you could send the permission you received from Mrs Pruvot at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kind regards, Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, after receiving permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Uploader is subject of image, therefore is not own work. hiàn 01:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: photo of unknown person and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: photo of unknown personal and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waseem Akram 0341 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused personal photos/selfies and unlikely to be used in a project.
Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; photoshopped personal image/selfie theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: private image; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: self-created artwork; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: self-created artwork; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: self-created artwork; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; personal image/selfie theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AnonymousXDDD (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope; apparent vandalism/attack images
theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AnonymousXDDD (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope; apparent vandalism/attack images
theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Used for self-promotion. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful. Also, Uploader is blacklisted and blocked on enwiki. Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
personal images used for school work, out of scope Triplecaña (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS: personal documents 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS: advertisement; pure text. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS: personal documents 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused copy of Wikipedia article. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jr.etxebarria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Jre-elkarrekintza elektromagnetikoa-2.pdf
- File:Jre-elkarrekintza elektromagnetikoa-3.pdf
- File:Jre-elkarrekintza elektromagnetikoa-1.pdf
- File:Guztiz murgildutako objektu ez-homogeneoak.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jr.etxebarria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused private image of very low quality, out of scope. Achim (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused private image of low quality, promotional file desc, out of scope. Achim (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal unused Steinsplitter (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 18:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE -> selfie Takeaway (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: spammy and private image; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Before and during the Great American Eclipse Aug 21, 2017 from Georgetown, South Carolina.png
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfie and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused photo of non-notable person and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfie and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal selfie and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. ~Cybularny Speak? 14:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS: personal documents 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
copyvio http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_3f1d81570100k4sf.html a simple vector illustration which can be made by selves MNXANL (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- 这么一个简单的几何图形，我就不能用啦？？？？！！！！我又没说是我画的！！这数学是体育老师教的。Liuxingy (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
copy from one Blog(2011-03-30) https://a.share.photo.xuite.net/kuo707727632/1aff9fd/14582825/772120532_m.jpg Outlookxp (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: src = https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTws3I9W4AAb2WR.jpg
Pls link also the page where the file is. Sanandros (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Info See EXIF data: FBMD data field -> image is likely a copy from facebook.--Wdwd (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martin.Marin (talk · contribs)
[edit]No actual permissions. The uploader, acording to the description, is not the owner of the rights. Authors are mentioned as "citizens of Rales"
- File:Fachada de la antigua "fábrica de luz", Electra Bedón, en Rales de Llanes.jpg
- File:Restos del antiguo Castillo de Aguilar, en la cima del pico homónimo, Rales de Llanes.jpg
- File:Panera en el barrio del Corral, Rales de Llanes.jpg
- File:Encantador puente sobre el Río Chico, afluente del Bedón, en Rales de Llanes.jpg
- File:Panera en Rales de Llanes.jpg
Discasto talk 11:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Not enciclopedic Deror avi (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope! — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope! - Gveret Tered (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image and previous history of user uploads @sikander (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Why US copyrights tags applied to newspapers printed in Uruguay.
- File:La aurora.pdf
- File:El patriota.pdf
- File:El pampero.pdf
- File:El constitucional.pdf
- File:El pacifico oriental.pdf
- File:El ciudadano.pdf
- File:El amigo de todos.pdf
- File:El aguacero.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
copyright violation, screenshot from google streetview 188.118.56.81 15:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
likely a copyright violation Loominade (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a reproduction. I took a picture through my smartphone, as you can see in metadata, from another site. MKBRA (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation likely non-free use taken from this site FOX 52 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Highly unlikely to be the uploader's own work as claimed, and looks like a photo grabbed from some website given the small resolution. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Riyen Karia with Philip May at CCHQ (Westminster).png Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Info This file is one-third higher in resolution than the ‘original’, and seems better described. However, the other file has also been nominated for deletion (by the same nominator).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- However if the ‘original’ is a copyright violation then this one would be too, unless we have some proof otherwise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. But if evidence of a free licence can be found, this is probably the one that should be kept. (I haven’t examined them closely enough to be sure its quality is actually better as the larger size would imply.) It might have been preferable to put them both up in the same DR, because duplication is a minor side issue in comparison to dubious permission or provenance.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- proof otherwise?! Innocent unless proven guilty is the justice system used here, so that goes. Image is apparently UK based so that system must be used 5.69.92.250
- This is not a court of law. We require positive evidence of a free licence; see COM:PRP. Regarding country of origin, the image must be free in the UK and the USA both.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- proof otherwise?! Innocent unless proven guilty is the justice system used here, so that goes. Image is apparently UK based so that system must be used 5.69.92.250
Delete other file and use this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.92.250 (talk • contribs)
- The copyright problems from there would still apply here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- nope, if better quality then not the same image ad technicas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.92.250 (talk • contribs)
- how do we know that the image was taken by a different person though or under a different license? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two images. No reason for deletion, at best. License is declared at penalty of perjury so it is trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.92.250 (talk • contribs)
- What do you mean " License is declared at penalty of perjury"? Please speak clear English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Two images. No reason for deletion, at best. License is declared at penalty of perjury so it is trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.92.250 (talk • contribs)
- how do we know that the image was taken by a different person though or under a different license? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- nope, if better quality then not the same image ad technicas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.92.250 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Small image with incomplete EXIF data uploaded by a sock account? No. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The original rationale no longer applies, but it would be pointlessly bureaucratic to say that requires keeping the file. The file is in use, in the enWP Conservative Party article, but its recent addition appears to be part of an ongoing socking campaign to insert a person’s name there. The circumstances and history make the own-work claim suspect, especially without metadata.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Info See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riyen Karia Philip May - CCHQ.png - same image uploaded by another user; a sock? Ankry (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: created by abuser. See also Category:Sockpuppets of Thepoliticsexpert. --Ankry (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. --JuTa 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. The picture is from around 1942 (no proof for this year). No source. Regasterios (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mivel a huwikin el vagyok tiltva a képektől, ezért nem sablonoztam fel az eredeti feltöltést ezt Tambo (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my DR. I cleared up with the original uploader (Farkasven) that the image has been part of a family archive and not been published before being uploaded to Hungarian Wikipedia (see hu:Fájl:Vitéz Lenz József.jpg and discussion in Hungarian). Since the publisher is of Hungarian nationality, Hungarian copyright applies, per the Berne convention rules about country of origin. Per article 32 of Copyright Act LXXVI/1999 (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hungary) when a work is first published more than 70 years after creation, economic rights pass to the person who publishes the work. The publisher placed it under a free license. The owner does not know who the author is. Precedent: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Árvíz Bezdánban 1941-ben.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Not in-use picture of an unknown person. The Commons is not an online photo album and cannot be a repository for just anything. Ldorfman (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The metadata contains the name of the author and copyright holder, who has watermarked the photo. Would need permission from this person to license and distribute the file. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS authorisation needed from the author VZOREN PHOTOGRAPHY. Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No description, no location, not useful for educational purposes. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably not a free image, image published elsewhere with better quality Shev123 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:24, 2 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 25 January 2018 --Krdbot 07:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:24, 2 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 25 January 2018 --Krdbot 07:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:24, 2 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 25 January 2018 --Krdbot 07:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. E4024 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Materiaux-de-construction-toulon-var-beton-armature-gros-oeuvre-salle-de-bain-carrelage-piscine-spa-bricolage 01.jpg
[edit]Unused logo with unknown importance, maybe out of project scope. The logo has nothing to do with en:Bonifay, Florida. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
l'errata denominazione del file lo rende inutilizzabile dal punto di vista pubblico, devo sostituirlo. zebulo22 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: @Antonio Giovanni Maria Zetti: Piuttosto sembra una schermata di un video o altro contenuto non libero. Se tale fosse il caso, non ricaricarlo. Ruthven (msg) 09:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
File from 123RF (see watermark) Gastón Cuello (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete No free image. --Taichi (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cosplay of Elsa (Disney)
[edit]Copyvios of The Walt Disney Company's character Elsa. Category:Cosplay of Elsa (Disney) too, once empty.
- File:2014 Dragon Con Cosplay - Elsas of the Elements 1 (15123840575).jpg
- File:2014 Dragon Con Cosplay - Elsas of the Elements 2 (15100839706).jpg
- File:2014 Dragon Con Cosplay - Elsas of the Elements 3 (15123835695).jpg
- File:20140215-IMG 4044 - Desucon Frostbite 2014 - clogz.jpg
- File:20140215-IMG 4066 - Desucon Frostbite 2014 - clogz.jpg
- File:2016 Christmas parade in Braga (13).jpg
- File:Anime Expo 2015 - Slave Elsa & Anna (19511945625).jpg
- File:Anna & Elsa cosplayers (23514985211).jpg
- File:Anna and Elsa cosplay by VintageAerith and SunsetDragon (or Kit).jpg
- File:Anna, Serena & Elsa - C2E2 2015 (17088765457).jpg
- File:C2E2 2014 - Bumblebee & Elsa (14272170445).jpg
- File:C2E2 2014 - Elsa (14085075938).jpg
- File:C2E2 2015 - Ballerina Elsa & Anna (17318043735).jpg
- File:C2E2 2015 - Elsa (17098710897).jpg
- File:C2E2 2015 - Elsa (17130344350).jpg
- File:C2E2 2015 - Elsa in Coronation Dress (17280176596).jpg
- File:Comic-Con 2014 Cosplay (14592618829).jpg
- File:Cosplayers of Anna and Elsa, Frozen in FF24 20140727.jpg
- File:Deadpool was in Frozen? (13911898360).jpg
- File:Elsa and Anna cosplayer at the 18th Seoul International Cartoon & Animation Festival.jpg
- File:Elsa and Anna on a Firetruck (22688481281).jpg
- File:Elsa cosplay (14049835658).jpg
- File:Elsa cosplayer at Ohayocon 2014.jpg
- File:Elsa cosplayer.jpg
- File:Elsa's Getting Mad (22688477071).jpg
- File:Elsa, Anna, and Olaf (22056157013).jpg
- File:Fancy Frontier 23 (12564433895).jpg
- File:Fancy Frontier 23 (12564898664).jpg
- File:Frozen (14384073138).jpg
- File:Frozen (15671040605).jpg
- File:Frozen cosplay, Elsa and Hans.jpg
- File:Frozen cosplay, Elsa walking in the city.jpg
- File:Frozen's Elsa cosplay at Comicfest 2014.jpg
- File:Montreal Comiccon 2015 - Elsa (19462695621).jpg
- File:Montreal Comiccon 2016 - Elsa and Anna (28202671651).jpg
- File:Montreal Comiccon 2016 - Elsa and Master Roshi (28246685626).jpg
- File:Montreal Mini-Comiccon 2014- Elsa and Jack Frost (15785460249).jpg
- File:New York Comic Con 2014 - Elsa (15335758499).jpg
- File:New York Comic Con 2014 - Elsa (15335912420).jpg
- File:New York Comic Con 2014 - Elsa (15499488226).jpg
- File:NYCC 2014 - Mad Hatter & Elsa (15488307726).jpg
- File:NYCC 2014 - Mad Hatter & Elsa (15508318221).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Anna and Elsa (15029353012).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Hans, Anna and Elsa (14842961259).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Hans, Elsa and Anna (15006699576).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Jack Frost, Elsa and Peter Pan (14842914979).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Olaf and Elsa (15016939296).jpg
- File:Otakuthon 2014- Peter Pans and Disney Princesses (15026584501).jpg
- File:Oz Comic-Con 2014 (14415398618).jpg
- File:Oz Comic-Con 2014 (14578989226).jpg
- File:Oz Comic-Con 2014 (14600032954).jpg
- File:Oz Comic-Con 2014 (14622074953).jpg
- File:San Diego Comic Con 2014-1381 (14587568257).jpg
- File:San Diego Comic Con 2014-1407 (14802885343).jpg
- File:SDCC 15 - Steampunk Elsa and Anna (19771214728).jpg
- File:SDCC 15 - Steampunk Elsa and Anna (19772560489).jpg
- File:SDCC 2014 - Elsa (14798182145).jpg
- File:SDCC 2014 cosplayers (14774537113).jpg
- File:SWCA - Darth Hound and Elsa Jedi (17201209932).jpg
- File:Three Cosplayers of Elsa, Frozen at FF25 20150131.jpg
- File:Toronto 2015 - Elsa & Jack Frost (16743734040).jpg
- File:Vijay at Brighton Pride 2014.jpg
- File:Wondercon 2014-7639 (13990229364).jpg
- File:Wondercon 2014-7649 (13986701241).jpg
- File:WonderCon 2015 - Elsa cosplay (16427156664).jpg
- File:WonderCon 2015 - Sub-Elsa (16427184884).jpg
- File:Wondercon 2015-8074 (16876268140).jpg
- File:Wondercon 2016 - Disney Mandalorians (25988405642).jpg
- File:Wondercon 2016 - Disney Mandalorians (26080922125).jpg
- File:WW Chicago 2014 - Elsa & Jack Frost (14881386708).jpg
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is File:20140215-IMG 4044 - Desucon Frostbite 2014 - clogz.jpg perhaps miscategorised? Nemo 16:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: The categorization was done by your bot, you tell me. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Cosplay photos are a tough issue; mostly we allow them. At one point Mike Godwin, who was the Wikimedia Foundation attorney at the time specifically said that a person dressed as a character was not a copyright violation: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan/Mike Godwin mail. Now it's gotten more complex: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay, which the lawyer hisself admits is hard to follow. I'm going to read that as "does the picture focus on the inanimate character, as opposed to the person in the costume?" and in most of the cosplay photos, they are photos of the person doing the specific cosplay, rather than just of the character represented by their costume. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GRuban: I was relying on this statement. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep To add to the above, an Elsa costume often amounts to a blue dress and a hairstyle (possibly a wig). Both are utilitarian and not copyrightable. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Elsa's costume is very simplistic and wouldn't really pass the threshold of originality as a standalone costume, combining blonde hair and a blue dress 👗 isn't original and I'm sure that one can't copyright © such a generic attire. Yes, Elsa the character is copyrighted but I doubt that her costume 👯♂️ is original enough to also be protected by this same copyright. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Deleted only those including copyrighted material (e.g toys, drawings). All costumes are different, no one matches exactly the cartoon, and consist basically in a blue dress (sometimes very short!) and a blonde wig; which are not copyrightable. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work : seems a newspaper photo. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Created for vanity page on EN Wiki, out of scope. RA0808 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete self promotion Cabayi (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Better picture to be uploaded soon HRvO (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @HRvO: You can upload the new picture on top of this one, if it's the same image. Ruthven (msg) 09:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Better picture to be uploaded soon HRvO (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 09:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like web screenshot, unlikely to be own work. MB298 (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Found in higher resolution at http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2014/05/the-pope-lick-monsters-deadly-trestle.html two years before the uploader supposedly created it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete it is unclear that this image is release under a free license per the statement in the file. This webpage states the use of a Creative Commons license but does not specify which CC license nor which conditions should be met, so I think PCP applies. Ww2censor (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Well, it has the same statement (same wording in Catalan) that Attribution-gencat --Docosong (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I only passed image based on the web archive link that Docosong gave me on my talkpage. If the link is insufficioent or incorrect, please revert my pass Ww2censor. Thank You for your time, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Docosong. Ruthven (msg) 09:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:05, 3 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 26 January 2018 --Krdbot 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:06, 3 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 26 January 2018 --Krdbot 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.In the license box are some licenses written. Sanandros (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:05, 3 Februar 2018 UTC: No license since 26 January 2018 --Krdbot 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a screenshot from https://www.youtube.com and could be considered as COM:fair use. It should be moved to the Italian Wikipedia. FalsePaul (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept because it’s basically a black screen with four connected circles in the center. That’s way below Commons: Threshold of originality. -- 32X (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Not own work. This is a copy of File:The Global Energy Context Moderator Fatih Birol (8417454038).jpg @sikander (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept and corrected the attribution. -- 32X (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Uncategorized Michael whitson (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Qualitywise that’s out of scope. -- 32X (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jilan Basha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project.
Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jilan Basha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Photos uploaded by user who mainly edits in user space with few to no edits in main space.
Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 16:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep File:Jeelan.jpg while it is in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete File:D.jeelan 1.jpg – who cares about an Author indefblocked in en.Wikipedia after a couple of weeks? Also @हिंदुस्थान वासी: when you speak about the main space of Hindi Wikipedia, please, specify that you are telling about Hindi Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: , please be civil. Please undertsand that the fact that this user was blocked in a given project doesn’t magically exempt this file from COM:INUSE. As for your demand that everybody specifies which version of Wikipedia one’s talking about, I’m all for it — care to do that when people refer to the English Wikipedia as if it were the only one? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Tuvalkin, please, don’t disrupt indentation.I dislike when en-only people speak of en.Wikipedia as of “Wikipedia”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- (Guy, keep your hands off my bullets; unlike your threading, mine is correct. You might try to educate yourself on that matter. While at it, find out why forcing a serifed capital eye in unstyled text is as pernicious as it is ludicrous.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- And also: I would like the closing operator to record that the only reason Jeelan.jpg is not deleted is its use in hi:सदस्य:Dadagari Jeelan (thanks Tuvalkin for noticing this technicality). Hence, demise of the last page showing the file should be a pretext for speedy deletion without further discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- A file is either deleted or it is not, and this one, needs to be kept for now. Yes, a technicality. But even if it were unused, or when it is, this is not a matter of speedy deletion, which has its own rules. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted hi:सदस्य:Dadagari Jeelan. Now, can we stop and delete these pictures which are of no value.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Self-promotion & block evasion. --Achim (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
copied from the web, see http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=shfaqart&aid=99 Albinfo (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- at the bottom of the page, it says: Te gjitha te drejtat e rezervuara Keshilli i Ministrave = all rights reserved by the Council of the Ministers --Albinfo (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- maybe correction of source and permission according to Category:PD Albania exempt is ok. --Albinfo (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
A higher quality svg duplicate can be found here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C3%ABshilli_i_Ministrave_(logo_e_vjet%C3%ABr).svg Kj1595 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:MTV Base 2017 logo.svg
[edit]- File:MTV Base 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV Classic 2010 logo.svg
- File:MTV Classic 2011.png
- File:MTV Classic 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV Dance 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV Hits 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV Music 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV Rocks 2017 logo.svg
- File:MTV xmas logo.svg
See COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: Viacom is British? W3ird N3rd (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- My best guess is you nominated these because I linked to the mtv.co.uk domain as the source. Here are some links for MTV Italy, but they are on mtvnimages.com: [1] [2] [3]. Not that there is any need for this, because Viacom (America) is the registrant for the mtv.co.uk domain.
Domain name: mtv.co.uk
Registrant: Viacom International Inc.
Registrant type: Non-UK Corporation
Registrant's address: 1515 Broadway New York NY 10036 United States
- W3ird N3rd (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Um, these logos are for MTV UK. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep: I know the UK threshold is very low but surely all of these logos are merely derivative works of the US MTV logos that do not pass TOO, such as this one on the right. I doubt any can be considered TOO in the UK because they are really a US logo with the simple text change and for that reason I really don't think it can make them copyrightable. Ww2censor (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ivan_Nagel.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep The country of origin for the "MTV" portion is not the UK. I don't think the rest would be an issue in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure how Commons can keep File:MTV HD Logo 2013.svg yet delete the files nominated here when they essenitally appear to be the same logo. My understanding is that Commons files need to be PD in both their country of origin and in the US (where the Commons servers are located). I'm not sure the country of origin and the country of use are automatically the same. Many international companies use the same or similar branding worldwide either for subsidiaries which are 100% owned by the parent company or by partner-companies who have reached an agreement with the parent company that allows the parent's branding to be used. For example, there are many en:Burger King restaurants worldwide, including apparently 484 thoughout the UK (see File:Leicester Square Burger King.jpg), and I doubt that File:Burger King Logo.svg would be considered below COM:TOO#United Kingdom. The same might be also said for certain other countries where the same branding might be being used, so the question is whether that matters. Does it matter whether twitter.com/burgerkinguk or twitter.com/burgerking is sourced for the logo, or does it matter where the logo originated? This is an interesting question to me personally because I often help check non-free content on Wikipedia; quite a number of non-free logos of UK companies are licensed as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on Wikipedia because they have been considered PD in the US, but not in the UK. If all that matters is providing a source showing use in a particular country such as the US where they would be PD, then perhaps many of these could be renamed/resourced and moved to Commons. This is also interesting to me because of a similar discussion taking place at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vodafone Albania.svg involving international versions of basically the same Vodafone logo. My opinion (and I might be wrong) is that if the essential elements of a logo, etc. are not eligible for copyright protection in the country of origin and the US, then any versions of the same logos, etc. used internationally should also not be eligible for copyright-protection unless they are country-specific or different enough to establish a new copyright for the derivative. Otherwise, we could have file named "File:Burger King Logo US.svg" being considered OK for Commons, but a file named "File:Burger King Logo UK.svg" being deleted even though the two files are essenitlaly identical with the only practical difference being their file names/source urls. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as per Carl L. on VPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
a free source for each images of the photomontage must be provided Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Mostly based on a Google Maps satellite image, which we know is not compatible with Commons licenses. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- it is in the public domain and have no copy right .www.parssea.org
Deleted: per nomination; listed as own work on upload template, but now claimed to be www.parssea.org without additional information. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Personal type photo, currently used on a promotional draft page that will never get to mainspace Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a stock photo. I can't find the original image, but a GImage search reveals that the picture is used on a number of profile pages e.g. at Linkedin, and there is a washed-out watermark in the top left corner. Bonadea (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Photo of the uploader, who states it has been "Previously published" on Facebook and Twitter. It needs information about the author of the photo and what kind of license that person has "previously published" it with, and permission to re-license and distribute it. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
it's orphaned CiaPan (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
dubious claim of own work. one version of trademark seen on website https://pharmasynth.in/ but not what the website uses as the corporate logo 71.181.71.100 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Tushar home.jpg
Unused personal photos, out of project scope. These are the last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Widely distributed headshot of an author, described as a "handout" photo here and used here and in many other places. The original author and any copyright status would be hard to dig up, but that doesn't mean it can be uploaded to Commons as "own work" by just anyone. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
From Facebook as claimed. Needs evidence of a usable license and the real author. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Fake movie poster with a fake summary information (link to the empty blogspot page as a proof, Stan Lee as an author). Dennis Fry (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The explanation board is a copyrighted work. Batholith (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Unlikely to be "Own work" with no metadata attached to image @sikander (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/avatars/2017/07/10/osama__nazzal.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of http://www.5280.com/2016/08/dance-dance-revolution/ Yunshui (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of Commons scope. Please see the talk page of Category:Unused personal files. E4024 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: Wikipedian with a total of 33 edits in one year. If you decide to keep no problem for me. --E4024 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.f-airmexico.com.mx/2017/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IMG_9786.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
copyvio, downloaded image. Störm (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Because this file revealed my home address Kychn (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, no addresses visible, not a document. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
copied froma web site that states "© Copyright 2018 Calcutta Classical Guitar Society · All Rights Reserved" http://www.calguitar.in/kunal-saha/ · Domdeparis (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think files created by Oregon employees are automatically in the Public Domain. Oregon isn't one of the states in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). GRuban (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The map which has been uploaded in 2005 is far from from complete, as only 14 countries have been categorized out of 200 countries, and the rest not worked upon at all. After one update for only one country, no work has been done since 2005. Not only is this map unused, but more importantly it is totally useless as reference. Artoxx (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Taken from the web, there's no permission. Famke Louise cannot be author from taking a "selfshot" Rode raaf (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: private image which is unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Taken from the web, probely nót own work, uploader did have made more copyrightviolations. No source, no permission. Author is Roel Jorna (NTR) Rode raaf (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Support - Seems indeed to be a file downloaded from the internet. Mbch331 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Taken from pictame.com or somewhere else from the web. No permission, not author. Possible copyrightviolation Rode raaf (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Cute animals but per COM:SCOPE, private image unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Without a ticket, the editor cannot possibly be the copyright holder of a unit of government's logo John from Idegon (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
to controversial. Please delete it. Mcmenamintechnology (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: actually too full of derivative images and pdf format. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This political cartoon is claimed to be released under CC-0. As the uploader is not the cartoonist, the uploader is not the copyright holder and would not have the authority to release the image under any license. The author is claimed to be unknown, but the cartoon clearly is attributable to Zoke, the pen name of Michael Attwell who died 18 March 2006. Unless there is evidence to indicate that Attwell released this under a free license, then it would be still under copyright based on 70 years pma. Whpq (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This picture seems to be based on a rather new German atlas; nevertheless the description fields do not say anything about the copyright status of this source. Carnby (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Monica rodriguez.jpg
It's hard to say if without the white bars they are realy duplicates. Sanandros (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Clearly states that this is not "own work" yet no permission to release the image has been granted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Probable copyvio Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tylerrogers2019 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Personal photos/selfies and unlikely to be used in a project. We are not a personal webhost.
- File:Tyler Rogers.jpg
- File:Rogers Boys 2017 3.jpg
File:Tyler Rogers 2017 3.jpg-- Deleted per nomination -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)- File:Tyler Rogers 2017 2.jpg
Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishal Singh akbarpur (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project.
Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
out of scope; not actual gameplay, clear hoax; copyvio theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Better picture to be updated soon HRvO (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: In use, not valid deletion nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(c) Danielle Bonardelle, copy of https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=338x1024:format=jpg/path/sf706af891cb98e27/image/i36a65a8744618c65/version/1449136230/image.jpg. Identity of Sasha7272 should be verified via Commons:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Bien vu ! Le © c'était pour l'expo. Accord donné pour mise en ligne en libre accès. --Sasha7272 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Le président du photo-club a aussi donné son autorisation pour cette photo, par mail (que je peux fournir pour vérification): "Tu en disposes librement et fais ce que tu veux avec." D'ailleurs vous pouvez constater que le fichier que j'ai déposé c'est l'original, c'est pas 1 version piratée - dé-tamponnée de la version en ligne sur le site de l'expo. --Sasha7272 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Sasha7272: since you're not claiming anymore to be the author of this picture perhaps you should ask Danielle Bonardelle, who is the sole owner of it, to send a valid permission to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org. Kind regards, Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Restored: ticket:2018040510002813 and [4]. Yann (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=295999740#File:Portrait_d'Alexis_Michaud,_chercheur_au_CNRS.jpg){kind=link}
Similar to http://static8.viadeo-static.com/7_IWICZYHLeXws1tEfKZHEjdh5s=/140x185/smart/member/002abiie32t8f06?ts=1421357380000, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have personnaly contacted Nathalie Bastianelli to ask her for an authorized picture of her to complete her profile. Therefore I assume this picture should be approved as the licence belongs to her. User:ThibaultL
- @ThibaultL: you stated in the file description that this picture was your own work then that Nathalie Bastianelli holds the rights on it. Anyway since Nathalie Bastianelli can't be both the model and the photographer an anthorization of the latter is to be sent to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. When/if OTRS received, can be restored. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
See discussion. Sanandros (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The pic is also here.--Sanandros (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that there are no copyright violations. The picture is a photo or very realistic painting that was made before the death of Otto von Gerlach, who died in 1849. So the owner of the copyright must have died more than 70 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluklix123 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jcb. --Jianhui67 T★C 11:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: sourced "Online Travel", but also advertisments, see over-categorization,Not clear case, pls discuss. Sanandros (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 15:04, 13 Februar 2018 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Onlinetravel1 --Krdbot 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: see exif Sanandros (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio or out of preject scope. --Hystrix (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Rosto de Augusto Esteves Recorte de Museu da História da Medicina da Associação Paulista de Medicina 04.jpg
[edit]
Apparently it's a painting or drawing produced after 1936, and therefore not covered by Brazil PD URAA. If it was a photographic portrait, it would be OK. Darwin Ahoy! 01:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: , the EXIF data shows that image was taken from a phone. I think that would be Keep. EVinente (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @EVinente: The problem is not the photo itself, that's perfectly OK. It's the work from which it derivates, the portrait. When I was trying to improve its quality, I saw it doesn't looked at all like a photograph - it seems to be a portrait painting, and therefore protected by law. Anyway, I've already uploaded the file at wiki.pt under the local policy, so the article there will not be affected by the deletion here, in case it gets deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: , all right. That makes sense. Take a photo of a photo is COPYVIO? EVinente (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @EVinente: Depends on the original photo copyright. However, in this case, I believe the original work it's not a photo, but a painted portrait. It seems to be a photo of a photo of a (probably copyrighted) painted portrait.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: , all right. That makes sense. Take a photo of a photo is COPYVIO? EVinente (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @EVinente: The problem is not the photo itself, that's perfectly OK. It's the work from which it derivates, the portrait. When I was trying to improve its quality, I saw it doesn't looked at all like a photograph - it seems to be a portrait painting, and therefore protected by law. Anyway, I've already uploaded the file at wiki.pt under the local policy, so the article there will not be affected by the deletion here, in case it gets deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, I understand. So, Delete, by miss of informations. EVinente (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. URAA does not apply here. Anyway, can be uploaded locally on Portuguese Wikipedia via FAIRUSE. Érico (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Doubtfully too simple for copyright in its home country. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Why is not too simple? Just simple geometric forms. --Yilku1 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has to be below the copyright threshold, regardless of what it "just" is. I believe the threshold is low in Latin America. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no, these are not only simple geometrical forms. Taivo (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Doubtfully too simple for copyright in its home country. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It's just the sun in the Flag of Uruguay with a red background and letters, the same sun in the flag of the party.--Yilku1 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I notice the shape points in a slightly different direction, which might be enough to gain copyright in a low threshold nation like Uruguay. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's just the sun in a slighty different form, it's too simple too matter. -Yilku1 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I notice the shape points in a slightly different direction, which might be enough to gain copyright in a low threshold nation like Uruguay. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, no, this is not flag of Uruguay. Sunbeams on flag of Uruguay are curled clockwise, here anti-clockwise. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Doubtfully too simple for copyright in its home country. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Why it's doubtfully too simple? It's just a handshake contour. --Yilku1 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It has to be below the copyright threshold, regardless of what it "just" is. I believe the threshold is low in Latin America. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Doubtfully too simple for copyright in its home country. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a US Government work Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Was mentionned in the source. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Where exactly? [5]. Images on that site are borrowed from other websites. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, at moment the source site is down. I see no reason, why this Mexican photo should be made by US government. Taivo (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. The picture is from around 1938 (no proof for this year). Regasterios (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- A kép 1938-ban készült, és innen származik: innen Tambo (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The picture was made in 1938, source is repaired. --Regasterios (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Year of the first issue is not proved. Maybe it is published firstly in this webpage. --Regasterios (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem pontosan értem, mit kellett javítani. Elég ránézni a kép címére. Tambo (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eredetileg ezt a forrást adtad meg. Ebből hol látszik, hogy 1938-ban készült? Miután itt megadtad a kép beágyazásának helyét, javítottam a linket a forrásnál. A kép címét én is láttam, nem vagyok hülye, de az nem forrás. És ahogy másutt is írtam, nem a kép készültétől, hanem az első megjelenéstől kell számítani a 70 évet (erre utalok fentebb az angol nyelvű hozzászólásom kiegészítéseképpen: ha ezen a honlapon jelent meg először a fotó, messze még a 70 év, de még a 25 is, lásd a 32. §-t). --Regasterios (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem pontosan értem, mit kellett javítani. Elég ránézni a kép címére. Tambo (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mivel itt is megjelent a képe ITT 1838-ban, nem valószínű, hogy ez a kép titokban volt tartva. Pusztán a jobb minőség miatt került ez be. Tambo (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Tambo: pontosan milyen logika is van az érved mögött? Talán az, hogy ha ez a kép megjelent 1938-ban, akkor bizonyára a másik is? Talán arra célzol, hogy egy 1938-ban kiadott tankönyben megjelent az akkor 16 éves Freud Géza arcképe? Tárd fel nekem, kérlek, milyen összefüggés van a tankönyv és a weblapra belinkelt arcképek között. --Regasterios (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Regasterios: Feladom! Nem látom értelmét, hogy vitatkozzak veled. Úgy sem lehet meggyőzni. Azt töröltetsz, amit akarsz. Tambo (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Tambo: Úgy gondolom, ha én képes vagyok akkurátus választ adni a kérdéseidre, te viszont ezt nem teszed meg, akkor nem bennem van a hiba. --Regasterios (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Regasterios: Feladom! Nem látom értelmét, hogy vitatkozzak veled. Úgy sem lehet meggyőzni. Azt töröltetsz, amit akarsz. Tambo (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Tambo: pontosan milyen logika is van az érved mögött? Talán az, hogy ha ez a kép megjelent 1938-ban, akkor bizonyára a másik is? Talán arra célzol, hogy egy 1938-ban kiadott tankönyben megjelent az akkor 16 éves Freud Géza arcképe? Tárd fel nekem, kérlek, milyen összefüggés van a tankönyv és a weblapra belinkelt arcképek között. --Regasterios (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, I believe, that this is 1938 work. But as depicted person is a schoolboy, first publishing was not in 1938, but probably much later. Here's no publication data and no author data. Source does not say anything about author, but unknown does not mean anonymous. That way we cannot give proper license to the photo. Taivo (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. The picture is from around 1940 (no proof for this year). Regasterios (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Bánóczi Dezső (Veszprém, 1888. március 26. - Budapest, 1958. október 13.) Valóban nem bizonyított az 1940-es évszám. Feltehetőleg régebbi a kép alapján. Tambo (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Meg kellene kérdezni a helyismeret.hu oldal kezelőit, honnan van a fotó. Több ott megjelent képre rákerestem a Google-val, s nekem úgy tűnik, hogy olyan képeket tesznek fel, ami a neten még sehol nem jelent meg. Ez egy wikiszerű oldal, de sehol nem találtam szerkeszthető lapot, regisztrálni meg nem lehet. Sajnos se licenc, se forrás nincs megadva a kép ottani leírólapjához. Szerintem ez itt az anyaoldal, itt találsz elérhetőségeket. --Regasterios (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Szia! Inkább tettem be egy másik képet File:Bánóczi Dezső-Goszleth.jpg 1908-ból. Üdv. Tambo (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, considering, how the man looks like, this is apparently older photo than 1940. Source site does not say anything about author or publishing. Likely the license is correct, but I am not sure, that the photo was published before 1943. If you have evidence for that, please present it and the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. The picture is from around 1945 (no proof for this year). Regasterios (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- A kép készülhetett 1938-1945 között. Mivel a kép szerzője ismeretlen, hogyan tudnám bizonyítani, hogy 70 évnél régebben elhunyt? Tambo (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Azt kellene bizonyítani, hogy a szerző személye kideríthetetlen, az eredeti forrás felkutatásával. --Regasterios (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Az a sajnálatos ebben, hogy negatívumokat nem lehet bizonyítani. Persze, ha lett volna internet (és már feldolgozták volna), akkor nem okozna nehézséget. Tambo (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- El kellene felejteni ezt a negatívumokat nem lehet bizonyítani szöveget. Egyrészt honnan veszed, hogy 1945-ben készült a kép? Ez a férfi szerinted nem lehet idősebb 29 évesnél? Nem lehet mondjuk 34? És ha 1945-ben is készült a fotó, honnan tudod, hogy meg is jelent abban az évben? Ugyanis nem a készítéstől, hanem az első megjelenéstől kell számítani a 70 évet ismeretlen szerző esetén.
- Azt állítod, ismeretlen a szerző? Rendben, bizonyítsd, hogy több mint 70 éve megjelent a fénykép. Az általad megadott forrás 1994-es, ami ugye messze van a hetventől. Ki kell nyitni szépen a MSZL-t, meg kell nézni, megadták-e a kép forrását. Ha igen, és annak a megjelenése 70 évnél nem régebbi, azt a könyvet is meg kell keresni, és így tovább. Ha nincs megjelölve se a fotó forrása, se a szerző, nem lehet mit tenni, nem lehet igazolni, hogy több mint 70 éve megjelent, vagy a szerző több mint 70 éve elhunyt. Ez nem negatívumbizonyítás, hanem egy pozitív állítás (a kép több mint 70 éve megjelent) igazolása. --Regasterios (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Az a sajnálatos ebben, hogy negatívumokat nem lehet bizonyítani. Persze, ha lett volna internet (és már feldolgozták volna), akkor nem okozna nehézséget. Tambo (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Azt kellene bizonyítani, hogy a szerző személye kideríthetetlen, az eredeti forrás felkutatásával. --Regasterios (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, wrong license. 1945 photo cannot be published before 1943. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Supposedly the picture is from around 1910 but it seems to be newer, the man in the picture is older than 26 (no proof for this year). Regasterios (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem vita tárgya az 1910 körüli készítés. Az első világháború után 1921-ig Debrecenben könyvtárosként dolgozott. Mivel a kép szerzője ismeretlen, hogyan tudnám bizonyítani, hogy 70 évnél régebben elhunyt? Tambo (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem biztos, hogy ismeretlen, Ennek kijelentéséhez az eredeti forrást kellene felkutatni, ahogy azt Szalay Fruzinánál tetted. --Regasterios (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mivel úgy látom, hogy valamilyen okból nem vagyok szimpatikus Neked megkérnélek, hogy segíts egy ilyen vénembernek. Tambo (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pontosan milyen segítségre gondoltál? --Regasterios (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mivel úgy látom, hogy valamilyen okból nem vagyok szimpatikus Neked megkérnélek, hogy segíts egy ilyen vénembernek. Tambo (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem biztos, hogy ismeretlen, Ennek kijelentéséhez az eredeti forrást kellene felkutatni, ahogy azt Szalay Fruzinánál tetted. --Regasterios (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not 1910 photo, but newer. No first publication data, no photographer data. It is probably still somehow in public domain, anonymous-EU and PD-1923 are possible licenses, but without information I'll delete it at moment. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. It's a drawing what may have made after Szalay Fruzina's death. Regasterios (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ez itt jelent meg: A HÉT A folyóirat hu:A Hét (folyóirat, 1890–1924) 1924-ig létezett. Mivel ez az első évfolyamból való, a helyes dátum 1890. Tambo (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I withdraw my DR, the uploader found the original source. The drawing published in 1890, the signature at the bottom right corner of the picture is unreadable. It is therefore concluded that the author is unknown. Kiss József was the charter editor of the journal based in 1890, he died in 1921. --Regasterios (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept, 1890 is enough old to assume public domain without evidence. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. The picture is from around 1917. Regasterios (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mivel a képeslap 1917-ből való az első megjelenésétől 100 év eltelt. Így közkincsnek minősül. Tambo (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ezt honnan vetted? --Regasterios (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ez roppant egyszerű! Rá kell nézni a forrásra, nem törlésre jelölni. Ott láthattad volna, hogy mikor készült a képeslap. Tambo (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- És ha megnéznéd a képeslap hátulját? Biztos vagy benne, hogy ott nincs megjelölve a szerző neve? Itt az volna a feladatod, hogy felkeresd a színészkönyvtárt, hogy ugyan árulják már el, tartalmaz-e információkat a képeslap hátulja a szerzőre vonatkozóan. Nem mellesleg pedig erre is vetni kéne egy pillantást. --Regasterios (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hát vannak olyanok, akiknek semmi joguk nincs rendelkezni vele, de megteszik. Megkérdezném, milyen jogon teszik elérhetetlenné a képeket? Tambo (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Akkor tedd azt. --Regasterios (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ez roppant egyszerű! Rá kell nézni a forrásra, nem törlésre jelölni. Ott láthattad volna, hogy mikor készült a képeslap. Tambo (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ezt honnan vetted? --Regasterios (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, 1917 postcards are in public domain in USA, but what about source country Hungary? Uploader claimed, that this is anonymous work, but maybe there's photographer's name on other side of postcard? If you can present other side of postcard too, then the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Regasterios (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- A kép 1919-ben készült. Mivel a kép szerzője ismeretlen, hogyan tudnám bizonyítani, hogy 70 évnél régebben elhunyt? Tambo (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Épp ez a lényeg: honnan tudod, hogy ismeretlen? Azt kéne alátámasztani, hogy a szerző személye kideríthetetlen. --Regasterios (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Úgy gondolom, hogy látnoki képességekkel rendelkezel, így meg tudod állapítani a kép szerzőjét. Végignézve az internetet nem találtam erre vonatkozó forrást. Adjál egy jó tippet, kit írjak be szerzőnek, aki 70 évnél régebben elhunyt. Tambo (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nem tudom, mire célzol, de az biztos, hogy nem csak a neten kéne keresgélni. Vedd fel a kapcsolatot a Hangosfilm.hu üzemeltetőivel. És ahogy már írtam többször, nem a kép keletkezésének, hanem első publikálásának éve a fontos. --Regasterios (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Úgy gondolom, hogy látnoki képességekkel rendelkezel, így meg tudod állapítani a kép szerzőjét. Végignézve az internetet nem találtam erre vonatkozó forrást. Adjál egy jó tippet, kit írjak be szerzőnek, aki 70 évnél régebben elhunyt. Tambo (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Épp ez a lényeg: honnan tudod, hogy ismeretlen? Azt kéne alátámasztani, hogy a szerző személye kideríthetetlen. --Regasterios (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, 1919 photos are in public domain in USA, but what about source country Hungary? The photo is OK, if it is anonymous or if the author died before 1948. If you can show the first or the second, then the photo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Files of User:South9border
[edit]
Photos with copyright information in the metadata, attributing two different photographers. The uploader isn't both people, so they are not "own work" and both files will need evidence of permission to redistribute copyrighted material.--Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, OTRS-permission from photographers Gene Smirnov and Christoffer Meyer is needed to restore the photos. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, author unknown, hard to say if it is in the public domain or not Shev123 (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that the uploader is the author of this photograph (see de:Kleinautowerke Fritz Hückel). The date indicated is nonsense. Leyo 09:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
it says presentation image of the work (essay) of Alba Pirir Cap. We are not a repository for this, this is clearly out of scope Triplecaña (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author has mentioned that the image is copyrighted, but it is not sure that why he make the license as CC-BY-2.0. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, two conflicting licenses. If this would be extremely valuable shot, then I would keep it, but here's only a police car photographed from back right, nothing exceptionally valuable. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author has mentioned that the image is copyrighted, but it is not sure that why he make the license as CC-BY-2.0. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, two conflicting licenses. If this would be extremely valuable shot, then I would keep it, but here's only a police car photographed from back, nothing exceptionally valuable. Taivo (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Published elsewhere on the web, priorly to Commons. ~Cybularny Speak? 10:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ronhjones as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: complex logo
I^m not sure if it is complex enough. Sanandros (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Only text. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Kelex sticky (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in en.wiki and uploading a personal logo for that. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
All of these images infringe the copyrights for one or more of the taxidermy, the backdrops, or the architecture. FOP in Norway applies only to exterior architecture. In order to keep these, we will need free licenses from the architect, taxidermists and exhibit designers. If the taxidermists and exhibit designers are employees of the museum, then a license from the museum will suffice.
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 01.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 02.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 04.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 05.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 06.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 07.jpg
- File:Lehrreich, unterhaltsam und sehr spannend, das Hardangervidda Naturzentrum. 08.jpg
- File:P1000525Hardangervidda Natursenter.JPG
- File:The exhibition at Visitorcenter Hardangervidda 2.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I would request for this NOT to be deleted. I work as this buisness, a visitor center, and noticed that unlike most other visitor centers, we did not have a Wikipedia-page. The staff here is not very skilled when it comes to these kind of "computer and web things". I therefore got the needed approval to use Såle Rue's photos. He too is an employee here. We sent an approval form to Wikimedia, and are currently awaiting their answer. Sincerely Ida
Deleted, OTRS-permission from taxidermists and sculptors are needed to restore the photos. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Could be TOO. Sanandros (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept, in my opinion this is textlogo. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ruff tuff cream puff as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.arkive.org/kotagamas-dwarf-toad/bufo-kotagamai/
The webpage allows allso CC licenses. Sanandros (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: "Materials licensed to Wildscreen under a Creative Commons licence are clearly marked with Creative Commons buttons", but not this particular image. --Sealle (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
With promotional watermark in the photo, i.e. showing a website, which is not allowed in Commons. B dash (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, promotional content. --Sealle (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Image of unknown copyright status. Source provided does not shw this image and is probably spam -> https://www.google.nl/search?q=argan+oil+come&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlwEJh_1wSZDZGIQIaiwELEKjU2AQaBAgVCAIMCxCwjKcIGmIKYAgDEijJC9QLyAuVDNMLygvxA5wejAzUHuk30T7TPts-3inDKZkylzjcPt4oGjDfe_1c8Q9F5CAgzZrIZu3E9lzQ3MINdB-Ojr171fy_1RcLcD61dnSvDMazk5_1MF1p2YgBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBHI4KLQM,isz:l&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHrP2ukOTYAhWBKMAKHW4aBMIQ2A4IKigE&biw=1229&bih=594#imgrc=_ Takeaway (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Retract deletion request. Uploader changed source to a spamlink. Source has now been reverted back to https://pixabay.com/es/el-aceite-de-arg%C3%A1n-vainas-917179/ which indeed would seem to be the origin of this file. The name of this file is also an attempt to spam Commons and will be changed to a neutral name. - 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: redirect after renaming, kept: original image. --Sealle (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not own photo (see http://adriaticionianmacroregion.eu/index.php/2016/01/28/intervista-silvije-tomasevic/) 93.142.156.221 13:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copy of https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/515098668794257408/BPancbad_400x400.jpeg, out of project scope. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Artix Kreiger as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I think the picture of the Windows 10 is too much for Creative commons — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
File:GPD Win-Face View-Open and Running Windows 10.jpg Dienthoaiquangcao41 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
File:GPD Win-Face View-Open and Running Windows 10.jpg 42.113.157.249 08:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a simple drawing. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The logo of BBC's CBeebies may be copyrighted in the UK because it's hand-drawn enough for originality. Per COM:TOO#UK, it should not be used in Commons. The local copy is used at English Wikipedia as w:en:File:CBeebies.svg, which is tagged as PD in the US but not to be transferred to Commons. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused. This is 2007 upload and the license was never reviewed. At moment, source site has two conflicting licenses. http://spinops.blogspot.com.ee/?view=sidebar says CC-BY-SA-4.0 and http://spinops.blogspot.com.ee/search?q=rapetosaurus#!/2012/06/rapetosaurus-krausei.html says NC-BY-NC-ND-3.0. The file was once deleted by Jcb and restored by @Matanya: as correctly licensed. Now an IP nominated the image again for speedy deletion and I declined it. Discussion is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The uploader here (ArthurWeasley) is the owner of that blog. And yes, it has confused many an admin that he uses different names (also went by NobuTamura). FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The image here is older than the blogspot image last I checked, so by simple priority it should be the license here used. IJReid (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The image is of Francis Elizabeth Acton, not Eliza Acton at all (wrongly identified at the named source), and it therefore duplicates File:Francis Elizabeth Acton.jpg and should be deleted Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This version is higher resolution than the other and processed differently. Both have merit. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Kelvin Hughes is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Spoiled and per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dad Manki Cover Small.jpg. E4024 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- also file:WVVF2011.jpg
Small photos without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. I deleted the user's other uploaded photos due to missing permission. Taivo (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
_Ivan_Nagel.jpg){kind=link}
_Ivan_Nagel.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Die Gedenktafel enthält falsche Informationen zur Vita und wurde vor Ort ausgetauscht. Ein Foto der aktuellen Gedenktafel ist hier hochgeladen worden: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gedenktafel-Ivan_Nagel-2018.jpg Suhrkampverlag (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
_Ivan_Nagel.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
_Ivan_Nagel.jpg){kind=link}
this was published in Star Trek: The Magazine and has some photoshop filters applied to it. See http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/database/tribbles.htm Loominade (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Discover your "secret unique inner power." Out of project scope. Achim (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Error of commune : it's Tursac, not Thonac Père Igor (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Error of commune : it's Tursac, not Thonac Père Igor (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Questionable authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata, and previous publications found elsewhere.
- File:Hospital with Ash 15.11.2016.jpg
- File:Hospital with The Neighbourhood in GlavClub 15.05.2014.jpg
- File:Hospital with Lana Del Rey.jpg
- File:Hospital в 2016 году.jpg – https://junglefox.me/articles/355
—LX (talk, contribs) 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- And since Shor1n continues to upload problematic files instead of participating in this discussion:
- —LX (talk, contribs) 19:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded in error (though this is the correct title); please delete and/or history merge with File:BSicon uexdkSTRc4.svg into a file at this title. Jc86035 (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
its personal 173.16.126.209 17:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Unless you can find a larger one somewhere else, I'd suggest keeping this one, because it is wide use and there's nothing obviously "personal" about the image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Ellin Beltz. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lutheraner as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Hochlader nicht Urheber, vgl. Bildbeschreibung Sreejith K (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that the uploader Gabriel von Berlepsch is also the person in the foto. Maybe he got permission of the photographer. Let us give him a chance. Chaddy (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs COM:OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Manelolo as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: The War in Finland, 1940 HU55566.jpg|2=lesser quality|user=Manelolo
the pics are slightly diffrent. you can see that one pic has a few more pixel than the other. Sanandros (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Few more pixel as in approx. 4 MB more? Nevertheless, they're duplicates. Manelolo (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- With pixel I mean if you process it with the dupicate template and compare them.--Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Processed as duplicate. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Elisfkc as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:A historic site, not open for public. "Cook county hospital" (16137758641).jpg
they are not duplucates, as it seems for me that they have a slighty diffrent perspective. So it looks for me that these are two photos just shot one after another. Sanandros (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I uploaded File:A historic site, not open for public. "Cook county hospital" (16137758641).jpg from the source listed in File:Cook County hospital night.png. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK if I now compare them they are realy pretty the same expect the greyscale so they are still not the same and still need discussion.--Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: From what I can tell, the uploader ran the image through a converting software, which accounts for the loss in detail. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK if I now compare them they are realy pretty the same expect the greyscale so they are still not the same and still need discussion.--Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete: Having studies them both closely File:A historic site, not open for public. "Cook county hospital" (16137758641).jpg is slightly sharper and some of the lights, and the lit word "RUSH", are a little brighter, but there is so little difference I see no point in keeping them both. I would delete this one. Ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: processed as duplicate. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by INS Pirat as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Samuel Cutts 1762 by Joseph Blackburn.jpg
Diffrent gray scaling. Sanandros (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The difference is not any substantial. --INS Pirat (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep File:Samuel Cutts MET ap1979.196.1.jpg is the current version by the museum; the other image was previously a very different scan, and perhaps that one should not have been overwritten.--Pharos (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I personally don't care which one will be deleted. The essential question is why do we need both of them? Even with different gray scaling. --INS Pirat (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus for deletion. I restored the other file to its original. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Verdacht auf Urheberrechtsverletzung; ist wohl keine Dauerhafte Installation, sodass Panoramafreiheit nicht greift; Lizenz des Künstlers liegt nicht vor Haster2 (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Kann man so nicht sagen. Das Kunstwerk wurde nach der Ausstellung in Braunschweig in Helmstedt wieder aufgebaut, wo es für einige Jahre stehen sollte, dort aber durch einen Sturm zerstört wurde. --Jonny84 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Dass es woanders aufgestellt wurde, belegt ja die nicht dauerhafte Installation während der Ausstellung, womit Du die Annahme untermauerst. Es ist somit recht zweifelsfrei eine URV. Haster2 (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Verstehe ich nicht. Das Kunstwerk war während der Ausstellung in Braunschweig dauerhaft aufgestellt. Elmschrat (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Während der Ausstellung dauerhaft? Während der Ausstellung ist zeitlich gebunden. Bitte mal die Begrifflichkeit der Dauerhaftigkeit vergegenwertigen. Das hier ist ähnlich der Verhüllung des Reichstages. Bilder dieser längeren Kunstaktion sind auch urheberrechtlich geschützt und dürfen nicht verwendet werden. Warum? Weil die Installation nicht dauerhaft war. Haster2 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ein Kunstwerk, das sich drei Jahre lang unverändert im öffentlichen Raum befand, ist sicher auch keine temporäre (auf den Moment bezogene) "Kunstaktion"... --Jonny84 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Doch. Und das Foto hier stammt nicht aus Helmstedt sondern aus Braunschweig. Da stand es keine drei Jahre. Haster2 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Das tut nichts zur Sache.. Es muss nicht ortsfest sein. „Ein Werk befinde sich im Sinne dieser Vorschrift an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen, wenn es von Orten aus, die unter freiem Himmel liegen und für jedermann frei zugänglich sind, wahrgenommen werden kann. Diese Voraussetzung sei auch dann erfüllt, wenn ein Werk nicht ortsfest ist und sich nacheinander an verschiedenen öffentlichen Orten befindet.“ Link --Jonny84 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Das Foto stammt aus der Zeit von der Ausstellung VOR der eventuell dauerhaften Installation in Helmstedt. Davor! Und da war es nicht dauerhaft installiert und es galt keine Panoramafreiheit. Und rückwirkend kann diese nicht angenommen werden. Von daher hinkt der Vergleich zur Aida gewaltig. Haster2 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also auf den Satz „nacheinander an verschiedenen öffentlichen Orten befindet“ muss ich ja wohl nicht weiter eingehen. Es stand an einem öffentlichen Ort und zwar mit beiden Standorten 3 Jahre.. Durch seine Dimension, ist es offensichtlich ein Kunstwerk, das für den öffentlichen Raum geschaffen wurde und dort auch zusammengebaut wurde, da es in Innenräume kaum passen würde. --Jonny84 (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Da dies hier eh nur eine Diskussion zwischen zwei ist, würde ich vorschlagen das auf der Wikipedia-URV zu besprechen, wo sicher mehr Benutzer erreicht werden und sich beteiligen können. --Jonny84 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Das Foto stammt aus der Zeit von der Ausstellung VOR der eventuell dauerhaften Installation in Helmstedt. Davor! Und da war es nicht dauerhaft installiert und es galt keine Panoramafreiheit. Und rückwirkend kann diese nicht angenommen werden. Von daher hinkt der Vergleich zur Aida gewaltig. Haster2 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Das tut nichts zur Sache.. Es muss nicht ortsfest sein. „Ein Werk befinde sich im Sinne dieser Vorschrift an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen, wenn es von Orten aus, die unter freiem Himmel liegen und für jedermann frei zugänglich sind, wahrgenommen werden kann. Diese Voraussetzung sei auch dann erfüllt, wenn ein Werk nicht ortsfest ist und sich nacheinander an verschiedenen öffentlichen Orten befindet.“ Link --Jonny84 (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Doch. Und das Foto hier stammt nicht aus Helmstedt sondern aus Braunschweig. Da stand es keine drei Jahre. Haster2 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ein Kunstwerk, das sich drei Jahre lang unverändert im öffentlichen Raum befand, ist sicher auch keine temporäre (auf den Moment bezogene) "Kunstaktion"... --Jonny84 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Während der Ausstellung dauerhaft? Während der Ausstellung ist zeitlich gebunden. Bitte mal die Begrifflichkeit der Dauerhaftigkeit vergegenwertigen. Das hier ist ähnlich der Verhüllung des Reichstages. Bilder dieser längeren Kunstaktion sind auch urheberrechtlich geschützt und dürfen nicht verwendet werden. Warum? Weil die Installation nicht dauerhaft war. Haster2 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Verstehe ich nicht. Das Kunstwerk war während der Ausstellung in Braunschweig dauerhaft aufgestellt. Elmschrat (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Dass es woanders aufgestellt wurde, belegt ja die nicht dauerhafte Installation während der Ausstellung, womit Du die Annahme untermauerst. Es ist somit recht zweifelsfrei eine URV. Haster2 (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Skulptur war nicht dauerhaft ausgestellt, daher URV. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This is not serious Ravave (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) This is so serious, as relevant archeologists talk about this dead zone. Please see http://www.raco.cat/index.php/Cypsela/article/download/119815/236644, on the second columd they say "it is commonly known". This study from 80's, by two recognized authorities of the Barcelona University. Maybe your problem is with the neologisms of tabarnia and tractoria, well documented on the press, search on google for tabarnia.CountOfTabarnia (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)--CountOfTabarnia (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be a hoax. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Although the source YouTube video is labeled as Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed), I don't think this image belongs to the uploader of this YouTube video. Looks like COM:LL to me. Wcam (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Wcam, the the Youtube account is from a monastic from the same organization that produced the image.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is the monastic the copyright holder of this image? There has to be a specific announcement that this image was released under a free license. That YouTube video is merely a derivative work. --Wcam (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. As there are several versions of the image on the web, including a coloured higher resolution version on dmc.tv[6] (whose site has an all rights reserved copyright notice), I don't think we should take a YouTube CC licence at face value unless it comes from an official DMC account. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per Paul_012. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
copy right picture Rudolphous (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
K eep - This is a sign created by a US government agency. You can see the agency name on the sign.
ʽUserːGeraldShields11ʼˌ
Kept: per GeraldShields11. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
copyrighted design / picture Rudolphous (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
K eep - This is a sign created by a US government agency. You can see the agency name on the sign.
UserːGeraldShields11ˌ
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Photographer Yousuf Karsh died July 13, 2002. 70 years PMA rounded up later, we will be allowed to show this image in the U.S. January 1, 2073. I am including all the images in Category:Yousuf Karsh except those of him by others (his self-portrait is included) for the same reason. — Jeff G. ツ 23:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The following 57 files are in this category, out of 57 total.
- File:Agnes Macphail - PA-165870 140x190.jpg included
- File:Agnes Macphail - PA-165870.jpg included
- File:Autoportrait de George Nakash.jpg excluded, I have no idea why Maculosae tegmine lyncis put it in this category → kept. Sealle (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- File:B. K. Sandwell.jpg included
- File:Beatrice Lillie.jpg included
- File:BeatriceLillieByYousufKarsh.jpg included
- File:Camil Darac, Nazlia Nakash, Lucie Nakash et Yousuf Karsh.jpg included
- File:Churchill portrait, correspondence (20106909400).jpg excluded, should probably be PD-USGov → kept. Sealle (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, London (20300873171).jpg excluded, correspondence from Churchill's office → kept. Sealle (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, Prime Minister, England (20268666666).jpg excluded, correspondence from Churchill's office → kept. Sealle (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- File:DuncanCampbellScott23.jpg included
- File:Elixir (19267845752).jpg included
- File:First official Canadian Citizenship ceremony at the Supreme Court building.jpg included
- File:Grey Owl.jpg included
- File:Herbert George Wells in 1943.jpg included
- File:JAPT Karsch.jpg included
- File:JoanCrawford-colour.jpg included
- File:John Garo.jpg included
- File:King1941.jpg included
- File:La photo de passeport de Mlle Y. Bélanger.jpg included
- File:Le mariage Wilson-Haddon.jpg included
- File:Les premiers ministres William Lyon Mackenzie King et sir Winston Churchill.jpg included
- File:List of personalities (20106369140).jpg included
- File:Lord Bessborough, sir Vere Brabazon Ponsonby, 9e comte de Bessborough, devant un escalier.jpg included
- File:LordTweedsmuirHeaddress.jpg included
- File:L’acteur Peter Lorre.jpg included
- File:L’auteur H.G. Wells.jpg included
- File:M. et Mme Karsh, parents de Yousuf Karsh.jpg included
- File:Martha Graham 1948 (cropped).jpg included
- File:Martha Graham 1948.jpg included
- File:Marx Brothers 1948 adjusted cropped.jpg included
- File:Marx Brothers 1948 adjusted.jpg included
- File:Marx Brothers 1948.jpg included
- File:Merrill Denison at Typewriter - Bon Echo (21989510462).jpg excluded, speculation
- File:Mlle Ruth Pidgeon.jpg included
- File:Mme F.D. DuVernet.jpg included
- File:Mme Y. Karsh (née Solange Gauthier) portant une robe noire en taffetas.jpg included
- File:Paul Robeson 1938.jpg included
- File:PeterLorre.jpg included
- File:Portia White.jpg included
- File:Portrait of Madge MacBeth sitting by Yousuf Karsh.jpg included
- File:Prince Bernhard 1942.jpg included
- File:Princess Juliana and family 1942.jpg included
- File:Princess Juliana and family 1943.jpg included
- File:Sir Winston Churchill (19086236948).jpg included
- File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948 (cropped).jpg included
- File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg included
- File:Sir Winston Churchill souriant.jpg included
- File:Sir Winston Churchill.jpg included
- File:Tyrone Power 1946.jpg included
- File:VerePonsonby.jpg included
- File:WilliamBoyd(Pathologist)ca.1952.png excluded, separate OTRS permission
- File:Yousuf Karsh - 19087696999.jpg excluded, of him not by him
- File:Yousuf Karsh dans un studio.jpg excluded, of him not by him
- File:Yousuf Karsh travaillant à la légation de France.jpg excluded, of him not by him
- File:Yousuf Karsh.jpg excluded, of him not by him
- File:Yousuf-Karsh.jpg included, self-portrait
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_portant_une_robe_noire_en_taffetas.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
ca.1952.png){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ 07:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Jeff G., if you would like to discuss all the files in Category:Yousuf Karsh, please take the trouble to name each of them here. We have an excellent tool for such DRs. Don't forget to give reasons for requesting deletion of such files as File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, Prime Minister, England (20268666666).jpg and File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, London (20300873171).jpg. Sealle (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Sealle: thank you for that advice. I have listed all the files above. I will do a small run of a batch delete with VFC before I try a large one like this. I have excluded that letter and envelope because they were not Karsh's work. — Jeff G. ツ 08:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, files such as File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, London (20300873171).jpg showed that you didn't know what files you nominated. You still nominate File:Camil Darac, Nazlia Nakash, Lucie Nakash et Yousuf Karsh.jpg, which is not by Karsh. But now you have newly added to this list File:JAPT Karsch.jpg, which has a verified OTRS ticket from the Karsh estate. Apparently, you still don't even bother to look at the files you nominate for deletion. That is not serious. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion on Merrill Denison photograph:
- Keep as stated, the photographer is unknown. Deletions are not based on speculation. --Fæ (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: The photographer IS known, it's Yousuf Karsh. Please see the infobox caption at en:Winston Churchill. — Jeff G. ツ 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)- We are discussing different photographs. If you do not intend this deletion request to apply to two or more photographs, please do not create it as a batch deletion.
- My comment and keep opinion applies to File:Merrill Denison at Typewriter - Bon Echo (21989510462).jpg (which is how I navigated to this DR) which states:
- "Although the Bon Echo Archives does not mention the photographer it could be the world famous Yousuf Karsh", which is clearly speculative, not a statement of copyright.
- --Fæ (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: Sorry, on Merrill Denison photograph, it could stay because the attribution is speculation, but then there is COM:PRP. — Jeff G. ツ 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- That's a backwards interpretation of PRP. I may say that I think that I vaguely remember my grandfather talking about taking any photograph in the 20th century, that does not mean we delete all 20th century photographs without named photographers under PRP. Someone speculating that someone else might have been a photographer is not a claim of copyright, nor is it evidence. --Fæ (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- At the source, the flickr user later updated the information with a comment informing that the photo was from Newton Associates. See also this other photo [7]. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: Sorry, on Merrill Denison photograph, it could stay because the attribution is speculation, but then there is COM:PRP. — Jeff G. ツ 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Most of the Karsh photos are from Library and Archives Canada, which holds the prints and negatives, and has stated that they are in the public domain. Pburka (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pburka: Does Canada's public domain include the US? — Jeff G. ツ 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Library and Archives appears to be the owner of the photos. If they say they're in the public domain, that would, presumably, apply world wide. Pburka (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) @Pburka: Then they should have licensed them PD on Flickr. What gives Library and Archives the right to issue a "cc-by-2.0" for this image, for example, on Flickr? — Jeff G. ツ 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The images are definitely PD in Canada. The prints and negatives belong to Libraries and Archives Canada. This suggests that they also own whatever rights remain, if any, giving them the right which you challenge. If you're now claiming that they did so illegitimately, I suggest you take that up with the Government of Canada. Wikimedia seems to be on pretty safe ground here: the apparent rights holder (a government organization) has said that the images are PD in Canada and has explicitly released them as cc-by-2.0 elsewhere. You can say that they should be PD, but that doesn't affect Wikimedia in the least. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pburka: I cite as precedent Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. — Jeff G. ツ 00:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- This issue is different. As you pointed out, LAC has explicitly licensed at least some of the images under a CC license. There's no justification for deleting high quality, CC-licensed images. Pburka (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pburka: I cite as precedent Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. — Jeff G. ツ 00:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The images are definitely PD in Canada. The prints and negatives belong to Libraries and Archives Canada. This suggests that they also own whatever rights remain, if any, giving them the right which you challenge. If you're now claiming that they did so illegitimately, I suggest you take that up with the Government of Canada. Wikimedia seems to be on pretty safe ground here: the apparent rights holder (a government organization) has said that the images are PD in Canada and has explicitly released them as cc-by-2.0 elsewhere. You can say that they should be PD, but that doesn't affect Wikimedia in the least. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) @Pburka: Then they should have licensed them PD on Flickr. What gives Library and Archives the right to issue a "cc-by-2.0" for this image, for example, on Flickr? — Jeff G. ツ 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Library and Archives appears to be the owner of the photos. If they say they're in the public domain, that would, presumably, apply world wide. Pburka (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pburka: Does Canada's public domain include the US? — Jeff G. ツ 23:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is a different issue. The other discussion was about the mistake of some users who confuse the LAC statement about "restrictions on use: nil" (which is a statement about restrictions that are not copyright related) and the LAC statement about "copyright: expired". Your nomination is about photos that are "copyright: expired" in Canada. Please do not confuse the issues. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Please keep. User:Julielangford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.130.121 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Library and Archives is owner of these photos. On the Library and Archives information page for this image, they say "Droit d'auteur: Expiré" author's rights expired. The precedent that was cited above for non-PD images related to a bunch of post-1949 images which does not seem to apply in these new cases. By the way, the notice posted on my talk page refers to File:Yousuf-Karsh.jpg which is very misleading; as a bare minimum, the note on people's talk pages should have said something like "and other related images". --Big iron (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies - I missed the note added at the bottom about the specific image related to me. --Big iron (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Anyway, I don't think it's 70 years pma. For a photograph first published in 1942, a conclusion that it is under copyright in the U.S. would be based on the fact, or the assumption, that all its published copies had a copyright notice and the U.S. copyright was renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office, and if so, then the duration of its U.S. copyright would be 95 years after the first publication (end of 2037). This assumption is reasonable for many Karsh photos, at least for photos of U.S. people or of world-famous people. (Although cases have been found that did not seem to meet those conditions. And my belief in some claims of the Karsh estate was shaken when they made a deletion request for a photo about which they were unable to provide supporting evidence for their claim.) However, nominating all the files in the category may be going too far. I'm not convinced that an assumption of a notice and a renewal for a U.S. copyright should be made for photos that are unlikely to have been published in the U.S., for example photos of local Canadian interest and photos of people unlikely to be known in the U.S. Also, this nomination includes File:WilliamBoyd(Pathologist)ca.1952.png, explicitly free licensed by the Karsh estate and confirmed through OTRS and which should certainly be kept. Although some photos may have to be deleted, the nomination rationale, as currently worded, seems insufficient. An explanation should also be given of why this nomination includes [8] File:Autoportrait de George Nakash.jpg, a self-portrait by photographer George Nakash from circa the 1920s. The nomination should list the files that are the object of the nomination and tell why they are nominated, not list only one file and mention the category, with some of its files apparently not the object of the nomination and other apparently the object of the nomination without an explanation of why. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Asclepias: Ok, File:WilliamBoyd(Pathologist)ca.1952.png is excluded because it has OTRS permission independent of LAC. Re publishing in the US, every one of those files, even if it had never before been published in the US, became published in the US by a WMF server in the US when I viewed it just before starting this DR, and before that when each uploader finished their upload. I admit, I should have done a group nomination and my first use of VFC was suboptimal, sorry about that. The category is a mix of works by Karsh (included), works only about Karsh but not by him (excluded), and a work by Karsh with OTRS permission (now also excluded). — Jeff G. ツ 06:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Autoportrait_de_George_Nakash.jpg&diff=241316969&oldid=215748469){kind=link}
- You're missing the point about publication. Of course files used on Commons are used in the U.S. But that's beside the point. Using files is not a problem in the U.S. if they are in the public domain in the U.S. The fact that those Karsh photographs are uploaded/hosted/displayed/viewed on Commons does not change their copyright status. The publication that is relevant to the copyright status refers to the valid publication(s) by (or with the consent of) their copyright owner(s). Determining where and how each photo was thus validly published serves to determine if that photo is considered a Canadian photo or a U.S. photo, and that determines the copyright status of that photo in the U.S. according to the U.S. Copyright Act. It is assumed that the photos of Karsh on Commons had been, at some time, e.g. in the 1930s, 1940s, validly published by (or with the consent of) their copyright owner(s). Karsh did not create only photos of celebrities that had a potential market in the U.S. Much of his business in Canada was photos of local or Canadian interest: weddings, passport photos, Canadian people, visitors, events, etc. Photos for which the market was local or Canadian: relatives of the subjects, Canadian newspapers, Canadian public, etc. Such photos would not have been intended by their copyright owner(s) for publication in the U.S. For such photos unlikely to be published in the U.S., I think it is practically certain that their copyright owner(s) (i.e. either Karsh or the commissioner of the work) would not have bothered to go through the trouble of all the U.S. formalities, including a copyright renewal, that would have been necessary to obtain and preserve a U.S. copyright. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, such photos that likely did not meet all the formalities for U.S. copyright, and that were created before 1946 (i.e. 1996-50), and that were published in Canada before 1989 by their copyright owner, would now be in the public domain in the U.S.
- The deletion nomination must at least offer a rationale (ideally with facts supporting that rationale) explaining why a photograph would still be under copyright in the U.S. or in the country of origin. There are a few possibilities how a Karsh photo could still be under copyright in the U.S. For example: 1) If all the validly published copies of the photo had a copyright notice and, when necessary, that U.S. copyright was renewed in time. 2) If the photo was first published outside the U.S. and if it met the conditions for URAA restoration. 3) If the photo was not published before 1989. It leaves to make at least a credible case for one of the reasons (for any given photo, it can only be one or the other, or none). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment As Big iron notes above, source page for the image (which is here for the English language version clearly states: "Terms of use. Credit : Yousuf Karsh, Library and Archives Canada, Arch ref. no. R613-566, e010751643 Copyright : Expired" (emphasis there mine). Of course, to complicate matters there's the Library of Congress page on the topic here which states "Yousuf Karsh's photographs are protected by copyright. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply." So who is right?? Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tabercil: both are right about their own national laws. Since the files are not free yet in the US, we cannot host them yet as a matter of policy. I have to believe that the Library of Congress's Librarians know their way around US copyright law. — Jeff G. ツ 06:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm examining the Churchill photograph, which is very famous. I note that:
- a master is held by the National Portrait Gallery in London, and the photograph is credited elsewhere as being taken in the House of Commons, which seems wrong as it is also claimed that it was taken in Ottowa, which the Bank of England seems to believe. So Canadian law applies.
- the photograph was taken during WW2, and if taken as an official commission the OGL may apply.
- the same photograph is now used on the (plastic) £5 note, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBaTijlfNNE and https://www.flickr.com/photos/bankofengland/29561139261. For the note design Crown Copyright must apply, however this is not retrospective for the original photograph but can probably be safely considered a significant derivative.
- in 1945 the photograph was used for the cover of Time Magazine. The cover may be public domain in the US due to non-renewed copyright (refer to other copies of Time Magazine covers hosted on Commons from the 1940s)
- I have yet to come to a view on copyright. --Fæ (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The House of Commons is in Ottawa. This is the House of Commons of Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's a very confusing element when I have OGL in mind. --Fæ (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- It was a cover of Life. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for this DR. It is, frankly, far too confusing to be talking about an unknown number of photographs up for deletion on the same DR. At a minimum this DR should explicitly list all the images up for deletion, each of which should be examined separately as different claims about copyright at the sources apply. I find it especially confusing that the DR was not named as a batch DR, but appears to be just a deletion request for the Churchill photograph. As an example, File:Churchill portrait, correspondence, Prime Minister, England (20268666666).jpg is included in this DR but is definitely public domain under UK law. --Fæ (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: I am sorry, I have listed all the 57 files above, of which 10 are now excluded. I will do a small run of a batch delete with VFC before I try a large one like this. I have excluded that letter and envelope because they were not Karsh's work. — Jeff G. ツ 08:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm walking away though. There's too much bundled under these photographs to invest more of my analytical time in. Considering their historic value, these photographs should not have been raised for a mass deletion, but are worth discussing and evaluating separately. I still have no idea if the photographer was under contract for any of these photographs, or whether it is claimed that they acted independently as an artist. --Fæ (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Fæ. This DR is almost unmanageable, it has an inapplicable rationale, it lists photographs of various copyright situations, it lists some works that are not by Karsh, etc. It would be better to have nominations for individual files or groups of files sorted by type of copyright situations, with usable rationales. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- The House of Commons is in Ottawa. This is the House of Commons of Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to ask the licensing staff at karsh.org for their opinion? — Jeff G. ツ 08:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, as the official contact would be a licensing agent who gets commission for selling the images, not for confirming whether some may already be public domain or that the rights were transferred under contract decades ago. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, per here at karsh.org: "Can I use a Karsh image? Karsh images are under copyright." So their position is already stated. Tabercil (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- What do you expect them to claim, as they want to make money by selling the images, just like Getty, some museums, and others do, even for images that are verifiably in the public domain? Personally I think one needs to question the Canadian archives who claim the copyright have expired and I presume that is based on the point in the template {{PD-Canada}} referring to being created before 1 January 1949. Either way each of these images requires clarity to determine their actual copyright status though PCP may have to apply where the copyright is not verified by other inquiries. That would seems like quite a task. Ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- The statement "copyright: expired" by Library and Archives Canada is correct. Like most archives, and that is normal, they state the copyright status of the works in their country, in this case Canada, and it does not imply anything about the copyright status of the works in other countries. Photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. I think that is not disputed by the nominator. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- What do you expect them to claim, as they want to make money by selling the images, just like Getty, some museums, and others do, even for images that are verifiably in the public domain? Personally I think one needs to question the Canadian archives who claim the copyright have expired and I presume that is based on the point in the template {{PD-Canada}} referring to being created before 1 January 1949. Either way each of these images requires clarity to determine their actual copyright status though PCP may have to apply where the copyright is not verified by other inquiries. That would seems like quite a task. Ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, per here at karsh.org: "Can I use a Karsh image? Karsh images are under copyright." So their position is already stated. Tabercil (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The bald comment of pma+70 as the sole method of judgment is incorrect. Many of these images were taken in their host countries (predominantly Commonwealth countries) where images had a finite copyright period, and this did not change until after 1996, these images were in the public domain of those countries prior to 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Mass DR is not appropriate here. If needed, please nominate each with a precise rationale. --Yann (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/01#Image:Winston_Churchill_1941_photo_by_Yousuf_Karsh.jpg (and ticket:2017081610019762) - recreation of deleted image. However, here may be something I'm missing, given the procedual closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also see en:File:Winston Churchill 1941 photo by Yousuf Karsh.jpg. Please do not take into account the other fils nominated in the discussion aove. I just wanted to raise this image in this DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I wish you had not raised this DR, I don't find it helpful to reopen the discussion. The Karsh estate continues to claim copyright over every photograph, with offers to take your money if you want to pay for commercial use, despite some being released as public domain by archives that anyone can access. My feeling is that rather than having these debates about potential copyright for extremely famous and well used, literally, "public domain" images, which will likely end in a muddy deletion, I would rather leave them alone unless someone like the Karsh estate actually asks for them to be removed. Karsh took this photograph in the Speaker’s Chamber in Ottawa, presumably to publish in Canada based on Karsh's own statement about making a photograph worthy of the historic occasion. For this reason I would like to Keep, as it is public domain in its "source" country. Other thin arguments about the URAA I am aware of, but find overly hypothetical compared to reading a court judgement in a similar set of circumstances. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: The Karsh photo of Churchill is PD in Canada and the US since it was published in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. URAA affects images published or taken after 1945 in Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ankry (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the decision above. The final comment, "The Karsh photo of Churchill is PD in Canada and the US since it was published in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. URAA affects images published or taken after 1945 in Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2017 " is wrong. It was, indeed, the cover of Life in 1945. That issue of Life had its copyright renewed, so the image will be under copyright in the USA until 2040. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as before, and before. The photo is PD in Canada, it was taken in 1941 not 1945. "Fine" arguments about fringe URAA cases, or retrospective and unthinking attempts to copyright public domain images by large (American) corporations, are unconvincing for most Wikimedia Commons users and hypothetical copyright lawyering does not aid Wikimedia Commons' mission.
- Could we just ease up on these repeated deletion attempts of public domain images please? A third DR should only ever happen for rare and preferably critical cases. Let it rest rather than proving an obscure point about copyright interpretation that is not supported by case law. These repeated DRs verge on being disruptive and make me worry about how stable Wikimedia Commons will be in the long term. I would like to be able to run batch uploads of PD archive material without feeling that at any moment they might get speedy deleted or repeatedly raised for deletion on what are almost accidental grounds of unprovable comments about sources, FOP, the URAA, quality, identification, personality rights, etc. I just see too many of these time and again that are far too hypothetical or liminal when the focus of our volunteer time could be on far less ambiguous cases that set solid precedent. As usual, the maxim should be "significant doubt" needs more evidence than "some doubt" in line with the precautionary principle. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Has this particular horse not been flogged enough already? Firebrace (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- The horse has been flogged on the beaches, the fields and the hills. --Fæ (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I think I follow Fæ's reasoning on this DR. Wasn't there a long DR discussion in the first DR? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and my other posts above. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-Canada. May have been published in the US, but renewal of copyright was apparently not done by the author. --Jcb (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Elsa (Disney)
[edit]Copyvios of The Walt Disney Company's character Elsa. Category:Elsa (Disney) too, once empty.
- File:A Christmas Fantasy Parade (34852656933).jpg
- File:A Christmas Fantasy Parade (35622267526).jpg
- File:Anna et Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150803 16h44 (10806).jpg
- File:Anna et Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150803 16h44 (10807).jpg
- File:Anna et Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150803 16h44 (10808).jpg
- File:Anna et Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150803 16h44 (10809).jpg
- File:Elsa - Disney Magic On Parade (2015 08 02 164512).jpg
- File:Elsa - Disney Magic On Parade (2015 08 02 164517).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150802 16h45 (10737).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150802 16h45 (10738).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150803 16h44 (10810).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 15h20 (10902).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 15h20 (10903).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 15h20 (10904).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 15h20 (10905).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 16h44 (10926).jpg
- File:Elsa - La Reine des neiges - 20150804 16h44 (10927).jpg
- File:Elsa at Disney Winter Vacation 2014.jpg
- File:ElsaAnnaFrozen.jpg
- File:ElsaFrozen.jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730143903).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730198485).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730213805).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730224175).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730462023).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730463923).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730483293).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730485453).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730600684).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730606944).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730968256).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (11730988316).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291015375).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291083875).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291165103).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291201585).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291210485).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291233103).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291447114).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291583844).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291649026).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291685636).jpg
- File:Frozen - Anna & Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291701706).jpg
- File:Frozen - Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291392933).jpg
- File:Frozen - Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291641724).jpg
- File:Frozen - Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291731136).jpg
- File:Frozen - Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291775886).jpg
- File:Frozen - Elsa - Magic On Parade (12291788536).jpg
- File:Frozen Elsa Cake.png
- File:Frozen Folks (34441169465).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28186386624).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28186389864).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28186393944).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28189083013).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28519676260).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28519678130).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28698746862).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28698749702).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28698752282).jpg
- File:Frozen – Live at the Hyperion (28803932285).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124736114).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124737444).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27124738654).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126328463).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126329683).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126330863).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126331783).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126332953).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126334093).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126335453).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126336973).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126367733).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126369453).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126371073).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27126372283).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459132180).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459133170).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459133880).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459134740).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459135210).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459136210).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459136920).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459137390).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459138070).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459139030).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459139700).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459140500).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27459141010).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27636507632).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27636509772).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27636511602).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662539831).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662541261).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662542381).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662543581).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662544821).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662545761).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662547481).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27662549161).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27703237796).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27703238606).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27737143985).jpg
- File:Mickey's Royal Friendship Faire (27737145255).jpg
- File:Mickey's Storybook Express Parade (28995475124).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (18388890988).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (18572175762).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (18576658615).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (18578739071).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (22268858748).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (22467468551).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28189565323).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28299381311).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28299386231).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28520192870).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28727385051).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (28727386911).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (29354176112).jpg
- File:Paint the Night (29354179602).jpg
- File:Princess Garden, Festival of Fantasy Parade (15985885363).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Cosplay photos are a tough issue; mostly we allow them. At one point Mike Godwin, who was the Wikimedia Foundation attorney at the time specifically said that a person dressed as a character was not a copyright violation: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan/Mike Godwin mail. Now it's gotten more complex: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay, which the lawyer hisself admits is hard to follow. I'm going to read that as "does the picture focus on the inanimate character, as opposed to the person in the costume?" and in most of the cosplay photos, they are photos of the person doing the specific cosplay, rather than just of the character represented by their costume. --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GRuban: I was relying on this statement. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that has most of the ambivalent language in there. I don't blame anyone who reads that a different way than I do; for any five people reading that, I expect at least three different interpretations if not seven. But it certainly doesn't say "delete them all" or "keep them all". It's like reading Talmud. How do you read it, and which specific part do you think says we should delete these? --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete some Keep some Strictly speaking, these are not cosplay, as the costumed figures are the actual character, not a fan imitation. However the difference is irrelevant here. Images that contain only Elsa and not Mickey, Minnie, or other characters that do have copyrights are OK for Commons. The Elsa character and her costume do not have a copyright.
One might argue that the castle in the background of some is not actually habitable and therefore is copyrighted as sculpture, not architecture and therefore does not fall under USA FOP. I'd like to see what others think about that. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd argue de minimis for the castle in the photos I clicked on; they're mostly focused on the actors. But there are so many files here, I may well have missed the ones you are talking about. File:Princess Garden, Festival of Fantasy Parade (15985885363).jpg is focusing on the garden, which I don't think qualifies as a sculpture: I seem to recall a deletion discussion that concluded that flower beds weren't considered sculptures, though can't link to it just now. --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fun fact, the castle is habitable. There is not only a restaurant and a salon for kids, but a hotel suite up there as well. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I'm presuming you were talking about Cinderella Castle and not the parade float. Am I right? --Elisfkc (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- GRuban, flower beds are not subject to copyright in the USA; they are in some other countries. Topiary, however, is copyrightable as sculpture pretty much everywhere that I'm aware of. I didn't see any topiary here, but Disney does a lot of it and I didn't look at all of these.
- Elisfkc, yes the faux-granite castle. Thanks for the fun fact -- I've withdrawn my comment. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: I'm presuming you were talking about Cinderella Castle and not the parade float. Am I right? --Elisfkc (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fun fact, the castle is habitable. There is not only a restaurant and a salon for kids, but a hotel suite up there as well. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Kept: some and deleted some per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)