Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/04/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_by_Arnaldo_Dell'Ira_(1903-1943).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Tendaguru_Formation.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Split and delete something in-between please. E4024 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Images by troll were removed. --1989 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Vandal uploads. Block the user please. E4024 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Split and delete the crap. --E4024 (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, as image has been replaced. Also, there’s another way of just deleting revisions, see COM:REVDEL. RevDel should happen instead. Abequinn14 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Images by troll were removed. --1989 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Wrong file uploaded Alert5 (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Flagged copyright issue. JoRem47 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:03, 3 April 2019 UTC: Copyright violation: Not own work, a google search shows this on ESPN sites plus https://www.theitem.com/stories/gamecocks-rally-past-ole-miss-79-64,323157 --Krdbot 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Pure vandalism, LTA Yunshui (talk) please ping me when replying; I'm rarely on Commons 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by श्रेष्ठ भूपेन्द्र (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not OK according to Commons:Currency#Nepal. If old enough, more information is needed.
- File:राजा त्रिभुवनको नेपाली दस रूपैयाँ पछाडिबाट.jpg
- File:त्रिभुवनको नेपाली रूपैयाँ दस अगाडिबाट.jpg
- File:नेपाली रूपैयाँ दुई सय पचास पछाडिबाट.jpg
- File:नेपाली रूपैयाँ दुई सय पचास अगाडि बाट.jpg
Yann (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by श्रेष्ठ भूपेन्द्र (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small files without EXIF. Please upload the unmodified original images with full EXIF, or they will be deleted.
- File:Sun rise in Saldanda.jpg
- File:चामुन्दा देवीको मन्दिर सालडाँडा.jpg
- File:Saldanda Village after 2067 BS.jpg
- File:सालडाँडा गाउँको पिर्के पिङ.jpg
- File:Saldanda Village.jpg
- File:Sun Rise in Saldanda Village.jpg
- File:Dhorbarahi Tempal.jpg
Yann (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please delete those pics. --श्रेष्ठ भूपेन्द्र (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC))
Deleted: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Historical photos and book cover. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Nablus1927.jpg
- File:Arab bank1950.jpg
- File:Ara1945.jpg
- File:Darwish.jpg
- File:Jordan1906.jpg
- File:Jaordansee.jpg
- File:Palestine1956.jpg
- File:Palestine1924.jpg
- File:Palestine1905.jpg
- File:Palestine1946.jpg
- File:Palestine1940.jpg
- File:Palestine1948abd.jpg
- File:Ad&ma.jpg
- File:الكلية العربية.jpg
- File:Yafa1918.jpg
- File:Palestine1948.jpg
- File:Ram 1900.jpg
- File:Akram and ahmad.jpg
- File:Palestine -Ju 1933.jpg
- File:Tulkarem 1936.jpg
- File:Zeppelin palestine.jpg
- File:Libia - Bombardamento di Sollum - 13 09 1940.jpg
- File:Passfield-white-paper.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The files are various images uploaded by Osps7, in which his user page stated clearly that "[T]he use of images outside of Wikipedia is prohibited." Such restriction is clearly unacceptable to Commons according to COM:L#Acceptable licenses, which stipulated that a "use by Wikimedia only" restriction is unacceptable on Commons. Unless the user withdraws such restriction, the files will have to be deleted for having unacceptable permissions.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
廣九直通車 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello 廣九直通車 ! what is happening? Written on my profile page is just to try to keep the photo licenses! And the filtered images for deletion are free pics and they are my selfie! For the Wikipedia community, trying to delete it is a blow to free knowledge! I am shocked by your message and the nomination of these pictures for deletion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osps7 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- 廣九直通車 You have withdrawn the restriction on the profile. I hope to undo the deletion of images. Thank you. Accept my greetings :--Osps7 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Per Osps7's updated statement on user page.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- 廣九直通車 You have withdrawn the restriction on the profile. I hope to undo the deletion of images. Thank you. Accept my greetings :--Osps7 (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Issue resolved; no need for any further discussion here. By the way, I'm not sure where you have got the "230 files" from, as there are 161 pages in the nomination. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos Jesús Vitorino García (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Complex image from Shutterstock that is "not cleared for commercial use". Wcam (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- WTF? 这么简单的几何图画，可以很容易临摹得出来，你竟然认定侵权？开啥国际玩笑？ 社会我佩奇 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Template:PD-shape: This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. 社会我佩奇 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The threshold of originality for Sweden is low and the "IKEA man" illustration is creative enough to warrant copyright protection. --Wcam (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by VILLA ELISA COMUNA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lavalliere7 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No COM:FOP in France. Copyrighted work by Stéphane Cipre, artist's permission needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Love sanglé avec l'auteur de l'oeuvre Cipre.jpg
- File:Art sanglé monumental en aluminium du sculpteur Cipre.jpg
- File:255) Grace Kelly. Techniques mixtes. Sculpture en acier et plaques d'aluminium découpées. Pièce unique. 2007.jpg
- File:Love sanglé.jpg
- File:Vacances au bord de la mer.jpg
- File:Cipre artiste sculpteur installation fiat 500 go to ski val d isere 2017.jpg
- File:One More bois 3.jpg
- File:Bd-FISH-3000.jpg
- File:BD-Caddie-ART-7.jpg
- File:Bouët Cipre Palette WEB.jpg
- File:Bd-art-palette-monu-6.jpg
- File:Art sanglé 120 New.jpg
- File:Go to ski + Cipre.jpg
_Grace_Kelly._Techniques_mixtes._Sculpture_en_acier_et_plaques_d%27aluminium_d%C3%A9coup%C3%A9es._Pi%C3%A8ce_unique._2007.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Fotograf will wegen "gewerblicher Nutzung" keine Lizenz geben Mehlauge (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
_by_Arnaldo_Dell%27Ira_(1903-1943).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Arnaldo_Dell%27Ira_(1903-1943).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
perché questo è un pessimo duplicato del file:WAR MEMORIAL by Arnaldo Dell'Ira (1903-1943)(Guardia ai confini, 1941).jpg , molto migliore come chiarezza e qualità Wallwebe (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
_by_Arnaldo_Dell'Ira_(1903-1943).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Taivo at 17:00, 4 April 2019 UTC: author's request on creation week --Krdbot 19:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
_by_Arnaldo_Dell'Ira_(1903-1943).jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to have been released under a free license legally - uploader (under different accounts) has long history of scanning and uploading photos of questionable copyright. Hiàn (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(c)EPA/SEBASTIEN NOGIER, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Ronhjones at 18:08, 4 April 2019 UTC: Previously deleted file --Krdbot 01:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
(c)All rights reserved Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Permission has been given via e-mail by the author, Daniel Scherl, who can be contacted here for verification. -- Jim26 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim26: Daniel Scherl must send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Taken care of. Thanks. -- Jim26 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim26: Daniel Scherl must send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
There is an OTRS email received for “File:Obenreder_One.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2019040410000093. --Green Giant (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Obenreder_One.jpg” under ticket:2019040410000093. --Green Giant (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Permission received and confirmed through OTRS. --Green Giant (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vimraj Wilfred (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems Flickrwashing again.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
OTRS is needed for all uploads of this new user and artist. How do we know who he or she is or has a permission from the author? E4024 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. AshFriday (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This file is joke. It is cropped/modification of coat of arms of Montenegro. Article 15 of the Law on State Symbols states: "On the national symbols the Coat of Arms and the Flags shall not be permitted any correction, adding or modification." SO, THIS FILE IS ILLEGAL and shall be deleted! 46.161.80.114 16:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep In use. Fry1989 eh? 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)- Keep Ditto. Given explanation is not a valid reason to delete from Commons, and the image is anyway valid heraldically too. - Ssolbergj (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- KeepI don't get the rationale for removal either. Either it is a valid heraldic representation, in which case the above reason does not hold; or it is not the coat of arms of Montenegro - in which case the picture should be fixed (rather than removed). But in that case, we would need clear and focused information what (detail) is wrong. That is not provided so I see no reason for deletion. Arnoutf (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Pre-upload for undeletion in 2053 PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Turelio. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No acceptable license : copied from website without authorisation Zen 38 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
the publisher said I am free to upload it. --Viktorderek (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete website under copyright, need to have an OTRS. Olivier LPB (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- updated —~~ — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.188.143.250 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Ronhjones. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A vanity image of a non notable person. Commons is not a family photo album Richard Avery (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ebonythacelebrity (talk · contribs)
[edit]Blatant self-promotion, out of scope. Commons is not a social media site.
- File:Goddess Ebony.jpg
- File:Most sought after ebony.jpg
- File:The prosperity of Ebony.jpg
- File:Ebonythacelebrity the beauty.jpg
- File:Ebony’s beauty.jpg
- File:Ebony’s smile.jpg
- File:The many shades of Ebony.jpg
- File:Ebony’s Daddy.jpg
- File:Ebony’s Black & White.jpg
- File:Ebonythacelebrity.jpg
Achim (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
EXIF says "Bastien_Roux_Photographie", seems different from the uploader Ytoyoda (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"FBMD" indicates this is a Facebook download, also published at http://www.skipass.com/tests-prives/millet-neacuteo.html Ytoyoda (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't want it to broadcast anymore. Azitad (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; And file is in use, no recent upload. --Wdwd (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
this is a private image. It is a violation against privacy policy. Also, it has copy right issue. Azitad (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Original upload has no EXIF and presented as "own work". Dubious PD situation means we have to delete it per precaution. --E4024 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyvio made from this copyrighted map: http://my-favourite-planet.de/images/europe/greece/dodecanese/kastellorizo/kastellorizo-map-1.png Sémhur (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation without any doubt; perhaps a case of speedy deletion by criterion F9-Unambiguous copyright infringement (plus: area of Mare Lycium arbitrarily defined [= original research by user Τακλαμακαν]). ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not notable. out of com:PS. Hanooz 19:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
not notable. out of com:PS. Hanooz 20:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
out of com:PS. Hanooz 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by President.empire (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of com:PS + Commons:Deletion requests/File:مهندس مهدی منصور دولتخواه انتخابات.jpg.
- File:کاشمر (4).jpg
- File:کاشمر (3).jpg
- File:کاشمر (2).jpg
- File:کاشمر-دولتخواه.jpg
- File:کاشمر.jpg
- File:احزاب ترشیز کهن-انتخابات-مهدی دولتخواه.jpg
- File:مهدی دولتخواه .jpg
- File:انتخابات مهدی دولتخواه.jpg
- File:انتخاباتmehdi.mansoor.dolatkhah.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hanooz 21:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; likely copyvios. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
not notable. out of Com:PS Hanooz 21:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Selfie: not uploader's own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
not notable. out of com:PS. Hanooz 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by David Padworny, artist's permission needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Darker version of File:Brewster Buffalo Mk I, August 1940. CH1102.jpg with scratches Kges1901 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE personal image (:pt:Vitorfadul). Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Lack of metadata, low resolution and has borders - likely taken from elsewhere without permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikiarmyere (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I scanned this photo and it is Not taken from another place Wikiarmyere (Talk)
Deleted: per nomination; needs permission from author of photo that was scanned. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Already deleted as File:Dr. Tim Baker.png Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Ronjjones. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Image appears to be copyrighted. No indication from source page that this is licensed under a CC-Zero license; in fact, there is a copyright symbol on the source page. Aoi (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at the log for the file, it appears that this image is a reupload of an image that was previously deleted as a copyright violation. I also think it's worth looking into this user's other uploads -- they seem to have a long history of files that were deleted as copyright violations, and have a history of copyright violations on enwiki as well. Aoi (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. AshFriday (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Deleteclear copyright violation--Headlock0225 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: done by Ronhjones. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Unused table of plain-text that also has Word proofreading markups DMacks (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The table could be easily be recreated in Wiki Syntax. I support the deletion! Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Before deletion, it needs to be replaced in pt:Equação de Yukawa-Tsuno. --Leyo 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Leyo: I just replaced the file with a wikitable in its use-case! Regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Not sure how I overlooked the use. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Leyo: I just replaced the file with a wikitable in its use-case! Regards, Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal image. Дима Г (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No EXIF, low resolution, not an own work. E4024 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Migebert (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Genevieve ENGEL © European Union 2019, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mukesh Bablu (johar jharkhand news) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal photos
Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mukesh Bablu (johar jharkhand news) (talk · contribs)
[edit]per COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Personal/Private photo(s).
大诺史 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photos
- File:Ф.Я.Алексеев - Москва. Вид от Лубянкыыыи на Владимирские ворота.jpg».jpg
- File:Evgen111222.jpg.jpg
- File:Evgen.jpg.jpg
- File:Евгений.jpg.jpg
- File:Данил.jpg.jpg
- File:Презеднет Расейскай Фидерации.jpg
- File:Евгений Шкляпурдунский.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Mindmatrix 12:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
personal signature of student; out of scope Mindmatrix 12:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by مشعل عطرجى (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam/advertisement (Locked globally as span-only account) + Copyvio
--Alaa :)..! 14:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FantaPedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)" FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
PDF says "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)". FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gopikaradha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused promotional content. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. If deemed within scope for some reason, then verified permission is required.
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is enough of a doubt about the photographer, who might be w:Marianne Breslauer. Yann (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- From the exhibition Annemarie Schwarzenbach (1908-1942), self-portraits of the world
- Breslauer identified as photographer: Vintag.es
- “Undated self-portrait” – NYT - but Alamy given as source, but the last paragraph seems to be about this picture:
In one of the most famous images of her taken by Breslauer, Schwarzenbach, in her mid-20s, wears a fitted sweater over a collared shirt. Her hair close cropped, she stares straight at the camera.
- The 3 examples above were given by me at my own talkpage. The quote about the "most famous image" is clearly not referring to the image in question here, but to this photograph. The quote is from one of the examples I brought up myself, in the same NYT that quoted the disputed photo as a photo taken from Alamy. I am looking for an authoritative source to link the disputed image to Marianne Breslauer, but haven't found that source as yet, also not in the Breslauer Collection at the Fotostiftung Schweiz. Vysotsky (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This website also attributes it as "self-portrait photograph by Annemarie Schwarzenbach, using a Rolleiflex Standard 621 camera." She is in fact holding a Rolleiflex 621 in this photograph, but it can't be the one that took the actual image. The angle of the camera she is holding is way off the central perspective of the portrait. So unless she had another camera of the same type sitting on a tripod with a timer, the description seems to be wrong. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I think the attribution is wrong. In that time, the only way to make a self-portrait was using a mirror. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- In the coming week I will check some books on Schwarzenbach and Breslauer. I will report the outcome here. Vysotsky (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- The New York Times describes this as a self-portrait.[1] She may well have had taken this with a tripod and a timer. She may well have had two Rolleiflex cameras, many photographers use multiple cameras, or she may have borrowed one of the cameras. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies for repeating the NYT link. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep I checked three books with photographs by Marianne Breslauer (from 1979, 1989 and 2011) and found several photographs of Annemarie Schwarzenbach, but not this one. I checked several websites with collections of photographs by Marianne Breslauer (incl. all photographs at Fotostiftung Schweiz, but didn't find this photograph. I checked four books on Annemarie Schwarzenbach, incl. the 2008 biography by Miermont (German version). I didn't find this photograph. The Miermont biography included 4 photographs of Schwarzenbach by Breslauer, but not this one. This photograph is either a self-portrait (with tripod and timer) or a photo made by an unknown photographer (pre-1943) -unless somebody produces a reliable attribution. Vysotsky (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Vintag.es, the only source attributing the photo to Breslauer, is wrong in at least one other case: as far as I know, Breslauer was not accompanying Schwarzenbach to the US in 1937 (where photo no. 8 was taken). Vysotsky (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, you may be right. Thanks for all the research. Is this the photo no. 8 you mention? How do you know it was taken in USA? Since she was a prolific photographer, I wonder why we don't have any other self-portrait... This blog says: Schwarzenbach’s photographs offer unique insight into her singular vision. Best known, perhaps, for the images she captured of the Hitler Youth in Vienna or her self-portraits... Where are they? Any idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- The blog linked by Yann is published by Dazed, a well-established magazine – this increases its credibility. Further evidence of Schwarzenbach being known for her self-portraits is provided by the exhibition Annemarie Schwarzenbach (1908-1942). Self-portraits of the World[2] at the Museu Colecção Berardo, a museum in Lisbon. The exhibition catalogue[3] might provide a definitive answer. More intangible evidence is the similar look and feel of photographs of her, such as these, which could all be self-portraits. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- OK, you may be right. Thanks for all the research. Is this the photo no. 8 you mention? How do you know it was taken in USA? Since she was a prolific photographer, I wonder why we don't have any other self-portrait... This blog says: Schwarzenbach’s photographs offer unique insight into her singular vision. Best known, perhaps, for the images she captured of the Hitler Youth in Vienna or her self-portraits... Where are they? Any idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reactions. @Yann: I know photograph no. 8 was made in the US (in 1937, to be precise), because the photo is featured in the Miermont biography (page 218). The original photograph can be found in the collection of the Schweizerisches Literaturarchiv in Bern. Books are often more reliable than websites and blogs. The Instagram set is a laugh: the first photograph is not a photograph of and/or by Annemarie Schwarzenbach, but shows Ruth Von Morgen in a photo by Marianne Breslauer (Berlin, 1934 - collection Fotostiftung Schweiz, Winterthur). I rest my case. As to the photograph proposed for deletion: I maintain my position (keep) until someone comes up with an attribution from a reliable source. Vysotsky (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously, books are often more reliable than blogs. And yes, this Instagram post is wrong. Seeing the amount of disinformation, it is good that we have all the information collected here. Yann (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: as per the research by Vysotsky. --Yann (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Upload from apparent Flickrwashing account. The file metadata credits Mikko Hirvonen as the author (who is not the Flickr user in question) and contains the following notice: This image is provided copyright free on behalf of the BP-Ford World Rally Team and is for EDITORIAL use only. Any request for commercial usage. must be agreed in advance by contacting: les@nrp1.demon.co.uk, which states the image is "copyright free" but also imposes a commercial use restriction. clpo13(talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Samuel Wiki as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Non-free photo/not the work of uploader: https://www.istockphoto.com/au/photo/australian-lamingtons-gm177550209-21162773
Converted by me to DR to allow for discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment IMO it's not a clear-cut case. Image was uploaded to Commons: July 13, 2013. Image was uploaded to Istockphoto: August 20, 2013. The version on Istock, though claimed to be available in full-resolution (contrary to our version), is actually a cropped version of our image. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)- Comment This is the only upload by the user and is of very good quality but low resolution. High resolution versions of the photo is sold on stock photo websites attributed to the photographer manyakotic.
- https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-australian-lamingtons-image27739661 (Says photo was taken on July 30th, 2012)
- https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/australian-lamingtons-royalty-free-image/177550209
- https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/australian-lamingtons-109697687
- https://depositphotos.com/47216321/stock-photo-australian-lamingtons.html
- https://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-37688077/stock-photo-australian-lamingtons (slightly different shot)
- - Samuel Wiki (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, as the image on dreamstime.com makes it more clear. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marie Piquer Bienfait (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:PortraitEmilieJouvet.jpg
- File:EmilieJouvetencoursdetournage.jpg
- File:Emilie Jouvet en cours de tournage.jpg
- File:Remise de prix de Emilie Jouvet.jpg
- File:Prix reçu après la cérémonie "chérie chérie".jpg
- File:Prise de vue d'une exposition photo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, some photos have watermarks of different authors, even with ©, one comes from Facebook. Some small photos without camera data, one screenshot, one derivative work of multiple photos. Taivo (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not the entire article, only the photo of the museum of Santa Maria Island of Santa Maria, Azores 83.240.154.46 10:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You've asked to delete a user talk page, which is a page used to communicate with Carlos Luis M C da Cruz, but it doesn't appear to have any pictures of a museum on it. Can you be clearer about which picture you think should be deleted? If you click through to the file-description page for the picture, it should have a heading that starts with "File:". That's the name we need. --bjh21 (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to do. --Achim (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
not a true svg Antemister (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I would hardly call it useless for not being SVG. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- As a PNG exists, we do not need the same file with an *.svg, as long it is also only a raster image.--Antemister (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I created this file. File formats are not among my areas of expertise. I wanted to display this flag in a userbox using Template:Uir on English Wikipedia. The template looks for a *.svg file by default, but that can be overridden. When I saw the *.png file in the Commons, it had a tag asking to help Wikimedia by uploading a *.svg version. I searched online and found a conversion tool and used it to create this file from a public domain *.png version. I thought I was helping. It would have been much easier to override the file used in my template. Now, it seems my help has only created a controversy. I really have no idea what makes this or anything else a true *.svg file. As the person who created the file and as one truly out of his element with respect to this issue, I think it is best that I not vote to keep or delete. But I do think the decision ought to be based on a few things unknown to me: 1) Is the quality of this file better than the *.png that exists? 2) Would keeping this file cause a true *.svg version to never be uploaded, because it will not be obvious that one is needed? Conversely, can this file be marked as not a true *.svg in a manner similar to the way the *.png I found was marked to let those who really know what they are doing that help is needed in creating a true *.svg? 3) Would it be more constructive for someone who knows what they're doing to just create a true *.svg and replace this apparently flawed one rather than discuss the merits of keeping the one that's there now? Taxman1913 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really a problem or a controversy. SVGs can embed raster images (bitmaps) in the form of very long data:...123456abcdef5555555aaaaaa... lines (data: URL). If that's all what the SVG does, and the bitmap is available here, the SVG is pointless for most purposes (excl. your template trick.) Something in this direction can also happen with a TIFF consisting only of one embedded JPEG, or a PDF consisting only of one embedded image, no text or meta data or anything else with a potential value.
- Quick sanity test, while looking at the SVG in your browser press Ctrl-U (or whatever is needed for "show source".) If you see lots of geeky pseudo-English code it's a "real" SVG. If you see lots of lines in the same length consistsing only of letters and numbers and beginning with data: in the first line it's an embedded raster image. And if you don't know what's going on just upload it anyway, and let others figure out if it's a redundant dupe of a raster image, or maybe a brilliant SVG-illustration based on a raster image. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The creator should read about Vector graphics and Raster graphics difference and the file should be deleted as the main point of .svg is not in just creating a file but in it's vector content which is here present not. --BaseSat (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"This flag is fictitious or proposed...." why not delete it? Allsan44 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. @Allsan44: The file should not be deleted because it's in use all over the place, from ace:Surakarta to zh:印度尼西亚各省人类发展指数列表. As a matter of policy, Commons leaves defers to other projects in matters of inclusion: since those projects are using the file, Commons should keep it. See COM:NPOV for the official statement of this. The previous deletion request for this file was closed Kept for this reason. --bjh21 (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I have suffciently argued for the case in the Wikipedia Talk page of Allen Istalaksana. Austronesier (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Not a valid rationale. The flag is in use, and looks well made. --Auric (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deleting the file in use. --whym (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to change speeddelete to delete because it's a mistake this file is not a copyvio. The owner which is the association uploaded it itself!!! Zgeubleu (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Christophe95 how to prove that the uploader is the owner? thank you.--Zgeubleu (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019040410005945 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 14:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Elevage_de_poulets.png” under ticket:2019040410005945. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS ticket. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
same like File:Elevage de poulets.png the speeddelete procedure is obviously a mistake in this case. Zgeubleu (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019040410005945 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 14:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Elevage_de_poulets_2.png” under ticket:2019040410005945. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS ticket. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Image photoshopped to add a penis to a nude woman. Poorly. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete A rather poor attempt at an April Fool's Day joke by any standards. AshFriday (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No realistic educational purpose.--Роман Рябенко (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
See here --Alaa :)..! 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Brexit mural (Banksy)
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in the UK for 2D graphic works such as this (see COM:FOP UK).
- File:2017-05-09 Banksy does Brexit.jpg
- File:2017-05-12 Looking east-northeast across York Street - John Baker geograph 5417427.jpg
- File:2017-05-12 Mural 193 Townwall Street geograph-5417398-by-John-Baker.jpg
- File:2017-07-01 Banksy in Dover geograph-5446599-by-Oast-House-Archive.jpg
- File:2017-07-01 Banksy in Dover geograph-5446602-by-Oast-House-Archive.jpg
- File:2017-07-01 Snargate Street geograph-5446603-by-Oast-House-Archive.jpg
- File:2017-09-03 Anchors and mural - geograph-5545276-by-Ian-Taylor.jpg
- File:2017-10-13 Banksy Brexit Mural in Dover.jpg
- File:Banksy Brexit.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 01.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 02.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 04.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 05.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 06.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 08.jpg
- File:Douvres, Brexit, par Banksy (2017) 1.jpg
- File:Dover Banksy (34656221462).jpg
- File:Dover Banksy (34819337095).jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
clpo13(talk) 19:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Files already at DR:
- File:Douvres, Brexit, par Banksy (2017). Détail.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 03.jpg
- File:Brexit Mural (Banksy) 07.jpg
._D%C3%A9tail.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
clpo13(talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, to head off the inevitable "Banksy won't defend his copyright" claims, see [4]. clpo13(talk) 19:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, the only copyrighted item is the man who is digging the star. The star is in public domain, while the man falls into de minimis. --B dash (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. There is nothing incidental about the inclusion of the painting of the man. Showcasing it is the whole point of these images. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please delete (request by the uploader). The map is not up to date anymore (the Buto hypothesis has been rejected). पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markus Krantz (talk · contribs)
[edit]© 2019. Permission of each photographer needed via COM:OTRS.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- All photos are owned by the artist, who has approved them to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Krantz (talk • contribs) 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Markus Krantz: The website where they can be found is © 2019 so not suitable for Commons. Viktoria Tocca must send a permission via COM:OTRS with enclosed the transfert of ownership from Magnus Ragnvid to her. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. Hanooz 20:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by David Padworny, artist's permission needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Neo-Expressionism-oil-painting-by-David-Padworny-.jpg
- File:David-Padworny-Expressionism-oil-painting.jpg
- File:Impasto Oil on Canvas by David Padworny.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This was uploaded as part of a joke several years ago. It serves no current purpose, is not included on any current pages, and has been requested to be removed by the subject of the picture. Seanjib (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. Derivative image of copyrighted material. AshFriday (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. Derivative image of copyrighted material, not covered by de minimis. AshFriday (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. Derivative image of copyrighted material. AshFriday (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur
[edit]No FOP in Morocco. en:Paul Tournon died in 1964, undelete in 2035.
- File:Casablanca Cathedral Front 2011.jpg
- File:Casablanca Cathedral.jpg
- File:Casablanca Cathedrale Saint-Coeur (1).jpg
- File:Casablanca Cathedrale Saint-Coeur (2).jpg
- File:Sacre Coeur Casablanca Cathedral 2011.jpg
- File:Tower, Sacre-Coeur Cathedral, Casablanca (5281128696).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur
[edit]There is no FoP in Morocco (except in case of de minimis). The architect is Paul Tournon, who died in 1964.
- File:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur.jpg
File:Casablanca, église du Sacré-Cœur, vue du chantier.JPGwithdrawn: Archives nationales DAPAANS is allowed to publish it.- File:Cathédrale Sacré-Cœur de Casablanca (5280528577).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: File:Casablanca, église du Sacré-Cœur, vue du chantier.JPG was uploaded by Archives nationales DAPAANS, who might have the permission to publish it according to French law, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Foyer d'étudiantes Pierre de Coubertin, rue Lhomond (Paris).JPG. BrightRaven (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- C'est exact : nous avons la permission de la fille et unique ayant-droit de Paul Tournon de diffuser des reproductions des photos et dessins de bâtiments se trouvant dans les archives que nous conservons Archives nationales DAPAANS (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: and kept the withdrawn one Natuur12 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur
[edit]The Sacred Heart CHurch of Casablanca has been designed by Paul Tournon (1881-1964), an architect who died less than 70 years ago. As there is no freedom of panorama in Morocco, these pictures can't be freely shared and should be removed from Commons.
File:Casablanca, église du Sacré-Cœur, vue du chantier.JPGwithdrawn: Archives nationales DAPAANS is allowed to publish it.- File:Cathédrale Sacré Cœur 1.jpg
- File:Cathédrale Sacré Cœur 2.jpg
- File:IMG 3931-Katolik-.JPG
Pymouss Let’s talk - 09:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur
[edit]There is no FoP in Morocco (except in case of de minimis). The architect is Paul Tournon, who died in 1964.
- File:Art Exhibit in Sacre Coeur Cathedral - Casablanca - Morocco.jpg
- File:Casablanca Cathedral.jpg
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Casablanca, Morocco - panoramio (5).jpg
- File:Catedral del Sagrado Corazón de Casablanca 01.jpg
- File:Catedral del Sagrado Corazón en Casablanca (02.jpg
- File:Catedral del Sagrado Corazón en Casablanca 03.jpg
- File:Church of the Sacred Heart Morocco, Casablanca - panoramio.jpg
- File:D1000058 (7684417312).jpg
- File:L'Eglise du Sacre-Coeur à Casablanca -vue de loin-.jpg
- File:L'Eglise du Sacre-Coeur à Casablanca.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casablanca Cathedral Sacré-Cœur
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Morocco
- File:Casablanca - Cathedral.jpg
- File:Casablanca Cathedral Morocco.jpg
- File:Catedraule Caza.jpg
- File:P1010509 (6105996074).jpg
- File:P1010511 (6105464611).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Not notable. Out of Com:PS. Hanooz 08:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. out of com:PS Hanooz 08:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a 'selfie' taken by Visna Fernando not the 'own work' of ChanakaW (image can be found on Fernando's personal facebook account). Without details of Fernando's permission for this image, taken by her to be used it is clearly a breach of copyright. ChanakaW has a previous history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming them as their own. Dan arndt (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 00:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a 'selfie' taken by Visna Fernando not the 'own work' of ChanakaW (image can be found on Fernando's personal facebook account). Without details of Fernando's permission for this image, taken by her to be used it is clearly a breach of copyright. ChanakaW has a previous history of uploading copyrighted images and claiming them as their own. 49.255.142.198 09:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The school had a name change and this is no longer the school's official logo 95.97.19.205 10:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep No need to delete. Keep as a historical record. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed – please keep! If we would delete everything which is outdated, world’s history would be lost. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
(c)Marco Urban / www.marco-urban.de, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This file should be deleted because it's unofficial and the flag doesn't appear in public places (I'm Indonesian, live in East Java). Thank You. Allsan44 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: This file is widely used, from ar:جاوة الشرقية to zh:印度尼西亚各省人类发展指数列表. Under COM:NPOV, Commons should not interfere in Wikipedias' content decisions. --bjh21 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I have suffciently argued for the case in the Wikipedia Talk page of Allen Istalaksana. Austronesier (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this flag official? If it's official can you show me the prove (the constitution number) that the flag of South Sulawesi has light blue background and so on... Allsan44 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: the file is widely used, from ar:سولاوسي الجنوبية to zh:印度尼西亚各省人类发展指数列表. Under COM:NPOV, Commons should not override Wikipedias' decisions about which files are useful. --bjh21 (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: I have suffciently argued for the case in the Wikipedia Talk page of Allen Istalaksana. Austronesier (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Non commercial licence. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
No source or licence. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Look at this: http://www.3d-fossils.ac.uk/fossilFocus/home.html . In this page there is the licence, a creative commons non commercial. --Ghedo (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, we have a problem too, only commercial licenses are allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is the caption: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." Tell me what is possible to do. Thanks :) --Ghedo (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the only solution would be to upload it on Wikipedia as a fair use file, or get Commons:OTRS] from that website to upload it under a freer licence. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Uh... I think I'm not so able to do this. Could you do this? Thank you! --Ghedo (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be in vain anyway, there must be a reason why they have stated a specific licence on their website, because they don't want to release the images for commercial use. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Uh... I think I'm not so able to do this. Could you do this? Thank you! --Ghedo (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the only solution would be to upload it on Wikipedia as a fair use file, or get Commons:OTRS] from that website to upload it under a freer licence. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is the caption: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." Tell me what is possible to do. Thanks :) --Ghedo (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, we have a problem too, only commercial licenses are allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Source says " Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial". FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Deriviative from copyvio original, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DocentX. ~Cybularny Speak? 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Tuscany.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
contains a copyright mark Zen 38 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- new version without a copyright mark has been uploaded --Viktorderek (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Issue resolved. --Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
it includes a visible copyright mark Zen 38 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
New version without a copyright mark has been uploaded. --Viktorderek (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Issue resolved. --Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nomascrash (talk · contribs)
[edit]promotional images of a company, no educational value, no repository
Triplecaña (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; likely copyvios. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The picture for this description is not correct. They have nothing to do with each other. Wingerham52 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; use rename if the name is wrong. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Pour télécharger une photo sur Commons, il faut être auteur de la photo ou que cette dernière soit libre de droits. Ici, nous sommes en présence de la photo d'une photo affichée en public, on semble d'ailleurs distinguer le copyright de cette dernière (en bas et en blanc). - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a screenshot sent to him via whatsapp. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Pour télécharger une photo sur Commons, il faut être auteur de la photo ou que cette dernière soit libre de droits. Ici, nous sommes en présence de la photo d'une photo affichée en public, on semble d'ailleurs distinguer le copyright de cette dernière (en bas et en blanc). - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a screenshot sent to him via whatsapp. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Pour télécharger une photo sur Commons, il faut être auteur de la photo ou que cette dernière soit libre de droits. Ici, nous sommes en présence de la photo d'une photo affichée en public, on semble d'ailleurs distinguer le copyright de cette dernière (en bas et en blanc). - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a screenshot sent to him via whatsapp. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Pour télécharger une photo sur Commons, il faut être auteur de la photo ou que cette dernière soit libre de droits. Ici, nous sommes en présence de la photo d'une photo affichée en public. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 19:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a screenshot sent to him via whatsapp. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Facebook metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a photo of a photo to me. User's only upload. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Regasterios as no source (No source since). The file has been on Commons since 2007, is in use elsewhere and potentially is PD. It is worth delaying deletion to enable further input. Green Giant (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I have found the original source: https://opac.pim.hu/record/-/record/PIM758371. I uploaded the photo: File:Ady Endre 1909 nyarán.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Now has correct info. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work and probably also OoS. E4024 (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
MD says screenshot. Not an own work then. E4024 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work as declared. E4024 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
COM:SS Ronhjones (Talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work.
ℯxplicit 05:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work.
ℯxplicit 05:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
FBMD at MD. E4024 (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 10:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Originally, the picture was uploaded by Andros64 in 2017 claiming the source was >>"Zielony Sztandar" 1945<<. However, this journal did not published any pictures then (especially of that good quality, see scans), so it was evidently not the true source.
Yesterday, Andros64 changed the source (???) to https://bs.sejm.gov.pl/F?func=find-b&request=000008986&find_code=SYS&local_base=ARS10. This is a record in the WWW page of the Library of Polish Parliament. Strange change!; nevertheless the pictures seem to be identical, indeed.
Now, however, PD-Polish license seems to to be improper - there is no any proof that the picture was published before May 23, 1994. Moreover, I am not aware of any other license allowing the picture to published in Commons. Unfortunately, upon inquiry Andros64 just stated "this is PD-Polish" without any explanation. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, the T&C of Sejm website prohibit commercial reuse, therefore they're incompatible with Commons http://sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/page.xsp/copyright. --Wanted (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
This image is taken from Thilini Amarasooriya‘s Instagram page (https://www.pictame.com/media/1478080592620090383_1442706552) and is a professional modelling shot not the author’s work ( 49.255.142.198 10:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The uploader has a history of trying to pass professional copyrighted images off as his own work. Dan arndt (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted by DMacks on 29 April 2019. --jdx Re: 05:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
FBMD at MD. Various files. For ex: File:‘Rumelide Türk Kilometre Taşları’ TRT.jpg, File:Kitap Tanıtımı.jpg, File:Belgeselci*.jpg, File:TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ KONFERANS.jpg... E4024 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- unintelligible reason. --ŠJů (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshots and files uploaded from Facebook without permission. Ruthven (msg) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zhirayr Martirossian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Գորիսի ժայռեր-1, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Տեսարան Գորիսից, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Լողափին, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Վերապրում, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հուշերում, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Դիմանկար, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հարսանիք-1, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Լոգանքից առաջ, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Դլե յաման, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հոգևոր սիմֆոնիա, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Սայաթ Նովան, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Մեղեդի, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Մտորում, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Սաքսաֆոնահարուհին, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Ջութակահարուհին, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հարսանիք, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Աշխարհի վերջ, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Երկմտություն, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Բակունցի հուշերում, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Ակսել Բակունց, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Գորիսի ժայռեր, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Ադամն ու Եվան, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հայուհի, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հարսնացու, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Հավերժություն, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
- File:Գարուն, հեղինակ Ժիրայր Մարտիրոսյան.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019040710000659 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 05:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Needs OTRS. E4024 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:L, COM:PRP. Painting by "M. Martínez" uploaded by "Domingo.deguzman". COM:OTRS permission needed. Strakhov (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Previously published (or so it looks) at https://www.dici.fr/actu/2019/02/06/alpes-de-haute-provence-wadeck-gorak-10e-freeride-world-tour-canada-1229565 Ytoyoda (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - evidence should have been provided, but here it is [5]. --whym (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muhammad Humair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Previously published as the subject’s YouTube profile pic: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCySDCFLmgNbccJzytHmaWpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ytoyoda (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
One-file gallery. (The file is perfectly categorized.) Speedy delete please. E4024 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 20:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
it includes a visible copyright mark Zen 38 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Should I upload a new version without the copyright mark or just change the license? --Viktorderek (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Viktorderek: Please upload a new version like you did with the others Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept. Viktorderek uploaded a new version. 大诺史 (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Dubious own work w/o EXIF. Please see also the uploader's TP. E4024 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a photo whose copyright is mine. For further questions, you can contact me by e-mail. I will be happy to show you documentation for transfer of ownership. All the best.
--חיים נהר (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
דגש חזק (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019040410008871 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It incorporates copyrighted material from Geopedia: http://www.geopedia.si/#T105_x447074_y129254_s14_b4 Doremo (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The underlying map is from the Slovene Surveying and Mapping Authority which stated that its data are free (here), I think this should cover it. We do have to improve how it's credited. — Yerpo Eh? 05:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was looking at the © display on the bottom of the linked page ("©2013 Sinergise d.o.o. | Podatki:Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije, Geodetski inštitut Slovenije"), assuming it meant the map image is copyrighted. In any case, the crediting ("Own work") is inappropriate, as you pointed out. Doremo (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what means the following: "GURS reserves the right to change the general conditions for the use of the data at any time," followed by "The right to use geodetic data immediately ceases if the user processes the data contrary to the general conditions of their use." How should we understand this? CC licences are irrevocable.
- Thanks for the advice; I've restored the image at the relevant WP article. Doremo (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Yerpo: Returning to this, I wonder whether the Geodetic Administration of the Republic of Slovenia is truly the creator of the maps. Isn't that the Geodetic Institute of Slovenia? From this source, it follows that the Geodetic Institute creates maps, whereas the Geodetic Administration maintains databases. Any reference to the contrary? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice; I've restored the image at the relevant WP article. Doremo (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what means the following: "GURS reserves the right to change the general conditions for the use of the data at any time," followed by "The right to use geodetic data immediately ceases if the user processes the data contrary to the general conditions of their use." How should we understand this? CC licences are irrevocable.
- Thanks, I was looking at the © display on the bottom of the linked page ("©2013 Sinergise d.o.o. | Podatki:Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije, Geodetski inštitut Slovenije"), assuming it meant the map image is copyrighted. In any case, the crediting ("Own work") is inappropriate, as you pointed out. Doremo (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Eleassar: There's an additional, more explicit permision here - "... so vse informacije in druge stvaritve, do katerih ima uporabnik dostop na naših spletnih straneh, informacije javnega značaja". From this, it would follow that the ministry commissioned the maps and has the right to determine reuse conditions. — Yerpo Eh? 07:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, however in this case, I'm not entirely convinced this also pertains to maps. That would be more convincing if the site explicitely mentioned maps or if the Geodetic Institute itself put the maps to public domain. Re the ministry, you probably mean the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. Even if it did commission them, that does not imply it also holds the copyright over them. The Geodetic Institute is an independent public limited company. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think the statement "all information" and "unless explicitly stated otherwise" is clear beyond reasonable doubt, and this page clearly demonstrates that maps are considered "data" for all intents and purposes. Therefore, I suggest closing this deletion request and keeping the image unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary. — Yerpo Eh? 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- If we interpret it this way, are we free to copy-paste any map image off of Geopedia and upload it to Commons? Doremo (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose this would follow, yes, but excluding Geopedia's proprietary layers. — Yerpo Eh? 16:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- What does that mean: "The right to use immediately ceases if the user violates the terms of use or uses them contrary to their purpose." (Pravica uporabe nemudoma preneha, če uporabnik prekrši pogoje uporabe ali jih uporablja v nasprotju z njihovim namenom.)? I don't think this qualifies as free for any purpose.[6] --Eleassar (t/p) 22:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Eleassar: I understand this as "if the user uses the data contrary to the purpose of the terms of use" (claiming own copyright or neglecting to mention the source, for example). Grammatically, the sentence isn't clear as to what the word "njihovim" refers to, but this statement can have no other meaning or practical significance if they released everything under CC-BY. — Yerpo Eh? 13:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think so. This type of violation is already covered by 'violates the terms of use' and 'contrary to their purpose' clearly refers to 'data or services' mentioned in the preceding sentence: "By confirming the general terms and using the data or services, the user agrees to the aforementioned terms of use. The right to use immediately ceases if the user violates the terms of use or uses them contrary to their purpose." What would it mean to 'use the terms of use' anyway?
- The release under CC-BY only means that you're free to use the data without paying a fee or having to ask for the permission to use them. However, you have to use them for their intended (geodetic, legal) purpose. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Any potential limitations are moot, because CC-BY 2.5 clearly states in paragraph 8e: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You." But I suggest asking the Surveying Authority for clarification, we will never get to the bottom of this with such lawyering. — Yerpo Eh? 06:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. There are a number of vague points and it would be best for the uploader to refer to the Surveying Authority for additional clarification. Until then, I would refrain from using their materials. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, because I don't think you raise significant doubts, but I suppose that's the decision of the closing admin. You could help by writing yourself to the Surveying Authority to put your doubts at ease, it would certainly be more constructive than this hairsplitting. The uploader doesn't seem to care. — Yerpo Eh? 10:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are two arguments for significant doubt: 1) The creator of the maps is another organisation, a public limited company. 2) The statement that the data (including maps) can't be used contrary to their purpose.
- I'm not going to write to the Surveying Authority for two reasons: 1. It's not my duty. The burden of proof is on the uploader. 2. The Surveying Authority seemingly even themselves don't have a clear understanding of the copyright.
- Calling this hair-splitting doesn't help either. It may just happen that someday the Surveying Authority or the Geodetic Institute will somewhere find their material "used without a permission" or "used against its true purpose" and act against the user. The principles of Commons demand us to act on the cautious side since we don't want to be involved there. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- We already concluded already that 1) is explained very clearly. The permission covers all material, and it is the Surveying authority's responsibility to ensure they have the rights to any material they are offering. We have no reason to believe they are that ignorant of copyright. "Indended purpose", on the other hand, can be understood as referring to the purpose of the rules, but if it refers to the purpose of the data, the license invalidates this condition. The latter is, furthermore, a non-copyright restriction, which is "not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia". I know it's not your responsibility, but I still suggested you try asking yourself for clarification, because you seem to be actively seeking ways to forbid material from Slovenia on shaky legal grounds, and I wanted to give you benefit of the doubt. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly I'm actively trying to remove material from Slovenia held here on shaky legal grounds.
- 1. "All works on Wikimedia Commons are required to be released under a free license by their copyright holder. Unless the uploader is the copyright holder, we require proof that the copyright holder released the work under the license."[7] - This has not been fulfilled here since no proof has been provided that the Surveying Authority would be the copyright holder.
- 2. In case of conflicting copyright claims, the copyright holder must provide an unambiguous claim else the material is deleted. That's been the standard practice here. In addition, "against their intended purpose" clearly refers to data. "Use of the terms of use against their intended purpose" is simply nonsense.
- --Eleassar (t/p) 12:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course you can have the final word, but repeating the same opinion hardly helps to clarify anything. And no (re. #2), interpreting terms of use contrary to their intended purpose is far from nonsense. — Yerpo Eh? 12:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- The proof that the Surveying Authority is the copyright holder remains missing. How ignorant we think they are or not is simply irrelevant. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Broadening the perspective: a state institution claims that the material is free, so what we think of the basis for this statement is irrelevant. Commons only requires proof by the uploader, and the proof is here. — Yerpo Eh? 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Since this state institution did not create the materials in the first place, there must be some proof that the copyright has actually been transferred to them. We can't simply rely on their authority in this matter, as we have seen that their claims regarding copyright and reuse are at least partially unclear and conflicting. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- We can. As an official institution, responsibility for any mistakes is theirs, so reusers aren't exposed to risk. — Yerpo Eh? 13:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt about that. As said, it may just happen that someday the Surveying Authority or the Geodetic Institute will somewhere find their material "used without a permission" or "used against its true purpose" and act against the user. These are public institutions, after all. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- If they complain about use against permission, the user can point them here, of course provided that the source was properly noted (as demanded by the license). If we base our risk assessment on the assumption that public institutions may one day act irrationally and contrary to their statements, then we can delete half of the Commons. Heeding other restrictions is the user's responsibility (as with all other non-copyright restrictions), not Wikimedia's. — Yerpo Eh? 15:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- This goes against the requirement for 1. appropriate evidence to be provided in case of doubt [8] and 2. the precautionary principle.[9] The doubt is significant, since the material was originally created by another entity, we don't have any evidence regarding the transfer of copyright, and the current publisher uses conflicting and unclear wording regarding licensing and reuse. I even believe the restriction regarding purpose may be a copyright-related restriction, conflicting with the provisions of CC-BY-SA. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, evidence is here, so the precautionary principle is satisfied as far as Commons is concerned. And there is no ground for belief about additional copyright-related restrictions. There is also the Law on state surveying reference system which states that the Surveying Authority is responsible for maintaining state maps which are considered public information. The Authority can, according to the law, charge for reuse of these maps (could they do that if someone else owned the copyright?), but it chose not to by placing them under CC-BY. — Yerpo Eh? 18:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, agreed. I believe this is covered by Article 36 of the Land Survey Activities Act,[10] which states that the copyright on the work done by the Geodetic Institute shall be transferred to the Republic of Slovenia and that the copyright on the works created by the national geodetic services shall be managed by the Surveying Authority. Some information on this is also available here. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- So, Keep. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- So,
- Good find, thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 05:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you to both of you for working through the details on this. Doremo (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept. As above. 大诺史 (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work but could be PD by age. E4024 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Şəkil Əlif İsmayılovun ailə üzvlərinin razılığı ilə ailə fotosundan götürülmüşdür. ——Qolcomaq (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, depicted person's family members have no right to give permission for publication of the photo. Only photographer (if dead, then heir(s)) have the right. Taivo (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Source is AR:WP where the file has been deleted for some reason. E4024 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The author is unknown. It was shot in 1966. It's in public domain in Egypt.--Ashashyou (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Then let's cross our fingers for PD in the US also. Is it? --E4024 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, United States need publication data to determine public domain question. That's missing here. Taivo (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work. E4024 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, screenshot from unknown video. Taivo (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not an own work. User should be warned, all "own work" claims are baseless. E4024 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, warning has no sense, the user is inactive for 6 years. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
OoS and unused. E4024 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, I'm really in difficulties explaining, how the image can be used. Taivo (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Self created with no independent source, seems to fail notability Garuda28 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, what? Flag of US with 5 stars? Taivo (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Dubious own work; small, no EXIF. E4024 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all contributions of Zak23984 (talk · contribs) due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Watermarked photo, added for a publication's self-promotion. UKER (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept, name on watermark matches uploader's name, EXIF exists, own work is likely. The photo is used in 7 projects; apparently this isn't pure self-promotion. Taivo (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Small image of plain-text formula with large margins. Easy to do in TeX if there was a place to use it. DMacks (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Unused image of text equation for which TeX was long provided. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Unused trivial plain-text equation DMacks (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Мірошниченко КС 11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused images of plain-text equations, that additionally have punctuation limiting their use to certain contexts.
DMacks (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Unused images of plain-text equartions
DMacks (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution, no EXIF so unlikely to be an original work of the uploading user. Marcus Hsu talk 05:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution, no EXIF so unlikely to be an original work of the uploading user. Marcus Hsu talk 05:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Small size, low resolution, no EXIF so unlikely to be an original work of the uploading user. Marcus Hsu talk 05:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Not used.--MeritTim (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: text-only, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Shops in Myeongdong
[edit]Per COM:FOP South Korea, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea.
- File:Aritaum 201604.jpg
- File:Dunkin' Donuts Myeongdong.JPG
- File:Dunkin' Donuts Myeongdong2.JPG
- File:Etude House store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Holika Holika (butterfly) store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Holika Holika (witch) store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Innisfree store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:It's Skin store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Nature Republic in Myeong-dong 201604.jpg
- File:Nature Republic store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Skin Food shop front.JPG
- File:Teenie Weenie store Myeong-dong.JPG
- File:Tony Moly store Myeong-dong.JPG
_store_Myeong-dong.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_store_Myeong-dong.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ℯxplicit 06:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep：it seems these photo just a shopfront, only part of the building, not really a "work of art", so FoP is a non-issue here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpcpey (talk • contribs) 10:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
- @Wpcpey: Architecture falls under the umbrella of art, and South Korea does not allow commercial reproduction of such works without the permission of the copyright holder, usually the architect, under its FOP laws. ℯxplicit 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 05:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This image should not be deleted. While not perfect, provides context to the article. The image is encyclopedic in the fact that it is both candid and accurate. I recommend retaining this image for it's informative, historical, contextual, and educational value.
- From an intellectual property perspective, this is a fair-use image hosted in the US and controlled by US Copyright Law. This image fits squarely within Federal Copyright Act of 1997 whereby it is fair use is established within News Reporting and Educational Purposes as it is de minimis (meaning the minimum reproduction required to reflect the actual work of art). Additionally, this image does not actually reproduce the work at question. It represents the work and location, but does not compete with the work (this is an image, sculpture or architectural reproduction of the location). I am not an expert in Ukrainian Law, but I am a practicing attorney within the US who focuses in , and know that Wikipedia is allowed to show images of locations, works of art, etc.
- From a Freedom of Panorama perspective, this image does not clearly show the architecture or three dimensional works of art. The image is a candid image at a perspective that allows identification of the location without showing the essence, proportions, totality, or even reoccurring patterns within the protected work. This is a contextual geographic image, and is not covered by the ban on clear photography is public works of art or architecture. For these reasons, this image should not be deleted. Nslsmith (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am afraid it is either/or situation. If the image does not depict the station, it has no educational value and is out of scope for Commons. If it does, it is a copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Indoor artwork in Hungary by Béla Kontuly (1904–1983) and Pál Molnár C. (1894–1981). Regasterios (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Indoor artwork in Hungary by Pál Molnár C. (1894–1981). Regasterios (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Indoor artwork by Masa Feszty
[edit]- File:BudaiKapucinusFotoThalerTamas11.jpg
- File:BudaiKapucinusFotoThalerTamas23.jpg
- File:IstenesSztJanosFotoThalerTamas.JPG
- File:RemeteFotoThalerTamas4.jpg
- File:Santa Barbara, altarpiece in the Catholic Church of Pilisszentiván, painting of Masa Feszty (1950).JPG
- File:StMargitFesztyFotoThalertamas.JPG
- File:VarosmajorFotoThalerTamas3.jpg
- File:Virgin Mary, altarpiece in the Catholic Church of Pilisszentiván, painting of Masa Feszty.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Indoor artworks in Hungary by Masa Feszty (1895–1979). --Regasterios (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Авторство и лицензия сомнительны: данная медаль не имеет отношение к Министерству образования и науки РФ, см. File:Письмо Министерства просвещения Российской Федерации о Золотой медали имени Льва Николаева.jpg Dogad75 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Not fair use: https://cseligman.com/copyright.htm AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No indication this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Foss. Rec., 12, 23-46, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/mmng.200800008 © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." - Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from Tendaguru (Tanzania) - K. Remes - Tisquesusa (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, as stated before, this should be made easier to verify than it currently is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: file page fixed per discussion. --whym (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
_-_Tendaguru_Formation.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Tendaguru_Formation.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Foss. Rec., 12, 23-46, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/mmng.200800008 © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." - Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from Tendaguru (Tanzania) - K. Remes - Tisquesusa (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
_-_Tendaguru_Formation.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: file page fixed per discussion. --whym (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
_-_Tendaguru_Formation.jpg){kind=link}
No indication this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC) "Foss. Rec., 12, 23-46, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/mmng.200800008 © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." - Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from Tendaguru (Tanzania) - K. Remes - Tisquesusa (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: file page fixed per discussion. --whym (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No indication this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The source indicates otherwise: "Foss. Rec., 12, 23-46, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/mmng.200800008 © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." - Taxonomy of Late Jurassic diplodocid sauropods from Tendaguru (Tanzania) - K. Remes - Tisquesusa (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, the PDF doesn't have indications of this, so please add that link to all the files so others can verify it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: file page fixed per discussion. --whym (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FabioRomanoni (talk · contribs)
[edit]After finding File:Cornazzani4.jpg tagged for copyvio, I noticed a lot of FabioRomanoni's uploads were grabbed from the internet and are thus likely copyvio. I have mass-nominated all low-res photos without proper metadata but excluded (details of) paintings that look like PD-OLD.
- File:FabbricaEinstein.jpg
- File:Cornazzani3.jpg
- File:Cornazzani.jpg
- File:Cornazzani1.jpg
- File:Lastra senatore.jpg
- File:San salvatore pavia3.jpg
- File:Santa maria betlem 6.jpg
- File:Santa maria betlem5.jpg
- File:Santa maria betlem.jpg
- File:Santa maria betlem1.jpg
- File:Santamariateodote.jpg
- File:Santa maria teodote.jpg
- File:Santamaria teodote4.jpg
- File:Santamariateodote6.jpg
- File:Santamariateodote3.jpg
- File:Santamaria tedodote5.jpg
- File:Castiglio3.jpg
- File:Castiglioni1.jpg
- File:Castiglioni6.jpg
- File:Mezabarba8.jpg
- File:Mezabarba7.jpg
- File:San teodoro affreschi1 pavia.jpg
- File:San teodoro affreschi pavia.jpg
- File:San michele pavia.jpg
- File:San giacomo e filippo pavia.jpg
- File:Mezzabarba chiesa.jpg
- File:Biblioteca universitaria Pavia.jpg
- File:S. maria cacce cripta.jpg
- File:Santamaria cacce chiost.jpg
- File:Santa maria delle cacce pavia.jpg
- File:San giorgio montefalcone.jpg
- File:San giorgio Pavia.jpg
- File:Mirabello affreschi.jpg
- File:Mirabello camino.jpg
- File:San Teodoro1.jpg
- File:San teodoro pavia.jpg
- File:Collegio ghislieri1.jpg
- File:Collegio ghislieri.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo7.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo6.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo5.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo4.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo3.jpg
- File:Collegio borromeo2.jpg
- File:Collegio Borromeo Pavia1.jpg
- File:Collegio Borromeo Pavia.jpg
- File:Santa Maria delle grazie1.jpg
- File:Santa Maria delle Grazie Pavia.jpg
- File:Santa maria gualtieri2 pavia.jpg
- File:Santa maria gualtieri1 pavia.jpg
- File:Santa maria gualtieri pavia.jpg
- File:San felice pavia chiesa.jpg
- File:San felice pavia affresco.jpg
- File:San felice pavia tombe.jpg
- File:San felice Pavia cripta.jpg
- File:San felice pavia.jpg
- File:Cripta2 san giovanni domnarum.jpg
- File:Cripta1 san giovanni domnarum.jpg
- File:Affreschi Cripta san giovanni domnarum.jpg
- File:Cripta san giovanni domnarum.jpg
- File:Crocefisso teodote.jpg
- File:Mosaico san michele.jpg
- File:San michele pietre incoronazione.jpg
- File:Bronzetto Longobardo.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable amateur cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OTRS is needed for all uploads of this new user and artist. How do we know who he or she is or has a permission from the author? E4024 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OTRS is needed for all uploads of this new user and artist. How do we know who he or she is or has a permission from the author? E4024 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OTRS is needed for all uploads of this new user and artist. How do we know who he or she is or has a permission from the author? E4024 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of the Canary Islands.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of the Community of Madrid.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Galicia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Galicia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Fry1989 eh? 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Fue un ejercicio de clase, de una biografia falsa con foto falsa, es información ficticia 181.50.140.123 17:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photo of a non-contributor. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The picture is not the right one and the description is erroneous. Wingerham52 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angelaayalamrtz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own works, small sizes, no EXIFs, one historical image
- File:Group of domestic workers rejoicing after the result of the vote on the Convention on Domestic Workers.jpg
- File:International Labour Conferece (ILC) 1st Session.jpg
- File:The illumination of the ILO building projecting the visual identity celebrating the Centenary.jpg
- File:ILC 107th Session - International Labour Conference Opening session.jpg
_1st_Session.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Three of the images are identified as "© ILO/M.CROZET" in their records, so are not PD and have been uploaded under blatantly false claims of being self created. Unless the uploader is well over 100 years old, File:International Labour Conferece (ILC) 1st Session.jpg obviously isn't their work either given that it depicts an event which occurred in 1919. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by فیروز فرمانفرمائیان (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical pictures, bogus licenses, unclear copyright status
Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Existence de doublon P. hynece (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - not an "own work" either. --E4024 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not own work: http://elsayon.blogspot.com/2013/12/el-8-de-diciembre-de-1943-fue.html. Perhaps public domain anyway. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mancheguista (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work, false dates. Uploader must change description for a valid date.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
COM:FOP Sweden. Copyrighted artwork that is permanently installed outdoors may be depicted, but as of the latest court ruling these pictures must not be published without consent of the original artist. I.e. there virtually no freedom of panorama in Sweden for the purposes of Commons. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Also nominated: File:Goteborg Looking Back 1.jpg. De728631 (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [11]. Yann (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=680792690#File:Swedbank_skylt.JPG){kind=link}
Misuse of FOP // Sertion 14:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks a lot like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ensvensktigerskylt2 djuramossa.jpg, also a outdoor sign in Sweden. It was kept. Palmerston (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The tree is the only thing that has a copyright and it is clearly a work of art, not a work of literature. Works of art have FOP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Sweden, Swedich copyright law has become harsher since last closure and freedom of panorama does not apply anymore for the logo. This is modern art: the logo was created in 2006. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [12]. Yann (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Files credit as AP, which is not VOA materials and copyrighted B dash (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Photos of non-free artwork displaced in an indoor space. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#3D_art_(sculptures_etc.) and Commons:Derivative works.
- File:Caesar (a character of the Planet of the Apes).png
- File:Caesar (a character of the Planet of the Apes).jpg
- File:BenBen and Wuba.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Wcam (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Quite small size without EXIFs, unlikely to be own works
Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Not found at URL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- This image should not be deleted. While not perfect, provides context to the article. The image is encyclopedic in the fact that it is both candid and accurate. I recommend retaining this image for it's informative, historical, contextual, and educational value.
- From an intellectual property perspective, this is a fair-use image hosted in the US and controlled by US Copyright Law. This image fits squarely within Federal Copyright Act of 1997 whereby it is fair use is established within News Reporting and Educational Purposes as it is de minimis (meaning the minimum reproduction required to reflect the actual work of art). Additionally, this image does not actually reproduce the work at question. It represents the work and location, but does not compete with the work (this is an image, sculpture or architectural reproduction of the location). I am not an expert in Ukrainian Law, but I am a practicing attorney within the US who focuses in , and know that Wikipedia is allowed to show images of locations, works of art, etc.
- From a Freedom of Panorama perspective, this image does not clearly show the architecture or three dimensional works of art. The image is a candid image at a perspective that allows identification of the location without showing the essence, proportions, totality, or even reoccurring patterns within the protected work. This is a contextual geographic image, and is not covered by the ban on clear photography is public works of art or architecture. For these reasons, this image should not be deleted. Nslsmith (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am afraid it is either/or situation. If the image does not depict the station, it has no educational value and is out of scope for Commons. If it does, it is a copyright violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Depiction of a location is not the same as depiction of the art or architecture within that location. Because of this difference, and because the image at question does not depict the copyrighted material protected, it is not banned within the Commons.Nslsmith (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Not much to have a copyright. Ordinary metro station, no originality. --Yann (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dino Michelini (talk · contribs)
[edit]No COM:FOP in Italy.
- File:Orgosolo Murales Franco Serantini.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Luigi Podda.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Corto Maltese.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Pratobello Emilio Lussu.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Fiore per i bambini.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Consultorio.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Rinascita.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Pablo Neruda Ode al gatto.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Il Manifesto.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Pratobello occupazione.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Contro diritti feudali.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Saggezza antica.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Partigiani.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Giovanni Leone.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales 8 marzo 1908.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Socialisti.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Saddam Hussein.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales NY 09-11-2001.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Tu sei qui Orgosolo.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Avis.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Vietnam.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Partigiani Orgosolo.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Larzac.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Desmond Tutu.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Emilio Lussu.jpg
- File:Orgosolo Murales Iqbal Masih.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not agree with the request. These are the reasons:
- according to what you reported (unfortunately only for me) in the category "Murals_in_Orgosolo" many photographs before my uploads are not COM: FOP in Italy. For consistency, you should point out all the pictures of murals loaded on commons wikimedia in the "Murals" category[1];
- many photographs are uploaded to other sites while my photographs are not;
- like the other photographs of other authors of the category "Murals_in_Orgosolo" in addition to the correct data they also report the GPS coordinates to testify that they are own work made in Orgosolo;
- the Muros of Orgosolo are not protected by copyrights but are works of public domain[2] or of the community of Orgosolo. The ownership of the rights to the murals are the exclusive property of the Orgosolo community: the artists participating in the international competition assign all rights all rights to the community.
- the dimensions of the photographs are original, without disturbing elements and with the right framing[3], so I think they are an important contribution to wikimedia commons;
- if the problem is the quality of the photographs (180dpi), I can upload new photographs at 72dpi but 180dpi is not a print resolution[4], [5].
- I thank you for your attention and I hope you can review your request in a peaceful way.
- Greetings
- --Dino Michelini (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dino Michelini: Hi. It seems you don't understand what is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama so I link the complete text. There's no freedom of panorama at all in Italy. Besides Muros of Orgosolo are not "public domain works" and don't belong to the "Orgosolo community" (do you mean "municipality"?) unless they fall under Codice Urbani (Legislative Decree No. 42, dated January 22, 2004), which remains to be proved. So copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original authors and, unless you obtain their permission, these pictures can't be kept on Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I know the laws and the Urbani Code has nothing to do with it, indeed it inserts additional restrictions such as the legal deposit at a national library of all the material of public interest produced by any means. Art. 70 L. 22 aprile 1941, n. 633 has nothing to do with no freedom of panorama but writes: 1-bis. È consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro. and 180dpi is not a print resolution. The murals of Orgosolo, as in other Italian municipalities, are possible because: 1) the owner of the wall consents by written deed to the realization of the work; 2) the municipal administration announces a public competition (national or international) for the design and construction of artistic murals; [6] 3) the artist participating in the competition agrees to transfer the ownership and rights of the work to the municipal administration. It seems clear to me that you do not know the procedure with which the municipal administrations in Italy make the murals. Please, if you are consistent with what you write, please ask for the cancellation of all murals, paintings, photographs, etc. --Dino Michelini (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dino Michelini: I have (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals in Orgosolo). Please ask municipality of Orgosolo to send a permission via COM:OTRS with enclosed the transfert of ownership from the different artists to the municipality. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I know the laws and the Urbani Code has nothing to do with it, indeed it inserts additional restrictions such as the legal deposit at a national library of all the material of public interest produced by any means. Art. 70 L. 22 aprile 1941, n. 633 has nothing to do with no freedom of panorama but writes: 1-bis. È consentita la libera pubblicazione attraverso la rete internet, a titolo gratuito, di immagini e musiche a bassa risoluzione o degradate, per uso didattico o scientifico e solo nel caso in cui tale utilizzo non sia a scopo di lucro. and 180dpi is not a print resolution. The murals of Orgosolo, as in other Italian municipalities, are possible because: 1) the owner of the wall consents by written deed to the realization of the work; 2) the municipal administration announces a public competition (national or international) for the design and construction of artistic murals; [6] 3) the artist participating in the competition agrees to transfer the ownership and rights of the work to the municipal administration. It seems clear to me that you do not know the procedure with which the municipal administrations in Italy make the murals. Please, if you are consistent with what you write, please ask for the cancellation of all murals, paintings, photographs, etc. --Dino Michelini (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dino Michelini: Hi. It seems you don't understand what is Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama so I link the complete text. There's no freedom of panorama at all in Italy. Besides Muros of Orgosolo are not "public domain works" and don't belong to the "Orgosolo community" (do you mean "municipality"?) unless they fall under Codice Urbani (Legislative Decree No. 42, dated January 22, 2004), which remains to be proved. So copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original authors and, unless you obtain their permission, these pictures can't be kept on Commons. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Codice Urbani doesn't apply on this case, because these paintings are not a National Cultural Heritage (in that case, we could have used {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}), and are recent artworks. If they were done for hire for the Municipality, they fall in the public domain after 20 years for {{PD-ItalyGov}}; that's why it's important to know the date of the artworks. --Ruthven (msg) 09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- For the closing admin: The copyright belongs to the municipality of Orgosolo, because the transfer of the rights is part of the contract for the murales (http://www.comune.nurachi.or.it/index.php/ente/bandi/424). A request of permission has been sent to the municipality (cf. OTRS ticket:2019041210005626). In the worst case, the murales fall in the public domain in 2038 (2017 + 20 years) because of {{PD-ItalyGov}}. --Ruthven (msg) 08:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion, no OTRS yet, 4 months later. --Gbawden (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photo is at page 250 of the book "La Fortezza di Trento" by Volker Jeschkeit. Digioman (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept, first edition of that book I can find evidence of was 2008, 2 years after it was uploaded to Commons. That makes it look more likely that the photo was yoinked from here to the book rather than vice versa. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
At 1st, I added copyvio tag on [13]. But Wcam protested that this is on 'PD-Art' and 'PD-Japan-exempt'. I think the original brush-writing art IS NOT on public domain because the original is not a sort of neither laws and regulations, nor notifications, instructions, circular notices, nor judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts, nor these translations nor compilations. It is just an art made by 茂住 修身. No suitable license is not indicated by the author nor the gov. I believe that this is not on PD.- Kyuri1449 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reiwa_penmanship.svg&diff=344619834&oldid=344590416){kind=link}
- 只今内閣府に問い合わせをしております。回答が出次第このページに内容を載せ、適宜対応いたします。- SC Sendai City (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.98.213.28 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 追記：内閣府の違う部署に問い合わせを送信してしまったため、正しい部署に問い合わせを送信するのが遅れてしまいました。そのため、返信がある場合、メールなどが私に送付されるのはおそらく日本時間の2019年4月4日8時以降(世界標準時の2019年4月3日11時以降)と推測されます。- SC Sendai City (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it is part of notifications and announcements made by a State entity (item ii in {{PD-Japan-exempt}}), and 茂住 修身 created this work in the capacity of a State entity employee thus this is not a personal artwork. --Wcam (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obiviously, this calligraphy is an art work, ans is NOT notifications nor announcements, nor particle of them, made by Japan gov.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this calligraphy work may be of artistic nature and would have been a copyrightable artwork, had it not been part of the announcement of the "Reiwa" era, which, according to {{PD-Japan-exempt}}, exempts it from any copyright protection. By showing this work of calligraphy to the public is exactly how the name of the new era is announced by the Japanese government[14]. The creator 茂住修身(Mozumi Osami) is the Cabinet Office's language specialist[15].--Wcam (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- No meaning with 'anouncements', pls do not be confused, okay? This calligraphy is obviously not 'laws, regulations, notifications, instructions, circular notices, judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts and translations or compilations of these'. What's 'annoucements'? Okay, you have to learn Japanese Copyright Act and the definition and interpretation of the'PD-Japan-exempt' template.-Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this calligraphy work may be of artistic nature and would have been a copyrightable artwork, had it not been part of the announcement of the "Reiwa" era, which, according to {{PD-Japan-exempt}}, exempts it from any copyright protection. By showing this work of calligraphy to the public is exactly how the name of the new era is announced by the Japanese government[14]. The creator 茂住修身(Mozumi Osami) is the Cabinet Office's language specialist[15].--Wcam (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obiviously, this calligraphy is an art work, ans is NOT notifications nor announcements, nor particle of them, made by Japan gov.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 尚、これは個人的推測で、このファイルを削除しない理由や根拠とはなりませんが、この書が公文書の扱いとなっている場合は日本政府が作成したものという形となり、日本国の著作権法第十三条のニ及び第十三条の四が適用され、パブリックドメインとなるのでは無いかと考えます。- SC Sendai City (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 「公文書」でも著作権保護の対象になるものはあります。「公文書」は例示であって、13条を適用する要件ではありません。お間違いないよう（en: Some of "official documents" will be subject to copyright protection. The "official documents" is an example of Article 13 exemption, not a requirement to apply Article 13. Pls be careful not to make a mistake.)-Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Comment) Yes, US Copyright Act allows very widely, compared with Japan, as one can understand by reading 'Template:PD-USGov' and 'Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States' on Wikipedia, that 'a work prepared by an officer or employee of the federal government as part of that person's official duties' is put on PD. Japan IS NOT. Japanese Copyright Act limits such exemption to 'laws, regulations, notifications, instructions, circular notices, judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts and translations or compilations of these'. IT IS OBVIOUS when one read the 'template PD-Japan-exempt', is not? And this calligraphy is from Japan gov and Japanese author 茂住修身(Mozumi Osami), so it is too much obvious that this calligraphy subject to Japan Copyright Act.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Comment2) Totally, please don't think easily to put artworks made by others under copyright-free-license. This artwork is under copyright protection. The author 茂住 修身 or Japan gov owns the copyright of this. It is not PD nor copyright-free.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Comment3) Rasterized expression (e.g.bitmap) by fonts and typefaces is not subject to copyright protection in US and Japan.(see Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts) But the 'sho' (=Japanese calligraphy) which is mainly the object of art appreciation is subject to copyright protection. (ja:フォントや書体によるラスタ化された表現（ビットマップ）は、米国と日本では著作権保護の対象にはなりません（...を参照）。しかし美術鑑賞に耐える書道の書は著作権保護の対象となります。) (Judgement) 大阪地裁平成11年9月21日判決：文字を素材とした造形表現物の中でも、元来美術鑑賞の対象となるような書家による書は、字体、筆遣い、筆勢、墨の濃淡やにじみ等の様々な要素により多様な表現が可能な中で、筆者の知的、文化的精神活動の所産としての創作的な表現をしたものとして著作物性が認められるのは当然である。書字による書に限らず、「書」と評価できるような創作的な表現のものは、美術の著作物（著10条1項4号）に当たると解される。(en:Osaka District Court judgment on September 21, 1999:"Among the sculptural objects that use letters as material, the 'sho'(=Japanese calligraphy) made by famous calligrapher, which can be diversely represented by various elements such as font, brushing, brushstrokes, tints, strokes of ink and so on, is originally the object of art appreciation. So it is natural that copyright property is granted for a creative expression as a product of the author's intellectual and cultural mental activities. Whatever the thing of the creative expression that can be evaluated as a 'sho', not limited to 'sho' itself, is equivalent to the work of art (Copyright Act Article 10 Clause 1 No. 4).")-Kyuri1449 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- (comment3-1) THIS Reiwa calligraphy made by 茂住修身(Mozumi Osami) IS NOT 'laws, regulations, notifications, instructions, circular notices, judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts and translations or compilations of these', BECAUSE this calligraphy is just used at the press conference of the change of Era issue, and this calligraphy is NOT necessarily the legal basis of the change of Era. This calligraphy will never appear in any legal documents (example, Govermental Gazette). This calligraphy does not constitute legal documents, so it will never become PD according to the Japanese Copyright Act.-Kyuri1449 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- (Comment3) Rasterized expression (e.g.bitmap) by fonts and typefaces is not subject to copyright protection in US and Japan.(see Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts) But the 'sho' (=Japanese calligraphy) which is mainly the object of art appreciation is subject to copyright protection. (ja:フォントや書体によるラスタ化された表現（ビットマップ）は、米国と日本では著作権保護の対象にはなりません（...を参照）。しかし美術鑑賞に耐える書道の書は著作権保護の対象となります。) (Judgement) 大阪地裁平成11年9月21日判決：文字を素材とした造形表現物の中でも、元来美術鑑賞の対象となるような書家による書は、字体、筆遣い、筆勢、墨の濃淡やにじみ等の様々な要素により多様な表現が可能な中で、筆者の知的、文化的精神活動の所産としての創作的な表現をしたものとして著作物性が認められるのは当然である。書字による書に限らず、「書」と評価できるような創作的な表現のものは、美術の著作物（著10条1項4号）に当たると解される。(en:Osaka District Court judgment on September 21, 1999:"Among the sculptural objects that use letters as material, the 'sho'(=Japanese calligraphy) made by famous calligrapher, which can be diversely represented by various elements such as font, brushing, brushstrokes, tints, strokes of ink and so on, is originally the object of art appreciation. So it is natural that copyright property is granted for a creative expression as a product of the author's intellectual and cultural mental activities. Whatever the thing of the creative expression that can be evaluated as a 'sho', not limited to 'sho' itself, is equivalent to the work of art (Copyright Act Article 10 Clause 1 No. 4).")-Kyuri1449 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- 先程国立公文書館へ送信した質問への返答がありました。国立公文書館で保管しておらず、現在は内閣が保持しているとのことで、正式なコメントは頂けませんでした。内閣官房には質問を送信していますのでその返答が来ましたら再度ここに記載します。(以下国立公文書館へ送信した質問とその返答)
| 内容 | (English) | |
|---|---|---|
| 質問(Question) | 先日発表された「令和」の書はどの範囲内で使用可能でしょうか。ご返答のほどよろしくお願いいたします。 | To what extent can you use the calligraphy of "REIWA" announced the other day? Please your reply. |
| 返答(Reply) | 国立公文書館にメールをお寄せいただきまして有難うございます。お尋ねの新元号「令和」につきましては、残念ながら当館では新元号に関する検討・制定及び公表に関する一切の事務を担当しておりませんので、権限のもとに何らコメントする立場にありません。正式には、この新元号を制定・公表した政府(内閣)にお尋ねいただくことになります。正式には、内閣官房副長官補室になりますが、既に巷にはこの「令和」を使用した各種グッズ類も出回っているやに伺っておりますので、利用すること自体は無理なことではないようですが、商標登録はできないということではないかと思料いたします。換言すれば利用するだけならば可能ということではないかと思います。いずれにせよ、正式には先の内閣官房の方にお尋ねいただくことがよろしいかと思います。ちなみに蛇足ですが、当館にて所蔵しております「平成」の書を利用して、当館は「平成」のクリアファイルを作成し、販売しておりますことはご存知のことか思います。この「平成」の書は今回の「令和」の書とは異なり、当時内閣総理大臣を務められた竹下登氏の所有になっておりましたところ、ご本人のご逝去後にご遺族から当館に寄贈されて当館が保存・管理してきているものです。当館は所蔵しております公文書や古書等の所有権等関係する諸権利はすべてフリーにしておりますので、この「平成」の書についても他のものへの二次利用は自由にご利用いただくことができ、既に、巷には「平成」を利用した各種グッズ類が出回っておりますのはご存知のことと思います。「令和」の取り扱いについては、所管は現状では未だ政府(内閣)になりますので、念のため内閣官房宛お尋ねいただくことが無難ではないかと思います。取り急ぎのご返答まで 国立公文書館「お問い合わせ」担当 | Thank you for sending an e-mail to the National Archives.Unfortunately, we are not in charge of any office work related to the examination, establishment, and publication of the new era regarding the new era "Reiwa", so we are not in a position to comment under the authority.You will formally ask the government (Cabinet) who established and published this new era.Officially, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Cabinet Secretariat will be in charge of this department, but since various goods using this "Reiwa" have already been distributed to the group, it is possible to use it itself It seems that it is not impossible, but I think that it may be that it can not be registered as a trademark. In other words, I think that it is possible if it is only used.Anyway, I think that it is good to ask the person of the cabinet secretariat whom I mentioned earlier.
By the way, it is a snake foot, but using the calligraphy of "Heisei" held in our library, we think that you know that we create a clear file of "Heisei" and sell it.This "Heisei" calligraphy is different from the current "Reiwa" calligraphy, and was owned by Noboru Takeshita, who served as the Prime Minister at the time. It has been donated to the archives and has been kept and managed by the museum.All rights related to ownership, such as official documents and old books held by this library are free, so the secondary use of this "Heisei" calligraphy for other things is freely available. I think that you know that various goods that used "Heisei" have already been distributed to you.As for the handling of “Reiwa”, as the jurisdiction is still the government (Cabinet) at present, I think it may be safe to ask the Cabinet Secretariat just in case.I replied above.National Archives "Inquiries" responsible |
SC Sendai City (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
一回フリーフォントで作成した代替ファイルを「令和」ページに貼り付けます。- SC Sendai City (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
ところで内閣官房からの返事はいつになりそうですか？まだ4日しか経過していないので、急かす訳ではありませんが、期限を区切らないと削除依頼を徒らに長引かせる事になります。また、官房の意向として、PDに置くと言うことは著作権放棄ですし、一定のライセンシーに置くのであればライセンシーの確定と、CC等との整合性を検討すべきですし、おそらくお役所仕事から早期には明確な回答が得られないとは思います。すると、安全側に倒す事（許諾なし）も視野に入ります。(en:By the way, when likely to get reply from the Cabinet Secretariat ? Since only 4 days have passed, I do not intend to hurry, but without delimitting the deadline, it will be a prolongment of the deletion request. As the intention of the Cabinet, it is equivallent to the waiver of copyright to put on PD, and if it is put under a certain licensee, it is necessary to consider the consistency of the licensee and the CC etc. I think that we can not get a clear answer early on as of 'red tape' of the government. Then it can be considered that there might be no permission, by COM:PCP.) -Kyuri1449 (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
つい先程メール返信がありましたが、内閣府が担当しているとのことで、電話番号を教えていただきました。日本時間の4月10日には電話にて聞く予定ですので、もうしばらくお待ちください。- SC Sendai City (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
メールの内容を掲載します。(※で挟んだものは伏せたもの)- SC Sendai City (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
| 内容 | (English) | |
|---|---|---|
| 質問(Question) | 内閣官房宛に質問を問い合わせる方法が分かりませんでしたのでこちらのフォームに質問させていただきます。先日の元号発表の際に用いた「令和」の書はどこまでの範囲で使用することが可能でしょうか。どうかご返答のほどよろしくお願いいたします。 | I did not know how to ask questions to the Cabinet Secretariat, so I will ask you this form. To what extent can you use the calligraphy of “Reiwa” used in the last issue of the issue of the issue? Please for your reply. |
| 返答(Reply) | 内閣官房副長官補室の※返信者名※と申します。 この度は、内閣官房ＨＰに御意見をお寄せいただきまして、誠にありがとうございました。 お尋ねの「令和」の書でございますが、内閣府の大臣官房総務課管理室が担当しております。 つきましては、大変お手数ではございますが、内閣府（内閣府代表電話は※電話番号※）までお尋ねいただけますと幸いでございます。 御連絡が遅くなりました上、別の省庁を御案内させていただくこととなり、大変申し訳なくお詫び申し上げます。 何卒ご容赦いただけますと幸甚でございます。 | My name is ※Name※, Deputy Secretary General, Cabinet Secretariat. Thank you very much for your feedback on the Cabinet Secretariat website. It is a calligraphy of "Reiwa" you asked, but the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications Administration Division of the Cabinet Office is in charge. It is very sorry to trouble you, but it is fortunate if you can ask the Cabinet Office (Cabinet Office representative's phone number: ※Phone number※). We apologize for the delay in contacting you and will guide you through the different ministries. Thank you for your patience. |
多忙で今日中には電話ができなくなりました。FAXを送信していますので、返答があり次第掲載いたします。- SC Sendai City (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
About Wcam's editorial
[edit]
At 1st, original poster has not put any license tag (see [16] and I added copyvio tag on [17] ). 2nd, Wcam removed 'copyvio' tag by adding unsuitable tag 'PD-Japan-exempt' (see [18]). One should explain the reason on the file talk page as copyvio tag guide, but Wcam just removed copyvio tag. 3rd, I removed unsuitable tag 'PD-Japan-exempt' and put regular 'delete tag' for discussion (see [19]). 4th, again, Wcam put unsuitable tag 'PD-Japan-exempt' for mangled reason 'do not remove license tags while nomination for deletion'. Shouldn't Wcam be accuesed?--Kyuri1449 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reiwa_penmanship.svg&oldid=344566847){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reiwa_penmanship.svg&diff=next&oldid=344619834){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Reiwa_penmanship.svg&diff=next&oldid=344677260){kind=link}
- A file must have a license tag according to Commons:Copyright tags. Whether the tag is appropriate or not is what this discussion is going to find out, but a file must have a license tag. Please immediately stop removing license tags. --Wcam (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(Comment4) Wcam has put inappropriate 'No permission since|month=March|day=31|year=2019' tag on 'File:Japanese_crest_Uwajima_Sasa.svg' at [20], either. I removed it just soon. As this svg is already tagged 'self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0' for a long while. By my simple research, this svg seems Mukai's own work image, as Mukai oneself declares that its production process of image file of the crests at Commons user page [21]. And the original of this svg's crest is from Uwajima Hannate(Clan) at 17th century. I cannot understand well the reason why 'No permission' tag is added to this svg. I'm concerned that other media on Commons have also filed inappropriate license tags or complaints. -Kyuri1449 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Japanese_crest_Uwajima_Sasa.svg&diff=prev&oldid=344470249){kind=link}
- (comments 4-1) In addtion, this svg is NOT subject to requirement of OTRS ticket procedure, according to Commons:OTRS.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- (comment 4-2) This problem has now been reported to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard by me.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
CC BY 4.0
[edit]
- Shouldn't it be CC BY 4.0, considering that the calligraphy was part of a picture distributed at https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/headline/singengou/singengou_sentei.html which is licensed under terms equivalent to CC BY 4.0 per a site-wide license statement? Is there any reason to believe the site-wide statement doesn't apply? whym (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Votes
[edit]
- Keep Verified to be a government employee's work, and to be under a blanket CC BY license statement. I think we should consider that the government's site-wide license would apply in the absence of contradictory information. The calligraphy was part of a picture distributed at https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/headline/singengou/singengou_sentei.html which is licensed under terms equivalent to CC BY 4.0 by a site-wide license statement. Even if it is not PD, we can keep it as long as we attribute the government. A site-wide license should be good enough for us unless there is a counter evidence. The point of public licenses is relieving authors and users from individual inquiries. Also, I don't this is a case where someone takes a picture of an artwork and license it under CC without asking the artist - everyone involved here, including the calligrapher, was government employees and government officials, and it's logical to assume that the employer has the authority to release the picture including the artwork. whym (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete We know the calligraphy is written by Mozumi Osami, but we don't know the copyright has been transfered to the government. If it is considered as a part of government works, not all government works are put in the public domain, unlike the US government. In this case, {{PD-Japan-exempt}}) cannot apply. The photo is published under {{GJSTU-2.0}}, but the calligraphy may be copyrighted as these photos (File:Jindaiji (32804214247).jpg, File:Nanachan-ningyō reiwa.jpg) include a part of copyrighted works. Also, I'm doubtful this poor vectorized image should be kept, compared to File:Reiwa_calligraphy.png. Darklanlan (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Don't you think the calligraphy, being produced by a government employee, is likely to be a work for hire? (職務著作) In that case, copyright transfer wouldn't be necessary. whym (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This calligraphy has been published in https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/headline/singengou/singengou_sentei.html , and the published content in Japanese government homepage can be used in cc by license manner as stated in https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/terms.html . Additionally, the author of this calligraphy, 茂住修身 Mozumi Osami, is a government employee. I cannot imagine that he made this calligraphy personally. We can consider reasonably that he agrees to publish his calligraphy under the free license. This issue is solvable by changing the license, not deleting. --Yapparina (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. No further discussion in considerable period of time. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Just like the reason for deletion that announced at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reiwa penmanship.svg. Wcam also protested that this is on 'PD-Art' and 'PD-Japan-exempt'. I think the original brush-writing art IS NOT on public domain because the original is not a sort of neither laws and regulations, nor notifications, instructions, circular notices, nor judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts, nor these translations nor compilations. It is just an art made by 茂住 修身. No suitable license is not indicated by the author nor the gov. I believe that this is not on PD. - Kyuri1449 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it is part of notifications and announcements made by a State entity (item ii in {{PD-Japan-exempt}}), and 茂住 修身 created this work in the capacity of a State entity employee thus this is not a personal artwork. --Wcam (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obiviously, this calligraphy is an art work, ans is NOT notifications nor announcements, nor particle of them, made by Japan gov.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Comment) Totally, please don't think easily to put artworks made by others under copyright-free-license. This artwork is under copyright protection. The author 茂住 修身 or Japan gov owns the copyright of this. It is not PD nor copyright-free.--Kyuri1449 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is the law that certain government works are not copyright protected (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan#Not_protected) and there are very good reasons to believe this work is one of them. See my comments on the other DR. --Wcam (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obiviously 'Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan#Not_protected' will not be applied to this calligraphy. See Also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reiwa penmanship.svg.-Kyuri1449 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
