Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/02/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Not allowed Kyereta Pius (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Repeated DR. --B dash (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Несвободное фото MisterXS (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
we not use this image in any of project of wikimedia علاء فحصي (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
copyright violotion from achamel.com علاء فحصي (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
copyright violotion fro; page dahk in facebook علاء فحصي (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
copyright violotion علاء فحصي (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:14, 3 February 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) 17:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
{{copyvio|source= http://www.aeropc.com.br/aeroporto.html}} Py4nf (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://m.facebook.com/perrinegouletREM/photos/a.760278944140926.1073741826.760278160807671/761407850694702/?type=3&source=54, any author or permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
unlicensed and undated Touzrimounir (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 21:04, 3 Februar 2018 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:صورة للشهيد علي نور الدين الشاذلي.jpg: unlicensed and undated --Krdbot 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photos, not used.
- File:BauerFest.jpg
- File:Belén Peralta verano 2016.jpg
- File:Belén solapaOK.jpg
- File:Edu Ferreira.jpg
- File:Geena moore.jpg
- File:Leskereeere.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 1.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 10.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 13.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 14.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 2.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 3.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 5.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 6.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 7.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 8.jpg
- File:Pawan Jangir 9.jpg
- File:POSTER2-page-001.jpg
- File:Rasanravandi.jpg
Kulmalukko (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a work from the government of the United States (this one is), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:24, 4 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 07:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a work from the government of the United States (this one is), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 00:24, 4 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - --Krdbot 07:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
As a product of a software simulation package GeoFS it is unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:17, 4 Februar 2018 UTC: Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file: I WANT THIS FILE TO BE DELETED --Krdbot 13:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
as per COM:ADVERT Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 16:10, 4 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/florida-capital-realty-hollywood-3?select=Fxe4fkQgMVFO6MOwgOqtoQ --Krdbot 19:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
unknown source, possible copyright stolen Touzrimounir (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:24, 5 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: not own work: https://rvmirror.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/img_04011.jpg --Krdbot 13:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Herbert List (d. 1975). Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DenghiùComm (talk · contribs)
[edit]Following the previous request and unless I misunderstand, these pictures (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_images_of_Naples_by_Herbert_List) by Herbert List (d. 1975) are considered as "intellectual work with creative characteristics" and are protected for 70 years after the author's death according to the Italian Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941, art. 32 bis. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Who decides that a photo taken on the street to anonymous people is a work of art? Or a work with creative characteristics? Anyone who takes a picture make a work with creative characteristics. Me too. These photos are snapshots of daily life that anyone can do. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @DenghiùComm: Please note by the way that Facebook in not a valid source for Commons especialy when it's written on the link you provided that List belonged to Magnum, a famous press agency, which is supposed to hold the rights on his work. A basic research (e.g. Herbert List+Napoli shows you that some pictures put on Commons are still copyrighted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The photograph was taken in Italy and the italian law says that "This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92)." --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia quote in English : "Magnum is one of the first photographic cooperatives, owned and administered entirely by members. The staff serve a support role for the photographers, who retain all copyrights to their own work". Since it established in Paris (with headquarters in New York City, Paris, London, Tokyo) and never was an Italian company, I really don't see why Italian law should apply to works which are not "national works", according to the 1941 Italian law especially after having provided links proving that Herbert List's photograpies are still licensed by Magnum. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- That someone claims to hold the copyright, this does not mean that it is always correct or admissible. For example, Alinari does it for his photos whose copyright has expired long time ago. Because Alinari wants to sell her photos and force people to buy them. Here, for Herbert List's photos, the situation is similar. They are not as old as the Alinari photos, but they are not artistic photos but of everyday life in streets of Naples, so the copyright has expired after 20 years, ie in 1995. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia quote in English : "Magnum is one of the first photographic cooperatives, owned and administered entirely by members. The staff serve a support role for the photographers, who retain all copyrights to their own work". Since it established in Paris (with headquarters in New York City, Paris, London, Tokyo) and never was an Italian company, I really don't see why Italian law should apply to works which are not "national works", according to the 1941 Italian law especially after having provided links proving that Herbert List's photograpies are still licensed by Magnum. Yours, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The photograph was taken in Italy and the italian law says that "This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92)." --DenghiùComm (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @DenghiùComm: Please note by the way that Facebook in not a valid source for Commons especialy when it's written on the link you provided that List belonged to Magnum, a famous press agency, which is supposed to hold the rights on his work. A basic research (e.g. Herbert List+Napoli shows you that some pictures put on Commons are still copyrighted. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Herbert List (1903–1975) was a German photographer. Italian copyright law would apply if he was 1) domiciled in Italy and 2) the photograph was first published in Italy. There is no evidence for either of that. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This media file is missing evidence of permission 87.21.95.82 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Too blurred to be usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Not accepted Kyereta Pius (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 13:53, 9 Februar 2018 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kyereta Pius --Krdbot 19:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work Discasto talk 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed, this is no longer de minimis and requires consequently a permission through COM:OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
non-free, Franišek Kupka died in 1957 Jklamo (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: This artwort by František Kupka is still copyrighted. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Mario De Biasi (d. 2013), not created in Italy. Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep {{PD-Italy}} is a clumsy summary of the Italian Copyright law. Let us consult the law itself [1]:
PART VI. FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW. Article 185: Subject to the provisions of Article 189, this Law shall apply to all works of Italian authors, wherever first published. (Mario De Biasi was an Italian photographer, so the law does apply to his works, but we need to proceed to Art. 189)
Article 189: The provisions of Article 185 shall apply to .. photographs .. if such works or products are created in Italy or may be
considered national works. In the absence of the conditions above mentioned, the provision of Articles 186, 187 and 188 shall be applicable to
such works, rights or products. (This photo was not created in Italy, and I'm not sure if it is a "national work", so proceed to Art. 186-188)
Articles 186-188 are unclear about this photo, but Art. 188 states that The duration of protection of a foreign work shall in no case exceed that enjoyed by the work in the State of which the foreign author is a national. (De Biasi is Italian, and I argue that this photo is a "simple photograph" and does not involve "photographic art". For the protection term we need to consult CHAPTER V. Rights in Photographs)
Article 192: The exclusive right in respect of photographs shall subsist for 20 years from the making of the photograph. (Death year of the author is irrelevant for this law). Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why should we consult Italian law at all? COM:L says "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." De Biasi being Italian is irrelevant for Commons purposes; where was it first published?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why? Because this is a work by an Italian photographer employed by the Italian magazine Epoca. The magazine was owned by the Italian company Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, which is mentioned in the source credits. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, you didn't mention anything about publication there. Do we have any idea where and when it was first published, or are we assuming it must have been in the magazine instead of being an unused photo that got sold to other markets?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have no information on first publication, but this is not required, because the Italian copyright applies to "all works of Italian authors, wherever first published", see quote from Art. 185 above. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- And COM:L says "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." If this was first published in France, it's life+70 in its country of origin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have no information on first publication, but this is not required, because the Italian copyright applies to "all works of Italian authors, wherever first published", see quote from Art. 185 above. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, you didn't mention anything about publication there. Do we have any idea where and when it was first published, or are we assuming it must have been in the magazine instead of being an unused photo that got sold to other markets?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why? Because this is a work by an Italian photographer employed by the Italian magazine Epoca. The magazine was owned by the Italian company Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, which is mentioned in the source credits. Materialscientist (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Prosfilaes: file was created in Switzerland, not France during the Geneva Summit of 1955. Nevertheless since it's a cropped version of this file, I'm not sure PD-Switzerland-photo can apply (is there a "choice of framing, the use of camera settings" or just a "point-and-click" ?). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but "creation" is almost completely irrelevant here, for COM:L and the rule of the shorter term; the important factor is publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Prosfilaes: file was created in Switzerland, not France during the Geneva Summit of 1955. Nevertheless since it's a cropped version of this file, I'm not sure PD-Switzerland-photo can apply (is there a "choice of framing, the use of camera settings" or just a "point-and-click" ?). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. It was published in an Italian magazine so in PD-Italy--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Pierpao: if you know something about the country and medium where this photo has been published first (if it has been published one day), please tell us because no one has been able to provide these informations. Regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Patrick, please re-read my analysis or the Italian law above. PD-Italy does apply to all works of Italian authors, wherever first published. You argue that if their their works were 1st published outside Italy then the publisher may present an alternative copyright claim, and this is reflected in articles 186-189. Such claims can be submitted for any original image hosted on Commons, but they must be justified. Merely stating that there may be an alternative copyright claim is not sufficient for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- PD-Italy does not apply to all works of Italian authors, wherever first published. The underlying claim in the Italian copyright law might, but the Commons tag only applies to works first published in Italy, because Italian law about works first published outside Italy is completely irrelevant to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- "The underlying claim in the Italian copyright law" = "Italian copyright law". That law is written by professionals. Our templates are merely summaries of laws rewritten by volunteers. They are not always accurate, especially when translated. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what Italian copyright law says about works not first published in Italy (or within 30 days, which is generally considered simultaneous) for PD-Italy. PD-Italy is a Commons template, and is bound first and foremost by Commons rules; it covers works published in Italy, because for Commons purposes, Italian law is irrelevant for works not published in Italy. We may as well say PD-Ethiopia says this is out of copyright, which is in Ethiopia, but we don't care.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- We are dealing with an Italian author, working for an Italian magazine, and producing a large number of images that are all licensed by an Italian publisher on Getty [2]. We don't have publishing details, which is the case for most historical images hosted on Commons, and hence can apply a law of any country, but it is reasonable to assume that the work originates from Italy, and thus PD-Italy applies (then the image also complies with US laws). Reasonable assumption is the key of this DR - there is no sign that this work was published anywhere outside Italy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Historical images on Commons are rare enough it's hard to find examples with Random file, but I actually think we do have publishing details for most of them, or they're old enough to be safely out of copyright. We are dealing with a photo taken in Switzerland of a French minister and applying a 20 year from creation copyright term; I think there's good reason not to grab it from Getty and assume it's PD without knowing where and preferably when it was first published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- We are dealing with an Italian author, working for an Italian magazine, and producing a large number of images that are all licensed by an Italian publisher on Getty [2]. We don't have publishing details, which is the case for most historical images hosted on Commons, and hence can apply a law of any country, but it is reasonable to assume that the work originates from Italy, and thus PD-Italy applies (then the image also complies with US laws). Reasonable assumption is the key of this DR - there is no sign that this work was published anywhere outside Italy. Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what Italian copyright law says about works not first published in Italy (or within 30 days, which is generally considered simultaneous) for PD-Italy. PD-Italy is a Commons template, and is bound first and foremost by Commons rules; it covers works published in Italy, because for Commons purposes, Italian law is irrelevant for works not published in Italy. We may as well say PD-Ethiopia says this is out of copyright, which is in Ethiopia, but we don't care.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- "The underlying claim in the Italian copyright law" = "Italian copyright law". That law is written by professionals. Our templates are merely summaries of laws rewritten by volunteers. They are not always accurate, especially when translated. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- PD-Italy does not apply to all works of Italian authors, wherever first published. The underlying claim in the Italian copyright law might, but the Commons tag only applies to works first published in Italy, because Italian law about works first published outside Italy is completely irrelevant to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Patrick, please re-read my analysis or the Italian law above. PD-Italy does apply to all works of Italian authors, wherever first published. You argue that if their their works were 1st published outside Italy then the publisher may present an alternative copyright claim, and this is reflected in articles 186-189. Such claims can be submitted for any original image hosted on Commons, but they must be justified. Merely stating that there may be an alternative copyright claim is not sufficient for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Why should we consult Italian law at all? COM:L says "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." De Biasi being Italian is irrelevant for Commons purposes; where was it first published?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law is clear: The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published. As we have no information about when and where this photo was published first, we cannot simply apply {{PD-Italy}} without having proof of a publication in Italy. Even if the photographer was Italian, employed by an Italian magazine etc. we are not sure if this was published at all contemporarily. Many photographs go unpublished into the archives. We must be careful here and also consider possible reusers who hope that we provide reliable information. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg Any decison needs to examine the quoted source File:Antoine Pinay and Konrad Adenauer 1955.jpg and it's documents Ronhjones (Talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and trout the nominator (I mean Patrick Rogel, not Ronhjones :-). This is a very different image with a very different origin and license. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Trout the person who uploaded a new file over the name of a copyright infringement, as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is a quick way to replace a deleted image over various Wikiprojects. Which policy says this should never be done? Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Trout the person who uploaded a new file over the name of a copyright infringement, as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist (different image, no copyvio). Ruthven (msg) 06:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
very low quality, also we already have tons of photos of Charles Bridge Jklamo (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed, this is of extremely low quality and unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Mario De Biasi (d. 2013), not created in Italy. Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- This request should be merged into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Let us keep the discussion there. Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the rationale of the closure of the other DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
copyvio, painter died in 2004 Jklamo (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am an owner of this painting File:Don Quijote, autor obrazu Miroslav Zikmund (1931-2004).jpg and I agree to display this picture on Wikimedia Commons. Malin
- Ownership of painting does not preempt the ownership of copyright. If you are copyright holder for this painting, please use Commons:OTRS.--Jklamo (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: This is still copyrighted and requires a permission by the heirs of Miroslav Zikmund forwarded to our support team. Ownership is independent from copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The golden crown on the top is totally disfigured. It should be a Portuguese crown, similar to many Portuguese and Brazilian municipalities SanSilva (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep @SanSilva: This file is in use in many places. Can you make a better version to replace this? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The correct design is this one Image:Bissau.svg. Now, if anyone can make a better quality image, feel free to do so. Emerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanSilva (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This is widely used and thereby within COM:SCOPE. Please feel free to use {{Disputed diagram}}, to use the talk page, and to look for a better version. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
repeated file File:南京地铁10号线临江站.jpg MNXANL (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This has already been deleted and turned into a redirect, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
not own work, copyrighted logo Triplecaña (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- The image has been updated, but I believe we still have to delete the previous version... Triplecaña (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Old version deleted: Appears to be eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Dubious self-work claim SpanishSnake (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Has been published before, sample. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Masum-al-Hasan 03:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed, has been published before. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a loop of Philippe (per the TCR). 219.79.126.199 03:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename - At the time, this was believed by the National Hurricane Center to still be a tropical storm. The nominator's cryptic "per the TCR" reason seems to be the Tropical Cyclone Report published by the NHC. I updated the file description to account for the TCR change of status. However, I don't think there's any need to delete the file as storage space is cheap and the file can just be renamed with "Remnants of" at the beginning of the file name. AHeneen (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Renamed as suggested, no reason to delete it. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Redundant. Superseded by similar image without the car on the front File:Richard Bigley building, on Queen Street East, 2015 02 01 (4).JPG - panoramio.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 10 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)
Too small size and blurred. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Doubful Can be found in 2016 : http://camilledefleurville.blogspot.fr/2016_01_17_archive.html and in many other places Drongou (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
from internet Touzrimounir (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Image was made for one-time use; no longer needed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Image was created for one-time use; no longer needed. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Violates fair use rules, having a book cover and the google logo. Further, fair use does not qualify for the commons El cid, el campeador (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not used on Wikipedia and low quality Bill Wong (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not used on Wikipedia, not useful Bill Wong (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe too non-focused to be educationally usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
An image of private photos. Not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
https://blog.derrama.org.pe/y-quien-fue-carlos-chiyoteru-hiraoka/ Tarawa 
(jo ta ke irabazi arte) 21:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation, compare the subject's Twitter account. If this is indeed released under the given license, we'll need proof via OTRS. Huon (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- An admin may also want to compare it to deleted File:Kiranraj K.jpg. Huon (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Redundant. Superseded by better straightened photo File:Sunset 20170515 172009.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Redundant, blurred. Superseded by sharper view File:深圳长圳大V沟越野20130128 - panoramio (9).jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not notable person. Superseded by similar photo without people File:Dhumpa Lake, Mustang 02.jpg. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948 and no indication that crown copyright would apply. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Riverelias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Suspected flickrwashing - these three files are the Commons user's only uploads, and the only uploads of the flickr account. Low resolution, range of quality: smells off to me.
- File:Warehouse in Etobicoke.jpg
- File:First Apotex Building.jpg
- File:Lab workers beside lab machine.jpg
-mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Lower resolution duplicate of file:F-16 Fighting Falcons taxi down the runway at Eielson Air Force Base.jpg Billhpike (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I only edited category, but it looks like a clear duplice to me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by عبداللطيف الشريف الوداني (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolutions and missing metadata (except metadata indicating the files were grabbed from social media).
- File:ودان.jpg – https://www.facebook.com/263782053663042/photos/rpp.263782053663042/1731002916940941/
- File:ليبيا.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Because I accidently uploaded it and don't it up anymore Sagrika14 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Charles Ortega (d. 2006), false date, not own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
as per COM:ADVERT - self-promotion Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gopi Films (talk · contribs)
[edit]per COM:ADVERT
- File:Gopi films 5.jpg
- File:Gopi films 10.jpg
- File:Gopi films 6.jpg
- File:Gopi films 7.jpg
- File:Gopi films.png
- File:Gopi films 9.jpg
- File:Gopi films 2.jpg
- File:Gopi films.jpg
- File:Gopi Films.png
- File:Gopi films 1.jpg
- File:GOPI FILMS1.png
Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CODE AND PIXELS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
poor quality - no educational value Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Masum-al-Hasan 03:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Has been published before (see here), requires a permission of the copyright holder forwarded to our support team. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a loop of Philippe (per the TCR). 219.79.126.199 03:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename - At the time, this was believed by the National Hurricane Center to still be a tropical storm. The nominator's cryptic "per the TCR" reason seems to be the Tropical Cyclone Report published by the NHC. I updated the file description to account for the TCR change of status. However, I don't think there's any need to delete the file as storage space is cheap and the file can just be renamed with "Remnants of" at the beginning of the file name. AHeneen (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Renamed and kept as suggested by AHeneen. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not needed TimDaEmeraldWizard (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Speedy delete CSD F8: scaled-down duplicate of File:GovMurphy-2400x3000.jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate and no proof given that {{PD-USGov}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope as an unused personal photo. Formerly in w:Jimmy B. Ahlander. —Cryptic (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
only text image + unused : out of scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Punjabi Music Media (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused logos of questionable notability : out of scope
- File:Punjabi Music Media Different Channels Links 2014-06-30 13-10.png
- File:Punjabi Music Media Logo 2014-06-30 13-08.jpeg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
small size wirthout EXIFs, unlikely to be own work Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused logo of unknown thing, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope as an unused personal photo. Formerly in w:Wikipedia:Noor Ahmed Panhwar and w:Noor Ahmed Panhwar. —Cryptic (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom. User is dedicated to upload their own pic. Note to Cryptic: Trying to look at my watchlist on an old mobile phone, I made an involuntary rollback, sorry. --E4024 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, the user's last remaining upload. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 12:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe this is own work. There are many his on Google with a much higher resolution Wouter (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Generalkhan (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:OOS as unused personal photos, probably for promotion of a non-notable person.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
COM:OOS as unused selfie. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/frenteblanquiazul1986/photos/a.550881848372730.1073741827.550877921706456/1292831604177747/?type=3&theater Tarawa (jo ta ke irabazi arte) 14:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete CR infringment. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
http://mapio.net/s/30704148/ Tarawa (jo ta ke irabazi arte) 14:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete CR violation. Tarawa: En estos casos es mejor {{speedy|motivo}}. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/frenteblanquiazul1986/photos/a.553222788138636.1073741829.550877921706456/1347591232035117/?type=3&theater Tarawa (jo ta ke irabazi arte) 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete CR infringment. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. — TBhagat (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bentriumph (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Bentriumph (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Les deux photos:
Je suis l'auteur de l'article est le propriétaire des deux photos elles doivent rester sur l'article. Merci--Bentriumph (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Caroline Abou Jaoude RP (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Logo.band.wiki.jpg
- File:Logo CB Versao CMYK Principal Horizontal (3).pdf
- File:Logo.bandeirantes.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 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) 17:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
copyrighted Snowflake91 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Românul 95 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Publicity images, no proof of release under the the claimed license
- File:Oficial-ve-80497.jpg
- File:Kodiaq-interior-01.jpg
- File:Kodiaq e 035.jpg
- File:Kodiaq-01.jpg
- File:Skoda-Octavia-2017-758710.jpg
Strainu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- +1 ×hlrmnτ 16:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
fake licence, taken from http://norway2020.no/features/ Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
copyrighted Snowflake91 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Previously deleted - "Green Giant (A) (talk | contribs | block) deleted page File:Colors TV.jpg (Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Not just simple text and shapes) " Ronhjones (Talk) 21:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a work from the government of the United States (this one is), missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jcb. --Jianhui67 T★C 08:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope Masum-al-Hasan 04:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: personal image from user with few edits, out of scope. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
out of scope : used on a user page, but the user is not an "'active contributor" Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yournewsboy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, no Exif data, fake dates in some cases – unlikely to be own work of the uploader.
- File:Mayon 2008 eruption.png
- File:Mount mayon 2014 on eruption.png
- File:Mount mayon on eruption.png
- File:Mount Bulusan 2015.png
- File:Mount kanlaon 2015.png
- File:Mount mayon January 23 2018.png
jdx Re: 09:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: User has continued to upload files of dubious copyright status. They are sourced, but it's doubtful any of them have proper permission. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of project scope due to bad quality? Taivo (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think, it fits into Category:Gas masks in art (whatever that category might be ueful for). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, doesn't seem to be within scope. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Casablanca
[edit]There is no FOP in Morocco sadly. The architect Michel Pinseau died only in 1999, hence work is not PD.
- File:Ad Doha mosque, Casablanca.JPG
- File:Ar Redwan mosque, Casablanca.jpg
- File:Bab as Salam mosque, Casablanca.jpg
- File:Casa didier55 002.jpg
- File:Cil mosque, Casablanca1.jpg
- File:Cil mosque, Casablanca2.jpg
- File:Darb Ghellaf mosque, Casablanca.JPG
- File:Hassan 2 mosque.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque, Casablanca 01.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque, Casablanca 02.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque, Casablanca 03.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque, Casablanca 04.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque.jpg
- File:King Abd al Aziz mosque, Casablanca.JPG
- File:Mosque Casablanca.jpg
- File:Mosque Hassan II (4697179258).jpg
- File:Mosqués Hassan II Casalbanca Maroc.jpg
- File:Mosqués Hassane II Casalbanca,Marocco.jpg
- File:Sous les arcades de la mosquée Hassan 2.jpg
- File:Vue Mosquée Hassan.jpg
PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Hassan II mosque is the only known work of Michel Pinseau. We don't know the architects of other mosques, nor their death dates, neither the year of building!!!!!!!!--Maher27777 (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'll do some copy-editing to the request to separate the Hassan II mosque from others, so that the closing admin could take your Maher27777 argument into consideration easily. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Hassan II, kwept the rest for further investigation. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Casablanca
[edit]The en:w:Hassan II Mosque was completed in 1993, while there is no COM:FOP in Morocco. The building or its elements feature too prominently for the de minimis exception.
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (30).jpg
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (31).jpg
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (34).jpg
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (36).jpg
- File:Fontaine Mosquée HASSAN II - Casablanca.jpg
- File:Fontaine mosquée HASSAN II -Casablanca.jpg
- File:Hammam, mosquée de Hassan II (Casablanca, Maroc) (15561659860).jpg
- File:Hammam, mosquée de Hassan II (Casablanca, Maroc) (15746509615).jpg
- File:Hasan II Mosque.jpg
- File:Hassan 2 Mosque, Casablanca.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - panoramio.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque.jpg
- File:Mosquée HASSAN II - Casablanca.jpg
- File:Portails mosquée HASSAN II - Casablanca.jpg
- File:Portails mosquée HASSAN II -Casablanca.jpg
- File:مسجد الحسن الثاني.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Casablanca
[edit]No FoP in Morocco, see previous deletion requests for this mosque: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hassan II Mosque.
- File:Fountains outside of mosque (23299474493).jpg
- File:Fountains outside of mosque flat cropped detail (23558331989).jpg
- File:Geometrical ceiling (15746482655).jpg
- File:Hassan 2, casablanca.jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Hassan II Mosque, Casablanca, Morocco (Unsplash).jpg
- File:Indoor fountain Hassan II Mosque (23843662651).jpg
- File:Inside the Hassan II Mosque (23817996542).jpg
- File:Inside the Hassan II Mosque detail (23926291085).jpg
- File:Morocco CMS CC-BY (15126537984).jpg
- File:Morocco CMS CC-BY (15127112683).jpg
- File:Morocco CMS CC-BY (15746510735).jpg
- File:Prayer in C (asablanca).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (10).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (27).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (30).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (31).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (33).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (35).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (36).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (37).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (38).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (40).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (42).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (45).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (6).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (9).jpg
- File:SOUR JDID, Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio.jpg
- File:The power of tollerance.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mosques in Casablanca
[edit]No FOP in Morocco. Guideline states that "for a work permanently located in a public place if it is not the main subject of the image, however, the Mosque (including its interior) seems to be the main subject.
- File:Mosquée Hassan 2 Casablanca,Maroc.jpg
- File:Mosquée M5 Casablanca.jpg
- File:Sultan Hasan II Mosque ijn casablanca (3).jpg
- File:Sultan Hasan II Mosque in Casablanca (1).jpg
- File:Sultan Hasan II Mosque in Casablanca (2).jpg
- File:Sultan Hasan Mosque in Casablanca (5).jpg
- File:Sultan Yasan Mosque in Casablanca (4).jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what this template is for Arnd (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Moin Arnd, it seems to be a French language DR: fr:Modèle:Suppression image. --Achim (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Asmita Koirala (talk · contribs)
[edit]All stamped with website address. Doubtful that they’re self-made.
- File:Women's League 2074.jpg
- File:Final game of women's league in palpa.jpg
- File:Winner team 2074.jpg
- File:Best goalkeeper Lila Lamgade.jpg
- File:Best Goalkeeper Lila lamgade.jpg
- File:Lila lamgade.jpg
- File:Taplejung Team.jpg
- File:Captain Lila Lamgade of Taplegung team.jpg
- File:Golie Lila Lamgade.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Historical document. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This image (a copy of a non-free image from en-wiki) is artisticlly coloured - it may well therefore exceed COM:TOO. Logo owned by Lego, so country or origin will be Denmark. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me fairly out of scope. JuTa 13:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal image. No useful description or categories. This image will be lost in our 40+ million images. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: personal image, unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:UNESCO publications
[edit]The periodical has been published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. However on page 2, it states that "The present licence applies exclusively to the texts. For the use of images, prior permission shall be requested."
- File:Fake news - ce qu'en pensent les journalistes.pdf
- File:Información falsa - la opinión de los periodistas.pdf
- File:Notícias falsas - comentários sobre um tema explosivo.pdf
- File:The UNESCO Courier July September 2017.pdf
- File:تطهير وسائل اإلعالم.pdf
- File:媒体净化行动.pdf
4nn1l2 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Procedurally re-nominating this deletion request under my name, so this file can be evaluated on its own merit, and not based on the nominators status within the community. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Procedurally re-nominating this deletion request under my name, so this file can be evaluated on its own merit, and not based on the nominators status within the community. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
i'll upload fixed version RijekaPhotos (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
ill upload more suiatable size RijekaPhotos (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: uploader request. --Hystrix (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: uploader request. --Hystrix (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
screenshot de un vídeo posiblemente con Derechos de Autor. Wiki-1776 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
ill upload once again better size RijekaPhotos (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: uploader request. --Hystrix (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
ill upload right size RijekaPhotos (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: uploader request. --Hystrix (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
DW, no permission for depicted object. It's also unclear whether uploader is photographer, so that there is no evidence of permission for the picture itself either. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably not own work (also uploaded on dewiki attributed to Cornelia Prager), also missing permission (OTRS) for the background image. Didym (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
fake copyright, the image is taken from the web https://www.nantes.fr/files/live/sites/nantesfr/files/Images/03-AVS/Equipements/equipement-sportif/Hall-XXL-770.jpg Snowflake91 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
not his own work, wrong licence Snowflake91 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
logos should not be at commons Snowflake91 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hardly to see where Pilar is, not a good image. 219.79.126.199 04:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. Description makes it clear that this is an infrared image. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The source website has a Copyright© message. The open data declaration (資料開放宣告) open some of the data in the website, not all of them Wolfch (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 「南部科學工業園區管理局」網站上刊載之所有內容，除著作權法規定不得為著作權之標的（如法律、命令、公務員撰擬之講稿、新聞稿等--請參考著作權法第 9 條規定）外，其他包括文字敘述、攝影、圖片、錄音、影像及其他資訊，均受著作權法保護。 --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete The source website's copyright license is not OGDL at all. It only permits "fair use" for personal non-commercial purpose of images/photos. --Wcam (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Wcam. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The source website has a Copyright© message. The open data declaration (資料開放宣告) open some of the data in the website, not all of them Wolfch (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 「南部科學工業園區管理局」網站上刊載之所有內容，除著作權法規定不得為著作權之標的（如法律、命令、公務員撰擬之講稿、新聞稿等--請參考著作權法第 9 條規定）外，其他包括文字敘述、攝影、圖片、錄音、影像及其他資訊，均受著作權法保護。 --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete The source website's copyright license is not OGDL at all. It only permits "fair use" for personal non-commercial purpose of images/photos. --Wcam (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Wcam. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The source website has a Copyright© message. The open data declaration (資料開放宣告) open some of the data in the website, not all of them Wolfch (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 「南部科學工業園區管理局」網站上刊載之所有內容，除著作權法規定不得為著作權之標的（如法律、命令、公務員撰擬之講稿、新聞稿等--請參考著作權法第 9 條規定）外，其他包括文字敘述、攝影、圖片、錄音、影像及其他資訊，均受著作權法保護。 --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete The source website's copyright license is not OGDL at all. It only permits "fair use" for personal non-commercial purpose of images/photos. --Wcam (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Wcam. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The logo seems to be above the ToO, therefore oit lacks of permission Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Cyclone Laurence I (2009) 2 days before dissipating (white whirlpool over New Zealand).jpg
[edit]National Institute of Informatics's images are copyrighted, see this. B dash (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
same as File:Bufo periglenes1.jpg Termininja (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- They aren't the same. File:Bufo periglenes2.jpg is a retouched version with dust spots removed. dllu (t,c) 14:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Dllu. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
i hate this file Panhwar 11:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
delete it now becouse Panhwar 11:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload; out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
DW rather than own work. No source for the base map. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: This is a simple map outline. Per COM:DW: Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable.. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Renominating after consulting with closing admin. Apparently closing admin is unfamiliar with the complexity of en:map projection. This image is not 'simple facts'. Maps are copyrighted. The earth is more or less spherical, while maps are flat. Map makers have to make several choices to bring the advantages and disadvantages of several approaches (e.g. constant angle, constant distance) in a balance, so that the combination of those factors leads to a map that is the most suitable for a certain purpose. A map like this one is really not something you draw on a rainy afternoon. Jcb (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Means and methods of map making are not the issue. DW are based on the final result. Suppose this map was indeed based on a non-free image and we asked the author to redo it based on File:BlankMap-World-large.png, it would look exactly the same! So this is a simple map outline, showing nothing proprietary. As per COM:DW: The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. Moreover, the colors and look clearly match many other Commons maps, such as File:BlankMap-World-large.png, which means that this base map is already free. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- (As I already told you before) this is definitely not true for suchs maps, there is big variety of possibilities and there are many different results possible. See also en:Map projection. Jcb (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is pointless. The base map is already free, as I said above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- You claimed that the base map would be free, but you did not found this claim with any source/authorship information. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- This is pointless. The base map is already free, as I said above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- (As I already told you before) this is definitely not true for suchs maps, there is big variety of possibilities and there are many different results possible. See also en:Map projection. Jcb (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Both users are advised that this file was clearly derived from the same base map used almost everywhere on here, which could have been determined with minimal effort. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay this is one too many. There is already File:MiracleOfNature1276.jpg kept. The original uploader is blocked on Commons and the image may also be a hoax. Not in use. Rahul Bott (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I got an email by Rachel Kushner who does hate the picute. So I agreed to delete it. Haemmerli (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as this is author's request. Ankry (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on principle, since it is in scope and there is no legal requirement for us to delete it. If it was a private event, I'd say delete, but since this was a public event, I don't like us deleting one of the only images we have of this person (we have one other photo where she is partly visible in a panel), unless we have to. This is not a case of personality rights, but a case of courtesy, and that should be used in extreme cases and with sparsly applies. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Request from subject at OTRS ticket:2018020210009414. This photograph was taken in Switzerland - one of the few countries where consent is need to take a photograph. The subject claims "I never consented to being photographed. You can see from the looking at the photo that I am not even aware it's being taken." Ronhjones (Talk) 21:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- See Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Switzerland Ronhjones (Talk) 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- "It is generally recognized by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied for pictures of public figures, at least when performing their public functions or activities". This was a function where, from the description, she had just been "reading from her novel". --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as courtesy and goodwill. Yes, technically we have the "right" to keep it as User:Josve05a says, but why insist on this if the person feels so strongly about it? All meaningful uses of this picture have been replaced. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Info The other image is likely a copyvio. Ankry (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I uploaded File:Rachel Kushner 2015 (cropped).jpg as an alternative. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as courtesy since the new image is much better (this is my actual !vote as the piece above was just the request data by the subject). Ronhjones (Talk) 21:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
i will upload better version of this photo now RijekaPhotos (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, just upload your file. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Unclear if this is meant to be a "self-created artwork" or just a random shot with an essay for a file description. In both cases, per COM:SCOPE: unlikely to be used in a project. Takeaway (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. It's simply a random low quality shot of some wall, I fail to see any illustrative purpose. Note also that the file name has nothing to do with the actual image, there are no cereals in the picture. JIP (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
i will upload better version RijekaPhotos (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, just upload new photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
it's blurry. there is a better version in commons: 
Arnaud Palastowicz (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
without source Touzrimounir (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I fail to see any actual use for this picture. It's just some sort of statistics, perhaps intended for personal use. It's simple enough for the statistics to be typed directly as text. JIP (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and User:JIP. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
löschen diese photo Micic2017 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent unused upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Low quality DinaKuzia (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, alternatives available. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Lindsay Davidson (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, this is tiresome, and I’ve said about INeverCry/Daphne Lantier what I’ve wanted to say and honestly don't think 🤔 that they’re worth it anymore, but the proposer is WMF banned and this account is blocked as a “vandalism-only account” so they clearly never had any intention on reforming their less than collaborative behaviour. By giving in to their deletion requests we are basically inviting them back to Wikimedia Commons, if Russavia started this request and INeverCry saw it then they would've deleted it on sight as a “sock request” so why should we tolerate it from a user that has done the things they did, and then legally threatened a colleague? w:en:DENY is much more than he deserves and an established editor can request this file for deletion, but by accepting this we are essentially saying “INeverCry isn't actually banned”. Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Procedurally re-nominating this deletion request under my name, so this file can be evaluated on its own merit, and not based on the nominators status within the community. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Josve05a: already nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gogogolova – what yet another delreq for? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- This was created before that page. I'm merely re-nominating this under my username as to draw attention the image itself and not the nominator, due to ANU. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: on 20:44, 11 February 2018, by Didym. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Ceci est l'image d'un bâtiment récent (2017). Il est donc soumis à des droits d'auteur (en France). Nom du bâtiment: Tribunal de Paris. EulerObama (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 01:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Found the same picture in this 2010 forum post. Its watermark led me to Ahmed al-Toqi's gallery (original photo here), who seems to be the real author considering his photography style. In that case, the image violates al-Toqi's copyright. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably not own work but copied from the internet. F.i. here or here Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Small size and tilted horizon. In my opinion the photo is out of project scope. Enough better photos in category:Sunsets of Cumaná. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Logo unlikely to be free of copyright, or to be the copyright of uploader. Presumably belongs on enwiki as en:WP:NFCC David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Or does it fall within the definition of en:Template:PD-logo? Uploader may be CEO of the company. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I am the CEO of the Company and it falls within the definition of a logo --Rgould9 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. OTRS authorisation needed from the author/company. Ruthven (msg) 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I am having trouble editing this page i posted september 2014. I personally requested for a deletion so that i can upload the bestand newer version of my career.
Thanks
lovethpatra Ekufu
Delete at the moment: unused and subject does not seem to be notable. And deletion seems to be supported by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
this information is outdated. i am requesting a full deletion of the page including my picture so i can upload a new version of myself. EKUFU LOVETHPATRA (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 12:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy, not licensed by an Italian company, any proof that it has been first published in Italy. Perhaps public domain in the U.S. anyway : to be discussed. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist. Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy, not licensed by an Italian company, any proof that it has been first published in Italy. Perhaps public domain in the U.S. anyway : to be discussed. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy, no proof that it has been first published in Italy, work by Mario De Biasi (d. 2016), seems to be more than a "simple photography", to be discussed. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per @Materialscientist: . Mind, {{PD.1996}}} must be added as well. Ruthven (msg) 12:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Il s'agit d'un bâtiment récent (2017). Il doit donc être supprimé (cf les droits d'auteurs). Nom du bâtiment : 36, rue du Bastion. EulerObama (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + probable copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 12:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but shot in Paris, France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Néel 1970b.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louis Néel 1970b.jpg. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist. Ruthven (msg) 12:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but Paris, France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a real photograph with the photo agency stamp on its back. Printing such photographs can be assumed as publication, and the stamp says this was done in Milan. Also note the lack of copyright notice on the back, which complies with {{PD-1996}}. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
*
Delete I dont't agree : a photoprint from a negative is not a publication even if several copies of it have been printed. In addition evoking PD-1996 is irrelevant here since prior being public domain in the U.S. the photo should be public domain in the country of origin. The question is : is this file public domain in Italy and why ? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- See Commons:Publication: the distribution of copies .. of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. This is exactly what is implied by the backside of this photo. Note that this (US mostly) definition of publication has been widely accepted on Commons. Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- You're right. We can assume that this printed copy has been issued with the consent of the author, according to the Berne Convention. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 12:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 13:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mariajosebayubas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment Here we don't have any proof that the work was published in Italy for the first time or that it falls under PD-Italy whatsoever. --Ruthven (msg) 13:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- We have, the photo was published in Epoca magazine [3]. No evidence for competing publication. Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a personal image, can be treated as self-promotion. I uploaded it at a very young age without understanding the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. I want it to be deleted now. ShahedFaisal (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per request by the uploader. —Wuzur 07:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
same photo but different logo can be found in http://www.choiyoojung.kr/1 which is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 and upload in January 2016 Luvkpop (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, the file of another author Серветник Станислав Мар'янович, no Marta Servetnyk. No Permission. See also:
And see also: File:Портет.jpg - I doubt, for small size, photo looks like a copy of the old photo, person died February 21, 2017 (see), photo by Marta Servetnyk is made February 2, 2018.
Nik Deleter (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, see Commons:Derivative works. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dubious. This vocalist was born in 1944. The picture is probably from the 1960s. It's surely not the "won work" of the uploader, who appears to be too young if we consider the informations on his French WP profile and his profile picture. We can find several examples of that photograph on eBay, maybe on postcard and sometimes with autographs. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably not the uploader's own work. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. Source: http://kremenhistory.org.ua/ Олег Кущ 12:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This image is also on this website. Probably not own work and not in 2015, not sure it is in the public domain Shev123 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Missing legal information. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded an updated version of the file but failed to use the correct process - it being the first time I'd tried to do this. I'll know better next time. Roger Green (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletions. --Y.haruo (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Грешка в изображението Stefan Peev (Bulgaria) (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: the uploader requested deletion of page: author's request on creation day. --Y.haruo (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Possibly redundant to the svg version. B dash (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose - The current image in question is a much higher resolution copy than the original .svg image. If one image must be deleted, the lower resolution image should be deleted. Given the differences between the images, I believe that both copies should be kept. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - SVG is a vector graphic format (defining the image in terms of geometric shapes and not pixels) and therefore does not have a concept of resolution except insofar as raster graphics are embedded (which is not the case here). The .svg can be rendered at an arbitrary resolution, including a much higher resolution than the current .png image, e.g. like so, just that its nominal size is smaller. -- HarJIT (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- The lower default resolution of the svg version is exactly the problem. When the svg version is used in Wikipedia articles, it always shows up as a much smaller, or lower resolution image. Until a much higher resolution version of the map image is created and uploaded, this png image needs to be kept. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per BlueHypercan761. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Possibly redundant to the svg version. B dash (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - This image is a much higher resolution version of the original svg image. This image (and another one showing Boko Haram's max territorial control) are also currently in use in Wikipedia articles; the lower resolution images make it harder to see the specific details. I also created this image so that people without an svg software can download and edit this image. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per BlueHypercan761. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Image has incorrect license and has no info. I found the image here https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/blackwell/graduation.html, but it states "Geneva Historical Society, Geneva, N.Y.", which could indicate that the National LIbrary of Medicine does not own the rights to it. I presume it is old enough to be in the PD, but there is no info on creator. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation, the logo used above is former logo of an Iranian football club Vathlu (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Bogus license. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: there is clear authorship info (Creator:Elliott & Fry). P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The image looks like it was pulled from an official website, and there is insufficient indication that the photograph was taken by the uploader. Pitpisit (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
PD-Thailand does not seem to apply. Jcb (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: part of a series, clearly own work. Use {{Wrong license}} instead. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The name for this is the same as the reg local file. I need to update logo and re-upload this image LD2k (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not ever re-upload an image. If a name change is required, please use {{Rename}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused, inferior duplicate of File:2K Sports Logo.svg. Lordtobi (✉) 12:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, see: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France Brackenheim (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, see: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France Brackenheim (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, see: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France Brackenheim (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Description field contains a fair use rationale, but fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Some details about the copyright situation was given by the original uploader Alastair Haines. Information copied into the relevant paragraphs that indicate this picture was taken around 1920.Saiht (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Who is the photographer? According to the description apparently not Emery Walker. {{PD-old}} can only be used if we know that the photographer would have died before 1948. If the picture is from around 1920, that's far too recent to assume that. If we don't know when the author died, we take 120 years as a safe period. So if this would have been from before 1898, it would have been fine. But 1920 is too recent. Jcb (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: old enough. Author info has been updated; author does appear to be Emery Walker, who died in 1933. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The top of logo is a little missing, will not be used on Wikipedia Bill Wong (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not same image, taken over a year apart. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_041.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Better image is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_041.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_032.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not even close to same picture. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The same picture in higher quality https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vihorlat_031.jpg CaptainClawHE (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Images were taken two years apart and are not same image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. I'm not the author of the photo. Milan Bališin (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It's arguable whether it goes beyond the threshold of originality. Additionally, if it cannot be copyrighted, a CC license is pointless Discasto talk 18:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Threshold of originality. In red it is a Papaver rhoeas, already used with great war in this part of the world. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per above. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Although the text could be valid on the grounds of no originality, the logo is possibly under a copyright and therefore, this a derivative work Discasto talk 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine. Kulmalukko (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
USTCL images are copyrighted, see "© 2016 High Speed Internet Service Provider - Uscti.com. All Rights Reserved." B dash (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - The website has been bought out by another company (USTCL) in 2016. The original publisher doesn't even use that website anymore, so the copyright information currently on that website does not apply to the image in question. The original copyright info was that it was an image released by a US Government-affiliated organization. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, the original owner of the website was The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF). BlueHypercane761 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - The in-map attribution "Nate Peterson/TNC" suggests this map was originally drawn by Nate Peterson from The Nature Conservancy, which does not seem like a US government institution to me. According to their terms of use, redistribution of their content cannot take place without their consent. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per HyperGaruda. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
zwei zuviel Pianobits (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:Nativity of mary.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This is not the official emblem of the City of Doboj. This picture does not represent Doboj in any form, and especially not in the official. This painting was a decade ago a proposal that did not go to the City Assembly since there was no majority for its adoption. The coat of arms, which according to the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Srpska is the official symbol of Doboj, is already twice removed from commons.wikimedia.org - File: Coats of arms of the City of Doboj.gif Mister.master (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment See discussion about same photo, but in different format, here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb Doboja.svg --Smooth O (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb Doboja.svg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This is not the official emblem of the City of Doboj. This picture does not represent Doboj in any form, and especially not in the official. This painting was a decade ago a proposal that did not go to the City Assembly since there was no majority for its adoption. The coat of arms, which according to the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Srpska is the official symbol of Doboj, is already twice removed from commons.wikimedia.org - File: Coats of arms of the City of Doboj.gif Mister.master (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Commons's only concern is copyright violation. I see that Doboj does use image as its symbol.[4] -- Bojan Talk 01:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- if it's unofficial and/or proposed, then label it as such. It's not a valid reason to delete from Commons, unless the image is being used for intentional or unintentional hoaxing purposes (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbasid flag.png for an example of that). AnonMoos (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Move through Special:MovePage/File:Grb Doboja.svg without redirect—because the name is misleading—and then Keep. It appears that fr.Wikipedia heavily uses this coat of arms assuming it to be genuine. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)- Simply Keep – doboj.gov.ba seems to be authoritative enough. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Simply
- Keep According to official website of Doboj Municipality it's official coat of arms. See also article about this on Serbian Wikipedia (sr:Грб Добоја). --Smooth O (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![79 File:Portada "Solo con Vos".jpg](#File:Portada_"Solo_con_Vos".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2_days_before_dissipating_(white_whirlpool_over_New_Zealand).jpg){kind=link}
![192 File:"Перемога Данила Галицького над хрестоносцями у 1237р. під Дорогичином".jpg](#File:"Перемога_Данила_Галицького_над_хрестоносцями_у_1237р._під_Дорогичином".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§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
![23:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/02/03#c-Lindsay_Davidson-2018-02-03T23:24:00.000Z-File:Portada_"Solo_con_Vos".jpg){kind=link}
![04:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/02/03#c-Christian_Ferrer-2018-02-10T04:17:00.000Z-File:Portada_"Solo_con_Vos".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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}
_(15561659860).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(15746509615).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&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&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&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}
_2_days_before_dissipating_(white_whirlpool_over_New_Zealand).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2_days_before_dissipating_(white_whirlpool_over_New_Zealand).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2018-02-03T22:36:00.000Z-File:Cyrillic_Pe_-_uppercase_and_lowercase.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per discussion above. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Here we don't have any proof that the work was published in Italy for the first time or that it falls under PD-Italy whatsoever. Should be Delete --Ruthven (msg) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - published in France. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but Paris, France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - to have an Italian copyright protection, the photo must have been firstly published in Italy, and despite the fact that Mondadori Publishers is indeed Italian, there is no evidence of a prior Italian publication than the publication in Getty, itself under the American law. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong license. The file is eligible for copyright. No source, no author. Copyright violation? Taivo (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - it is above the threshold of originality, therefore we need an evidence that the image is 1/ in public domain for a specific reason or 2/ we need a permission from the copyright holder. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not with intent to delete this image, but to discuss a problem which is not restricted to this image.
7.5 years after upload of this image, the source was found to show a Commons-incompatible NC-restriction (no commercial use).[5] However, to some users it was known that in 2016 the source-site (norden.org) had changed their image-license from mere "attribution" (you mention the image source) to CC-BY-NC-SA. Unlike Flickr-sourced images, we have no record from the license status at time of upload (2010). Luckily for the copyright-subpage of the source, a archive.org-capture from June 2011 is available[6], that shows the former licensing (mere attribution). Regrettably, for the image itself, the only available archive.org-capture dates from April 2016[7] and has already the NC-restriction.
What now? -- Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
![[5]](https://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/images/events/nordic-council-session/2009/Fredrik-Karlstrom.jpg/view){kind=link}
![[7]](https://web.archive.org/web/20160410132201/www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/images/events/nordic-council-session/2009/Fredrik-Karlstrom.jpg/view){kind=link}
Deleted: per the COM:PRP, we'd need a license review to keep in my opinion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Every single one of these photos was uploaded to Flickr by cohærence * but contains a completely different attribution line to someone else claiming that they gave them permission. That is not how this works. This uploader needs to be blacklisted and every single one of these photos needs OTRS confirmed permission from the actual copyright holder. Not from a third-party.
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 05.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 06.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 04.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 02.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 01.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance 03.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V28.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V27.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V25.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V26.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V24.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V22.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V23.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V21.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V20.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V19.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V18.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V15.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V17.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V16.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V14.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V13.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V11.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V12.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V10.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V7.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V8.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V9.png
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V4.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V6.jpg
- File:AXIOM Station Back Angle Panorama V5.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - 2.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - 3.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - DeepSingh IMG 2278 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Amazon ActiveFires preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - AirTraffic preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - AirTraffic2 preview.png
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Earth Satellites4k preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - CALACADEMY preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - CARRIBEAN preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Ensemble Full IMG 2022 Fixed sml preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kenji SYNRA DOME1 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - ISS2 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - ISS3 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - OilConsumption preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - OceanCurrents Temperature2k preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - OceanCurrents Mediterranean preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Ocean preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - NASA CONGRESS preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - MANILA preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - MagnetosphereCover preview.png
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - MagnetosphereCover Logo preview.png
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - MagnetosphereCover crop preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Magnetosphere preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kristin Kansas IMG 2187 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA KenjiWilliams DenverMuseumofNatureScience preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA KenjiWiliams-Director2-Mori-017 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA Egypt FireVeilSun Kansas preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA OneWorld preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA Earth Satellites4k preview.png
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA SYNRA DOME1 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - BELLAGAIA Satellites preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Isstargetamazon3 4k Fulldome preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kenji Williams CTW2017 017 1209 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kenji Williams TEDx2 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kenji Williams IMG 6018 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Kenji Williams TEDx1 preview.jpg
- File:Bella Gaia - Kenji Williams - Music and art performance - Sphere preview.jpg
Majora (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- — Hi Majora,
- Thanks for the heads-up. WP:AGF Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The Template:OTRS_pending tag didn't take during batch processing. I've gone back through and done it manually. The uploader is in order, as are the uploads.The files were uploaded upon request of the copyright holder. An email has been sent to OTRS for processing.
- The same thing happened last week with files File:Keynote Overview – The Future of Spaceflight – Christopher Altman (2).png and File:Keynote Overview – The Future of Spaceflight – Christopher Altman (1).png. As you can verify OTRS has been processed and licensing confirmed as per requirements.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- This isn't Wikipedia. Don't use Wikipedia links. And there is no good faith when someone obviously uses Flickr incorrectly. We have far too many license launderers to deal with that nonsense. The Flickr user has been blacklisted and will remain so as they cannot be trusted. This was a clear cut case of, they didn't own the copyright. We do not take people's word for it. Second, putting three or four instances of of the OTRS pending template on every page only increases the work for my fellow OTRS agents. It's not cool. Third, the two images mentioned you took from a presentation. These you took from a third-party Flickr account. There is a different there. The presentation came from the direct source. These did not. --Majora (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't license laundering. The files were uploaded on request of the copyright holder. Your statement 'as they cannot be trusted' is entirely presumptuous and false. This shouldn't be an 'assume first, ask questions later' scenario; you could have pinged me to ask instead of haphazardly throwing up the deletion tag. OTRS licensing will confirm the files are in order. These are not from a third-party Flickr account, the files were directly given to me by copyright holders for the express reason to upload them here. I happen to be the Flickr account in question. Misunderstanding upload parameters when OTRS is indeed pending is a simple mistake, not something to get up in arms about.
- On a personal note that may grant some context: the keynote presentation is mine. It was conducted together with Kenji Williams and Bella Gaia, who asked me to upload the files.
- — Altman ([User talk:Altman|talk]) 06:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not up in arms and copyright is definitely something that you should deal with immediately. It isn't something that you "ping" and then hope that something comes from it. If you are uploading any material that isn't yours. Any material that you yourself did not physically click the button on the camera you should have the copyright holder contact OTRS. Unless everyone else can also confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the image is under a free license. Obviously, we didn't have contact with whomever those images belong to. This is to protect their rights and I will protect the rights of copyright holders for every image I come across. And the Flickr account is not being removed from the blacklist. It just isn't going to happen after this. The account cannot be trusted to be accurate for license reviewing purposes. As a side, note please stop marking edits that add hundreds of bytes of data as minor. They are not minor edits. --Majora (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- — Altman ([User talk:Altman|talk]) 06:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- — According to instructions on Commons:OTRS it's perfectly acceptable to upload copyrighted images with an OTRS-pending tag. No intentional policy violation occurred. Furthermore they aren't even copyrighted, but licensed under CC 4.0.
I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission statement to the address listed above. We require that owners make a clear statement that they release the image under a free license. To help prevent confusion or misunderstandings we prefer one of the email templates be used. Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia. If you have already uploaded the image to Commons, follow the instructions on Template:OTRS pending.
- What did happen is the batch OTRS-pending tag wasn't attached in the course of my upload as intended. I'm not suggesting that you contacted Kenji. I'm stating that I did. He as the originating copyright holder personally asked me to upload these files, some of which are sourced from me personally and from my presentation. I'm not some 'license launderer.' I'm the subject of some of the material, together with Kenji as the copyright holder who asked me to upload the files, and his musical group. I uploaded the files as per his request only after sending him the 'How to' OTRS permissions email, which is the same procedure we used last week with my keynote, for which no violation was implied nor censure suggested.
- P.S. I just noticed the editor defaults to minor edit. Updated as per request. Altman (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, and uploader should delete Flickr account where license laundering occurred in good faith. With proper source indicated and OTRS tickets attached, the files may remain on Commons. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstood, User:Altman is Christopher Altman, the subject of the photos. He unlikely is both author and subject, though all those images are tagged as own work. Some clarification of source and evidence of licensing are needed here.
- File:Janus C at Terlet.png
- File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.png
- File:AGSOL Spaceflight Training — Christopher Altman.jpg
- File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.jpg
- File:AGSOL Astronaut Training.jpg
- File:TU Delft glider club Christopher Altman - Janus sailplane.jpg
- File:Commercial astronauts SCUBA training East Coast.jpg
- File:Sailplane training Achmer field Germany.jpg
Ariadacapo (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The following have been restored per OTRS Ticket:2018020410005487:
- File:Janus C at Terlet.png
- File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.png
- File:AGSOL Spaceflight Training — Christopher Altman.jpg
- File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.jpg
- File:AGSOL Astronaut Training.jpg
- File:TU Delft glider club Christopher Altman - Janus sailplane.jpg
- File:Commercial astronauts SCUBA training East Coast.jpg
Files uploaded by Altman
[edit]- File:Christopher Altman – Spaceflight Training.jpg
- File:RSA Information Security Award.jpg
- File:Internationale Akademie Traunkirchen.jpg
* File:Keynote Overview – The Future of Spaceflight – Christopher Altman (1).png (edit: erroneous request)
As for the second batch of uploads nominated above, these images were all uploaded as own work by User:Altman who identifies as Christopher Altman, the subject of the photos. I doubt these are all self-portraits, and so proper source/permission should be given. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've been an avid hobbyist photographer for years; I'm partial to the Nikon DSLR series. I've been through several low-aperture f/1.2-4 portrait, zoom and telephoto lenses, tripods, shutter remotes, etc. I've been offered contracts to work professionally—in my last two research fellowships I doubled as the official photographer—though I'm too dedicated to my primary path to ever consider such a change. My sister shares the same passion—though she's partial to Canon—and her work has featured in magazines, professional exhibits and received awards. A few examples are available on Flickr.
- All but a few of my uploads were taken on my camera, with me doing hardware selection and setup, calibrating aperture and exposure, conducting pre- and post-processing, making any later corrections or adjustments on my computer in Photoshop, Aperture, etc. When my fiancée, in the course of documenting travel, training or adventures, so happened to click the shutter for a particular request, she didn't ever consider the results 'hers' for the aforementioned reasons. They were taken for the specific purpose of documentation. Hence the photos were uploaded as “own work,” and we certainly thought of it that way.
- Until we read the “three-headed dog” story on Majora's Talk page, we inferred the above rationale granted me ownership. But copyright law doesn't always coincide with common sense—or does it?
Reddit Photography: The person who takes the photo owns the rights. Copyrights should go to the creator of the work, it doesn't matter who owns the tools.
[Yet] There are other situations, for instance, when a photographer sets up a shot but asks his assistant to push the shutter button.
In that case the photographer—not the assistant—owns the rights because it is his or her creative output.
- Whereas we're now aware of the possibility of a discrepancy, we haven't yet been informed as to the specifics or the potential courses of action. Where is the line drawn in the latter description above?
- Whereas we're now aware of the possibility of a discrepancy, we haven't yet been informed as to the specifics or the potential courses of action. Where is the line drawn in the latter description above?
- Is the conservative procedure (a) to take the photos down and for her to upload them through her own account, (b) to transfer the copyright to me, or (c) to send permissions via OTRS? The latter is not so out-of-the-way, so we sent the requisite documentation to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org on Monday, Jan 29th.
- Is the conservative procedure (a) to take the photos down and for her to upload them through her own account, (b) to transfer the copyright to me, or (c) to send permissions via OTRS? The latter is not so out-of-the-way, so we sent the requisite documentation to permissions-commons
- Please advise.
- @Altman: The standard procedure would be for the copyright holder to send in the required documentation to OTRS. We handle everything permission related through there. As for the "three-headed dog" comment. That was supposed to be in reference to en:On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, a relatively common saying that boils down to "we don't take your word for it". I probably didn't phrase myself in the best way when I said that.
As for copyright law not always making sense, it really really doesn't. There is no "bystander" exception in US copyright law (other countries actually are ahead of the US in this regard and have modified their laws to include exceptions). So, since copyright attaches upon creation in the US and the US recognizes the person taking the photo as the one whose creative input deserves copyright it can often lead to a lot of confusion when we tell people that they don't actually own the copyright to their images. Since you sent in the documentation you should have received an automated email with a ticket number. If you want to give me that number I can take a look at the permissions. --Majora (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Altman: The standard procedure would be for the copyright holder to send in the required documentation to OTRS. We handle everything permission related through there. As for the "three-headed dog" comment. That was supposed to be in reference to en:On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, a relatively common saying that boils down to "we don't take your word for it". I probably didn't phrase myself in the best way when I said that.
- – @Majora: Thanks. For general reference, how is Commons hosting affected by different national copyright laws, e.g. one that might incorporate a bystander clause? Many of my photos were taken outside the United States, for example. Also, how often are you tasked to address the following scenario?
"There are other situations, for instance, when a photographer sets up a shot but asks his assistant to push the shutter button. In that case the photographer—not the assistant—owns the rights because it is his or her creative output."
- Mahalo nui loa,
- — Altman (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- – @Majora: Thanks. For general reference, how is Commons hosting affected by different national copyright laws, e.g. one that might incorporate a bystander clause? Many of my photos were taken outside the United States, for example. Also, how often are you tasked to address the following scenario?
May we have similar authorization for remaining files File:Keynote Overview Effect.png, File:Keynote.png and File:Keynote (2).jpg please. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- @Ariadacapo: Roger Wilco. Forwarding now. When will the tag be removed from File:NASA_Quantum_Future_Technologies_Conference.jpg ; it's now properly sourced, correct? Thanks – Altman (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for your cooperation. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ariadacapo: Thanks for clarifying policy; it makes things simpler around here.
- @Majora: was File:Sailplane training Achmer field Germany.jpg intended to be restored as well? It was included in the permissions email. Thanks for help in restoring.
- – Altman (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That one was in the last ticket I'm working on. There is a slight issue with the background image in two of them (File:Keynote Overview Effect.png and File:Keynote.png). It will probably have to be cropped out but I'm double checking. You can't take a photo of an image unless that image itself is also under an acceptable license. Since it creates a derivative work. Oh and I must have missed the last question. Sorry about that. China is an example of a country that has a sort of bystander law (not stated directly) that applies if the other person is truly anonymous. The catch is the anonymous nature of the person taking the photo. Article 13 of China's copyright law is in play in that situation. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Majora: Thanks. That shouldn't be too hard because my keynote used looped video and imagery from Kenji Williams and Bella Gaia. Kenji already granted me lifetime licensing rights on his works; he sent an email to OTRS for the uploads I posted a couple of weeks back. Let me know if he needs to send another one for this specific purpose. Thanks — Altman (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ariadacapo: @Majora: With correct licensing information now received and OTRS in place, may the red tags be removed from the up-to-date licensed files, e.g. File:RSA_Information_Security_Award.jpg? Thanks for your help in getting these sorted. — Altman (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- The closing admin has a script that does all that. No need to do it manually. --Majora (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ariadacapo: @Majora: With correct licensing information now received and OTRS in place, may the red tags be removed from the up-to-date licensed files, e.g. File:RSA_Information_Security_Award.jpg? Thanks for your help in getting these sorted. — Altman (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Majora: Thanks. That shouldn't be too hard because my keynote used looped video and imagery from Kenji Williams and Bella Gaia. Kenji already granted me lifetime licensing rights on his works; he sent an email to OTRS for the uploads I posted a couple of weeks back. Let me know if he needs to send another one for this specific purpose. Thanks — Altman (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That one was in the last ticket I'm working on. There is a slight issue with the background image in two of them (File:Keynote Overview Effect.png and File:Keynote.png). It will probably have to be cropped out but I'm double checking. You can't take a photo of an image unless that image itself is also under an acceptable license. Since it creates a derivative work. Oh and I must have missed the last question. Sorry about that. China is an example of a country that has a sort of bystander law (not stated directly) that applies if the other person is truly anonymous. The catch is the anonymous nature of the person taking the photo. Article 13 of China's copyright law is in play in that situation. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: files now have valid OTRS permissions. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
No permission from VASKAF. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Not created in Italy but France. Any proof that it has been first published in Italy so any reason for Italian law to apply. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
{{vd}}Here we don't have any proof that the work was published in Italy for the first time or that it falls under PD-Italy whatsoever. We need more information about how/when Mondadori's collection was acquired/made. --Ruthven (msg) 13:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)- Keep. Per [8] this photo was published in magazine Grazia. I see no evidence of competing publication. Materialscientist (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I change then my opinion for Keep, given what Materialscientist wrote above. --Ruthven (msg) 12:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I change then my opinion for
Kept: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Prior to the date of upload, this photo was in use on subject's Twitter account [9]. No evidence has been provided it was correctly licensed, or that permission by the owner was granted for use. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- The picture was purchased by the subject, Han Jin, from the photographer for use anywhere online. Unsure how to make that clear using Creative Commons guidelines.User:Emailgb123
Deleted: COM:OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
1957 Publicity still for the Maigret series by Röhnert/ullstein bild, unlikely to have been created/belong to Archivio Storico Città di Torino. Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine. Main building's authors died in 1958 and 1961, the suburban station (the one with the clock-tower) was built in 1954—1955, and southern station (the bluish building) and northern platforms building are relatively recent. --BaseSat (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- File:Estacion Central (8686970062).jpg
- File:Kiev - train station inside.jpg
- File:Kiev 094.jpg
- File:Kiev 095.jpg
- File:Kiev 096.jpg
- File:Kiev 097.jpg
- File:Kiev 098.jpg
- File:Kiev 099.jpg
- File:Kiev 100.jpg
- File:Kiev 101.jpg
- File:Kiev 102.jpg
- File:Kiev 103.jpg
- File:Kiev 108.jpg
- File:Kiev 109.jpg
- File:Kiev 111.jpg
- File:KIEV CENTRAL STATION UKRAINE SEP 2013 (9971184585).jpg
- File:Kiev Passenger Railway Station (11386540224).jpg
- File:Kiev Passenger Railway Station (8600773185).jpg
- File:Kiev Passenger Railway Station Interior (11386355366).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station 2 7 06.JPG
- File:Kiev-Passazhirskiy railway station, Kiev, Ukraine.jpg
File:Kiev7938.JPG- File:Kiew HBF 01.JPG
- File:Kiew HBF 02.JPG
- File:Kiew HBF 03.JPG
- File:Kyiv - Railway Station.JPG
- File:Kyiv Central Railway Station Front View.jpg
- File:Вокзал залізничний 001.jpg
- File:Вокзал залізничний 4.jpg
- File:Вокзал станции Киев-Пассажирский - 2.jpg
- File:Вокзал станции Киев-Пассажирский.jpg
- File:Київ - Вокзал DSC 5413.JPG
- File:Південний вокзал станції Київ-Пасажирський.jpg
- File:Південний вокзал, Київ.jpg
- File:Південний залізничний вокзал.jpg
File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 2.jpgFile:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 5.jpg- File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев.jpg
- File:Приміський вокзал ст. Київ-Пасажирський.jpg
- File:Центральний залізничний вокзал, Київ.jpg
.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}
BaseSat (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep File:Kyiv - Railway Station.JPG - panoramic view of neighbourhoods of station; File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 2.jpg, File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 5.jpg, File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев.jpg - photos of square, not station building.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep По зданию Пригородного вокзала File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 2.jpg, File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 5.jpg, File:Kiev7938.JPG. По нему есть разрешение от Елены Масленковой — дочери архитектора Игоря Масленкова, соавтора станции метро «Вокзальная» и здания Пригородного вокзала --AMY (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- А башню с часами тоже он строил?--Anatoliy (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Да, он официально соавтор всего здания наземного вестибюля станции метро и пригородного вокзала --AMY (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- А башню с часами тоже он строил?--Anatoliy (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep On principle. There are too many links here for the reader to realistically look at. I am not going to spend two hours checking each one and writing opinions about them. A gallery would help, as well as limiting a DR to under 12 images at a time, unless all were blatant copyright problems with no doubt (such as when we put an ensure account contribution's up for deletion, or an entire category). These overly large bulk DRs are a pain in the neck and ensure that only the "hard core" members of our community might express their views, or the odd individual expressing a view on one picture and not bothering to look at the rest. It's a bad process.
- Frankly, I'm really tired of these no-FoP related marginal deletion requests based on thin law with neither complainant, nor the state showing any intention in the last 50 years of stopping anyone from publishing their holiday photos, or even putting professional photos on the front of magazines or post-cards. I am not saying that the rationale is incorrect but I do believe these are pointy liminal technical deletions when buildings are as well photographed, published and as unremarkable as this. Were there a legal case precedent, or an architect or state department that cared, this would be entirely different for me. Show me a small sign of any sort that an architect cares about their additions to the building being freely photographed, and I would vote to delete immediately. --Fæ (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Моя фотография - Kiev7938.JPG - была загружена в рамках украинской части конкурса "Вики любит памятники" с использованием соотстветствующего загрузочного шаблона. Информацию о загрузке именно в рамках конкурса можно увидеть на странице этой фотографии. Украинская сторона в лице жюри конкурса не предъявила никаких претензий к фотографии. Я искренне не понимаю, почему претензии возникают сейчас. Мне кажется, логично для начала обратиться с претензиями к тем людям, которые отвечали за формирование конкурсных (загрузочных) списков, а не к юзерам, которые руководствовались этими списками, отправляя фотографии на конкурс. Пишу уже второй подобный комментарий, первый был здесь: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Simferopol_Railway_Station "Вчера газовая камера, сегодня газовая камера - голова начинает болеть" (с) Жванецкий Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: It's the law -- if you don't like it, change the law. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 2.jpg, File:Привокзальная площадь, Киев - 5.jpg, File:Kiev7938.JPG have permission from architect, so I restore them.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine.
- File:Kiev Railway Station.jpg
- File:Solom'yans'kyi district, Kiev, Ukraine - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Вокзал залізничний 2.jpg
- File:Вокзал залізничний 3.jpg
- File:Вокзал залізничний Київ Вокзальна пл.JPG
- File:Вокзал Киев с запада.JPG
- File:Вокзал Киев-Пассажирский.JPG
- File:Вокзальна пл. DSC 0665.JPG
- File:Вокзальна площа. Київ.JPG
- File:Вокзальна площа. Початок березня 2016.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Kulmalukko (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Kyiv-Pasazhyrskyi_Railway_Station: no FOP in Ukraine.
- File:2016 Київ (2).jpg
- File:KIEV CENTRAL STATION UKRAINE SEP 2013 (10044298545).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (6).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (8).jpg
- File:Kiev railway station. August 2012 - panoramio (9).jpg
- File:Kiev Trainstation bb - panoramio.jpg
- File:KiewPassaschyrskyBahnhofFront.jpg
- File:KiewPassaschyrskyBahnhofHalle.jpg
- File:Kyiv-Pasazhyrskyi Railway Station by night.jpg
- File:Вокзал IMG 3894.jpg
- File:Вокзальна пл. DSCF6160.JPG
- File:Київ - Вокзальна пл. DSC 2237.JPG
- File:Київ, Вокзальна пл., Вокзал залізничний.jpg
.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}
Kulmalukko (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep "The current Central Station building was constructed in 1927-1932 and designed by O. Verbytskyi. It was built in the style of Ukrainian Baroque with some elements of Constructivism. The Central Station building is designated as the Landmark of Architecture, numbered 193". Kiev-Pasazhyrskyi_railway_station--Сарапулов (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- So what? A. M. Verbitsky died on November 9, 1958. --Insider (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- 2028? I will not live so much!--Сарапулов (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- So what? A. M. Verbitsky died on November 9, 1958. --Insider (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Poster by Theo Matejko
[edit]According to URAA these posters are still copyrighted in the USA.
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment AFAIK this file may be undeleted on 1st January 2019. --jdx Re: 20:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- File:Matejko, Fridericus, 1936.jpg
- File:Matejko, Grosser Preis von Deutschland, 1934.jpg
- File:Matejko, Hilf auch du mit, 1941.jpg
- File:Matejko, NS Fliegerkorps.jpg
- File:Matejko, Populations ..., 1940.jpg
- File:Matejko, Populations ..., 1940a.jpg
jdx Re: 20:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Where did you find that information?
- On URAA I found no specifics.
- On http://cocatalog.loc.gov I couldn't find any entries regarding Matejko Theo. --MScharwies (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MScharwies: In 1996 ("URAA date") these works were still copyrighted in Germany (death year+70) – see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. --jdx Re: 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- But as you can see in de:Matejko Theo he died in 1946! That means the 70 years expired in 2016. --MScharwies (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. So these works are in PD in countries where death year+70 rule is applicable. But in 1996 they were copyrighted in the country of origin (Germany) and this means that according to the URAA they are still copyrighted in the USA – publication date+95 rule applies. Although I'm not a copyright law guru. --jdx Re: 16:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- But as you can see in de:Matejko Theo he died in 1946! That means the 70 years expired in 2016. --MScharwies (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MScharwies: In 1996 ("URAA date") these works were still copyrighted in Germany (death year+70) – see en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Four-point test. --jdx Re: 15:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete We should add Undelete in 2019, Undelete in 2032, etc. on the DR as appropriate. Pursuant to the 1892 copyright treaty between Germany and the US and the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994, works of Germany get the same copyright in the US as US works, except for the retroactive dropping for requirements of registration and renewal for German works in copyright in Germany in 1996. Pre-1978 works are copyrighted in the US for 95 years from publication, and as per that treaty (and later ones), that includes German works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- So you consider nazi propaganda in occupied France (Populations ..., 1940 files are in French and were destined to Belgium and French occupied territories), which pictures necesseraly origin from French records (1940a was probably found here : https://www.histoire-image.org/etudes/propagande-allemande, the document is from Musée de l'Armée in Paris), must respect German copyright ??? Strange and unmoral idea to protect nazism war acts !!! This poster is very famous in France, used in many school history manuals, and I really strongly doubt these teaching reproductions were submitted to German permissions. The case is different for the others pictures, which are in German language and were published for German people. --Janseniste (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, they don't necessarily originate from French records; a huge amount of this stuff was carted back home as war trophies by Americans, and I'm sure the British grabbed their fair share. And how does that affect the copyright status? If there's major separate issues here, then we need to separate them, but not all of them are Nazi propaganda in occupied France.
- If you don't like copyright law, then change it. But I'm sure the parties that put together copyright law, that signed all those treaties all those years, did not want to introduce into copyright law ideas of bad and good, given that defining such things is very contentious. Either French schoolbooks were using the posters under France's version of "fair use", or they had a license (probably not from Germany, but from the heirs of Theo Matejko), or they were simply copyright infringements. None of which helps us.
- Is there any section of French law that implies these works didn't get a full life+70?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Yay for international copyright law. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
copyright violotion علاء فحصي (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Grethchen Jackson; F. L. R. Selley, Mayor of Hamilton Bermuda; Daisy Weichel, Public Relations DIrector of Boston's Statler Hilton Hotel; D. Collin Selley, manager of Bermuda News Bureau (12931778203).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright apparently is held by the Bermuda News Agency SecretName101 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Anvers 17 déc. 1937 Lismonde et Jacques de Wouters d'Oplinter sur l'Albertville (photo Léon van Dievoet).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work. No permission. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- j'ai l'autorisation OTRS ticket #2008120810012186sur cette photo, mon compte a été changé en bruxellensis~commonswiki.--Bruxellensis (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- With or without a ticket, it's still not own work. You added an OTRS tag, which was reverted by an OTRS agent. The fact that your account was renamed does not somehow justify fraud with OTRS templates. Jcb (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have received the autorisation OTRS with the pseudo "Bruxellensis" and now I see that you have changed my pseudo in Bruxellensis~commonswiki. The word "fraud" that you have used is not at all appropriated.--Bruxellensis~commonswiki (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody has authorized you to paste a {PermissionOTRS} template. Jcb (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have received the autorisation OTRS with the pseudo "Bruxellensis" and now I see that you have changed my pseudo in Bruxellensis~commonswiki. The word "fraud" that you have used is not at all appropriated.--Bruxellensis~commonswiki (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- With or without a ticket, it's still not own work. You added an OTRS tag, which was reverted by an OTRS agent. The fact that your account was renamed does not somehow justify fraud with OTRS templates. Jcb (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be the work of the uploader's ancestor per Ticket:2008120810012186. Please excuse the uploader's lack of reaction to single-user login finalisation. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The single login issue plays no role in this nomination. It's obviously not own work, but the image description page is still claiming own work. Jcb (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Please update this file with the OTRS ticket so we can close this DR. Thanks. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @P199: I applied {{OTRS Received}} because I am not sure, not being a speaker of French and not having time to consider everything right now. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @P199:
Done. I think it would be best if we had a dual-language template for the works of Léon van Dievoet to avoid future such DRs. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: now has OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Magnolia677 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Published by the Associated Press in the United States in 1937; not yet public domain.
Converted by me to DR, to allow for discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
[Copied from the image-talkpage to here)
- I made a mistake when I uploaded the picture, attributing the photo to the Associated Press. The photo was taken by a private individual, who "did not care to become a storm centre" and refused to provide his name, releasing the rights for anyone to use them. To my knowledge, the individual has been dead over 70 years.[1] If the photographer relinquished his rights, then the photo is, in fact, in public domain.
- The photo was distributed by Campbell’s Studio, of Grenada, Mississippi. Time and Life reprinted this image, in 1937, and it (along with another photo of Townes) became the first lynching photo to appear in the national press. Other newspapers later followed suit.[2] This photo does not violate WikiCommons policy, nor is it a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Túrelio. I haven't disputed an image before, so I apologize if I'm approaching/formatting this incorrectly. That said, I am requesting that this image(s) not be marked as Copyvio. As stated in the talk page, the original copyright holder of both the images revoked his rights, as he didn't want to be associated with them. That was in 1937. Following his revocation, Time Magazine (4th picture in gallery), Life Magazine (page 26) and an assortment of newspapers all used the images, and they are on record as being the first national images of a lynching, as such. Under these circumstances, if I understand this correctly, the images have been in public domain since that time.
- The history of these images is documented in the NAACP Papers, Part 7, Series A, Reel 13. It's also noted on other pages on Wikipedia. It's also known that one of the images was pulled from being a part of a major installation in NYC in 1955, but they artist did not want to image to distract from the other 500+ works. Even there, the photographer is noted as "anonymous".
- Lastly, I've also done a search through old copyright records (pre-1978). So far, I have not found any legal mention of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs)
- ↑ Amy Louise Wood (1 February 2011). Lynching and Spectacle: Witnessing Racial Violence in America, 1890-1940. Univ of North Carolina Press.
- ↑ RACES: Lynch & Anti-Lynch. Time Magazine (26 April 1937).
Kept, if this is really anonymous work from 1937, then we cannot be sure, that the author is 70 or even 50 years dead. But I found a better license: {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Taivo (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
