Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/09/03
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_FriedhofOhlsdorf_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
doesnt have licence Rukusbin18 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
inapropiate Rukusbin18 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
El subidor no ha dado información suficiente (una marca válida y apropiada) sobre la licencia que posee este archivo. Rukusbin18 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
inapropiado Rukusbin18 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete it as F10. Castillo blanco (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
All from this website. No permission.
- File:ROMERO,.jpg
- File:MELANO,.jpg
- File:CUELLO,.jpg
- File:JL FERNANDEZ.jpg
- File:ACOSTA.,.jpg
- File:CARRERA,.,.jpg
- File:CASTELLANI,.jpg
- File:Lotti 2019.jpg
- File:JAVIER TOLEDO.-.jpg
- File:Leandro Diaz 2019.jpg
- File:BIANCHI.jpg
- File:Ariel Rojas.--.jpg
- File:PIZZICANELLA.jpg
- File:Monzón,.jpg
- File:GISSI.jpg
- File:Ortiz.,.jpg
- File:CRISTIAN LUCCHETTI 2019.jpg
- File:Ricardo Zielinski.jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyvios. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Wrong version. MelCHWG (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just as clarification - a wrong version including non-public information. Braveheart (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
آرم وزارت میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری- اثر استاد مهدی اکبری بکرآباد Akbarim (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content. --Achim (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused & old chemical structure; superseded by File:Structural formula of 2-methyl-2-butene.svg as newer version with better file name & high-quality as well Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment Could you clarify what is higher quality about this new one and what is better about the name? By eye, they look the same (font, linewidths, margins, default size, filesize). The new one does use a different language for the name, which is formally "not better" by commons rules, and uses an deprecated IUPAC nomenclature pattern for the locant (prefix "2-butene" vs infix "but-2-ene"). DMacks (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Yes, you are right, they look the same. The problem was, that the old (nominated) file has some small SVG source code errors & warnings! Since I used a better program for creating the SVG files, I have uploaded File:Structural formula of 2-methyl-2-butene.svg as newer version. I used this case to change also the file name which is better in English. At the first glance, the two files look the same, but File:Structural formula of 2-methyl-2-butene.svg is the correct one, which should be kept. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.
Delete if the replacement fixes SVG errors in the nominated file. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification.
- @DMacks: Yes, you are right, they look the same. The problem was, that the old (nominated) file has some small SVG source code errors & warnings! Since I used a better program for creating the SVG files, I have uploaded File:Structural formula of 2-methyl-2-butene.svg as newer version. I used this case to change also the file name which is better in English. At the first glance, the two files look the same, but File:Structural formula of 2-methyl-2-butene.svg is the correct one, which should be kept. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - watermarked Mohammad 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G10. --4nn1l2 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Josechapin111 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Reflexivo.jpg
- File:Indesiso.jpg
- File:Orgullosa.jpg
- File:Entusiasta.jpg
- File:Asesor.jpg
- File:Silencioso.jpg
- File:Amistoso.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Josechapin111 (talk · contribs)
[edit]OUT of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Cliente9.jpg
- File:Cliente7.jpg
- File:Esceptico.jpg
- File:Cliente6.jpg
- File:Cliente5.jpg
- File:Dcliente4.jpg
- File:Cliente.jpg
- File:Indeciso .jpg
- File:Indeciso.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope, unlikely to be used on any Wikimedia project page Alex Cohn (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This file is likely to be used on a Wikimedia project page related to feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafita656 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment See also File:Feminism logo.svg. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Private joke/insult image, misleading name & category, out of scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not "own work" - see the book cover at https://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Merchants-Textiles-Trade-Territory/dp/0521105013 Sitush (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted False "information", bogus license claim-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
EXIF credits Matt McNulty/JMP Ytoyoda (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Copyviol. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work Ytoyoda (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Blatant copyviol -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, includes clearly watermarked photos with Instagram EXIF/
Ytoyoda (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Copyviols -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Low-res news quality photo, unlikely to be own work - file name string in the first photo indicates it was downloaded from the web.
Ytoyoda (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 19:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Possibly a complex logo per COM:TOO France. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 04:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Bogus license/authorship claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
low effect 217.64.25.38 06:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted it would have been in scope to illustrate Jabbor Rasulov, but as Rasulov died in 1982 and the uploader claims to have created the photo in 2019, the license is clearly bogus. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
An unused and uncategorised image. Out of the project scope? The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Per description the toy seems a copyrighted video character as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a fake coat of arms. The chicken legs. The dick. All nazi stuff... 139.191.190.4 08:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- But does it not surprise you that the word "transnistria" is a Nazi term? Or that in 1989 in Moldova, Rumanian Nazism actually became the official ideology? Open any Chisinau newspaper of those years before making statements about fake. 09:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Википидор гнойный (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Joke/insult image with bogus description. Out of scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Newsens (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
file in copyviol, non a free or creative-commons logo. — danyele 22:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted False license -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Disha1940460 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low-re images, no metadata, unlikely to be own work.
- File:Download (10),.jpg
- File:Download (11)ಲ್ಕಿ.jpg
- File:Download (8)ಲ್ಲ್.jpg
- File:Shಕ್ಲ್ಲ್.jpg
- File:Images೫.jpg
- File:Download,೮೫.jpg
- File:Download (7)ಲ್.jpg
- File:Download (5)ಲ್ಲ್.jpg
- File:Download (2)ಮ್.jpg
,.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%95%E0%B2%BF.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E0%B2%AE%E0%B3%8D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; deleted as speedy. --Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Endlosschleife im Kategorie Baum. War von mir als Unterkategorie in "Brick stamps in Germany " gedacht. Habe Seite selbs erstellt - Georgfotoart Georgfotoart (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: doesn't refer to cfd page. --Achim (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work / out of project scope
- File:VIP.jpg
- File:Indian food @ Next 2.jpg
- File:Singh @ next.jpg
- File:@ next 2.jpg
- File:Long service Award.jpg
- File:Hon'ble Minister of External Affairs Smt-Sushma Swaraj and Indian Ambassador - 6.jpg
- File:Unvc9Hyiv0r9HkKtcqvpAosxOxkjvsXe6qy-X7Bsjvkw234-h207-p-no.jpg
- File:Ballroom @ Shangri-la.jpg
- File:XWMTsNSW2tkojLhxi7dz9vV7N4lt5REFcwd7hcvnTFkw213-h229-p-no.jpg
- File:Award 10.jpg
- File:Award 5.jpg
- File:Ashoka.jpg
- File:@ Balroom Shangri-la.jpg
- File:GM @.jpg
- File:66 republic day.jpg
- File:Dusit Bangok.jpg
- File:Award at Dushit Thani Bangkok.jpg
- File:Indian Embassy @.jpg
- File:Award @ Dust Thani Bangkok.png
- File:บุฟเฟ่ดินเนอร์ วันศุกร์ แชงกรีลากรุงเทพ Dinner Buffet NEXT2 Cafe ShangriLa Bangkok 23.jpg
- File:บุฟเฟ่ดินเนอร์ วันศุกร์ แชงกรีลากรุงเทพ Dinner Buffet NEXT2 Cafe ShangriLa Bangkok 41.jpg
- File:Pm @ shangri-la.jpg
- File:Award @ Myanmar Ashoka.jpg
- File:5 year 2 shangri-la.jpg
- File:@ the Boat.jpg
- File:Germany at Maharaja.jpg
- File:@ Next @ Bangkok.jpg
- File:Indian Embassy.jpg
- File:Indian embassy.jpg
- File:Indian Food @ next 2.jpg
- File:Award Yangoon.jpg
- File:Indian food Promotion.jpg
- File:@ boat.jpg
- File:@ Next -2.jpg
- File:Big function @ chianMai.jpg
Didym (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 07:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted: Many of the uploads are clear copyright violations, and other include false claims on authorship. On balance it is clear that the uploader has failed across his uploads to give proper attribution/permission information. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope Commons is not a social media site.
- File:CDP gold.jpg
- File:March 22 Award.jpg
- File:Next2-Shangri-La-Hotel-.jpg
- File:VIP.jpg
- File:Award 1.jpg
- File:Main Kitchen.jpg
- File:Next 2.jpg
- File:CHAI 2.jpg
- File:The Sunday Brunch.jpg
✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chefsingh. Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~ Moheen (keep talking) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 7.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 6.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 5.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 4.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 3.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 2.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh .jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10). --Эlcobbola talk 17:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#EDUSE O revolucionário aliado (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by NahidSultan at 18:40, 4 September 2019 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 01:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
unused personal photo. oos 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
No source. Unknown copyright situation. I could not trace this back to e.g. a NASA website. Bogus license. Jcb (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete unless info on actual source and verifiable copyright status can be provided. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- comment: Uploader indicated they are away from their computer at the moment, and will trace the correct source as soon as they are back. Since this file was uploaded, the uploader has had similar problems with other files, and I trust they are working to improve. I will keep an eye on this file for the coming weeks; please do not delete immediately. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep Thanks to goodwill and cooperation from uploader, the source has now been identified and the license has been fixed. The file can be kept now. Ariadacapo (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, this will do. Thanks! Jcb (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Jcb (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|:File:New Basket Brindisi logo 2017.png}}| ZG 90 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, redirected. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope personal photo Mindmatrix 01:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Facebook.co1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possibly oos.
- File:® Steven Searcy owner editor and All rights are reserved solely to company Steve Searcy Properties LLC 06.png
- File:® Steven Searcy owner editor and All rights are reserved solely to company Steve Searcy Properties LLC 05.png
- File:® Steven Searcy owner editor and All rights are reserved solely to company Steve Searcy Properties LLC 04.png
- File:® Steven Searcy owner editor and All rights are reserved solely to company Steve Searcy Properties LLC 03.png
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: User blocked, OOS files. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned photo of a non-notable individual, no apparent use since being uploaded in December 2018 other than this disruptive edit to an article about a rice dish. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 06:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned photo of the uploader, no apparent use since being uploaded in May 2018. Possibly intended for self-promotion. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused file possibly part of advert. Out of scope Malcolma (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; uncat since 2015. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
unused file. Looks to be some sort of personal artwork or advert. Out of Scope. Malcolma (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Tiny photo without metadata, copyright violation is likely as well. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted and no metadata present - IndrajitDas 11:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete We know nothing about the copyright here, but it's not "own work" as claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج الفتيحى (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج عباس.jpg
- File:محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج .jpg
- File:خدمات الكمبيوتر والانترنت محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج .jpg
- File:الباشا محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج .jpg
- File:محمد عاطف أبو الحجاج الفتيحى .jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Not useful. CptViraj (📧) 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Illflyyoujump (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Badcodek20000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Ramtinabastudio14رامتین آبا.jpg
- File:Ramtinabastudio15.jpg
- File:Ramtinabastudio12رامتین آبا.jpg
- File:Ramtinabastudio3رامتین آبا.jpg
- File:Ramtinabastudio1.jpg
- File:Ramtinabastudio4رامتین آبا.jpg
- File:بیلبورد فیلم لب خط.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused image of what looks like the back of a photograph.Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mt.moosavi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE
Ahmadtalk 17:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo - per COM:OOS and COM:HOST Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Personal photo - per COM:OOS and COM:HOST. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
as per COM:OOS and COM:HOST Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
as per COM:OOS and COM:HOST Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Self-promotion, out of project scope. No contribs to any wm project, in addition very low quality of the images.
- File:Daniel Barnes, Author of many contribution.jpg
- File:Daniel Barnes, Author of "Straight from the Mind" and "Poetic Enlightenment" 01.jpg
- File:Author Daniel Barnes.jpeg
Achim (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Blatant self-promotion, out of project scope. en:Draft:Daniel Montez Barnes has been declined.
- File:Writer Daniel M Barnes.jpg
- File:Author Daniel Montez Barnes 01.jpg
- File:Danie M Barnes.jpg
- File:D.Barnes.png
Achim (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in self-promotional Wikidata item.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Orphan personal/self promotion photo; no other contributions by uploader. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lerow drug (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Lerow drug u.jpg
- File:Lerow drug z.jpg
- File:Lerow drug j.jpg
- File:Lerow drug a.jpg
- File:Lerow drug e.jpg
- File:Lerow drug.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 189.150.6.16 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: violation of copyright Maybe the logo does not surpass threshold of originality, that case the file can be in Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 05 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 187.147.216.156 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple. --DaB. (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
es:Playnux was deleted thrice and en:Playnux once. Probably the company is non-notable and the logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This work is copyrighted in its home country, and will be until 70 years after the death of its author (2034), per COM:CRT/Denmark#General rules. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: It seems to be public domain in the US though (as a work published before 1924), which is probably why archive.org had the scan that I then uploaded. I assumed that that meant I could upload it, but if that isn't the case, delete it. Perhaps the file could be uploaded at Multilingual Wikisource instead, because there are several scans of German books there that are PD in the United States but still under copyright in Germany. Sorry for the inconvenience I may have caused with uploading this file. DraconicDark (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- @DraconicDark: it is not an inconvenience, I don't expect you to understand Commons' labyrinthine policies when you're a newbie. In any case, we only host a file if it's public domain in its home country as well. In this case, if my reading of Dutch copyright law is correct, it is still under copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Small, low res, no metadata. Unlikely to be own work.
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 02:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Low-re images, unlikely to be own works.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
“FBMD” in EXIF indicates the photo was previously published on Facebook Ytoyoda (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SmirnovMV1995 (talk · contribs)
[edit]From WhatsApp, no permission.
- File:IMG-20190902-WA0004.jpg
- File:IMG-20190902-WA0003.jpg
- File:IMG-20190902-WA0000.jpg
- File:IMG-20190902-WA0002.jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ultimatemedia04 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in March 2019 as non-notable. Additionally, the user was indefinitely blocked for spam there. Out of project scope.
- File:The Chirag Nagpal Shoot Time Talent Track.jpg
- File:The Chirag Nagpal.jpg
- File:Nagpal chirag photo.jpg
ƏXPLICIT 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Only used on the Japanese Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in February 2011 for spam and lacking context. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination reason; no reason to keep. Handoto (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Promotional and out of scope of Wikipedia education - IndrajitDas 07:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Mundane subject but in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; deleted as F10. --Gbawden (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Only used on the Spanish Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in October and November 2009 as non-notable. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 07:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:FakerFiloMan
[edit]- File:Barbie Velez 06.jpg
- File:Barbie velez (10).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (11).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (12).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (13).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (14).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (2).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (3).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (4).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (5).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (6).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (7).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (8).jpg
- File:Barbie velez (9).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
COM:PORN? The person is deleted in eswiki (see es:Barbie Vélez). See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbie velez (1).jpg --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Photos of a non-notable person. AshFriday (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious claim of own work, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
blurry duplicate of File:Criação do criador.jpg Thiotrix (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Per FBMD... in beginning of special instructions field of metadata, the photo is previously published in Facebook. Facebook does not allow republishing its content on other sites, including Commons. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed on such cases. Taivo (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Image possibly retrieved from source web article and main source; uploader possibly does not own copyright on the image Markoolio97 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
An unused and uncategorised image. Commons is not a private photo album. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
License unclear, also in use at https://twitter.com/donceder Agora (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
taken from https://twitter.com/vincevanmeer Agora (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Where is the policy-based reason as to why images should be deleted for no other reason than "no EXIF" ?
- Also this is part of a bulk deletion for the same rationale, and they should have been listed together. Anyone interested should scan the day list too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Where is the policy-based reason to delete images solely on the basis of having no EXIF ? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by ~AntanO4task as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.flickr.com/photos/asienman/22787929646 ~AntanO4task (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The image is very small and do not have proper EXIF. Google image search points to many sources. And, this file seems bit of editing (crop, level/color correction) from source image. --~AntanO4task (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete lifted from https://www.flickr.com/photos/radahann/15330946863/ and marked as "all rights reserved". --0x0a (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete From https://www.tripadvisor.in/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g608476-d3243840-i250904534-Udayagiri_Fort-Kanyakumari_Kanyakumari_District_Tamil_Nadu.html Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete from https://www.tripadvisor.in/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g608476-d3243840-i250904534-Udayagiri_Fort-Kanyakumari_Kanyakumari_District_Tamil_Nadu.html Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 11:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a copy of https://www.tripadvisor.in/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g608476-d3243840-i250904534-Udayagiri_Fort-Kanyakumari_Kanyakumari_District_Tamil_Nadu.html so the "own work" claim fails and thus the licence claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
re-uploaded Микола Василечко (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably copyvio from https://www.estunlar.fo/en/about-the-tunnels/the-eysturoy-tunnel/: Copyright © 2016 P/F Eysturoyar- og Sandoyartunnil. All rights reserved. Harold (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Exif Meta data - IndrajitDas 12:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST.
CptViraj (📧) 14:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTHOST.
CptViraj (📧) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow. let me explain. This image was taken during the appointment of deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla in the Ethiopian parliament. There is no copyright in Ethiopia on this image . Please refer to the Ethiopian Copy right law for more explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedhasa (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: This image was sent via Whatsapp. We need details of photogapher, date etc to confirm license. --Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in vanity article. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Swisscollection (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#G10 (files and pages created as advertisements)
- File:Jewelry sets free taxes by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets with rings by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets 60% off by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets summer sell with sunglasses by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets with handbags by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets with sunglasses by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets free shipping by Swiss Collection.jpg
- File:Jewelry sets modern by Swiss Collection.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Achim55. --Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Not own work Shanze1 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0210382/mediaviewer/rm602932992. Modify date of shooting and explain why image is public domain in Spain. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
unknown musical group Pippobuono (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely copyvio per exif. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
©2013 Robert W. Hart Roy17 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Funnygrinface
[edit]
Out of scope, poor quality images --Alex Cohn (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused screenshot. Description not very helpful, Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Uncat notice since 2015. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted by Borgerhoff according to earlier published version, proof of ownership is needed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Waarom wil je dat de foto wordt verwijderd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazaE (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination;PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Henri de Jordan (d. 1996), permission of his heirs needed via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted work by Guy Bardone (d. 2015), permission of his heirs needed via COM:OTRS Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons scope due to very low quality; not useful MPF (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Blurry small res image; no compensating uniqueness nor importance - both relevant categories have many much better images. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not a selfie as claimed. Probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Small photo without camera data, the uploader's only contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Watermark "David King shot it!". OTRS-permission from David King is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucie2beaugency (talk · contribs)
[edit]Permission of each artist's heirs needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Metz Musée G Pompidou Picasso rideau scène -.jpg
- File:Metz Musée G Pompidou intérieur Sol LeWitt 2.jpg
- File:Metz Musée G Pompidou intérieur Sol LeWitt.jpg
- File:Metz Musée G Pompidou intérieur Lioubov Popova.jpg
- File:Metz Musée G Pompidou intérieur Alexandre Vesnine.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a photo from a book or a magazin. Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - own work unlikely. --whym (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The file is an image of a recent painting, which is likely to be copyrighted. As there is no FOP in Hong Kong for 2D artworks per COM:FOP Hong Kong, the file is likely to be copyrighted and unfree. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 05:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Artist still living, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The country of Eritrea is not included in this map and their territory has been included in Ethiopia 68.168.183.90 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Comment Image is in use in multiple pages. Could someone make a new version with the Eritrea-Ethiopia border included, or is there a similar file already on Commons that has the correct current boundaries? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The good request to ask is not a deletion, but an update. I can do this update ; and will in the next days. Sémhur (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Update
Done. Sémhur (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Update
- Keep Thanks @Sémhur: indeed an update request would have been better than this deletion request. Skimel (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, fixed by User:Sémhur. --4nn1l2 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is possibly a copyrighted work. It's taken from an unknown source, its reference is unclear, its veracity is unverifiable. Cherkash (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Platonides (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This is possibly a copyrighted work. It's taken from an unknown source, its reference is unclear, its veracity is unverifiable. Cherkash (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete In any case it is orphan uncat for more than 3 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Platonides (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This is possibly a copyrighted work. It's taken from an unknown source, its reference is unclear, its veracity is unverifiable. Cherkash (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unknown "Ref. [4]." source. --Platonides (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
TwoWingsBis files
[edit]These files have as an author "TwoWingsBis". According to User:TwoWings/TwoWings_Bis, this means that ".. I am sure I'm not the photographer but I cannot remember who took the picture [...] The fact that I own the original picture and/or the negative makes me think there's no problem of authorization".
This should be deleted according to COM:PCP (precautionary principle) since we don't know the real author and there is no ground to believe that the copyright has been released (in the contrary).
- File:BNoël-Bruneau and MJCroze 2004.JPG
- File:Bertille Noël-Bruneau + Marie-Josée Croze 2004.JPG
- File:MJCroze.jpg
- File:MJCrozeCropped.jpg
AntonierCH (d) 21:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. In the original uncropped pictures, I'm on it. So yes, someone else took them. But I asked them to take the pictures with my own camera on my behalf. I don't think we could give any credit nor right for that to the actual photographer(s). And there's no copyright since the actual photographers have never owned them and they have never been registered or published elsewhere before it was uploaded on Commons. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader's stance demonstrates a completely incorrect interpretation of copyright law. Under modern law, Copyright exists as soon as a work is fixed, and the author/copyright holder is presumed to be the person who actually took the picture unless otherwise transferred or assigned per contract. The fact that they did not own the camera or "engineer" the shot is invalid. The copyright belongs to whoever actually took the photo unless otherwise noted. Please obtain OTRS permission from the person who operated the camera. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151: To my knowledge that doesn't work when you ask an anonymous person to take a picture on your behalf with your own camera, for instance when you ask someone in the street to take a picture of yourself in front of a monument (we're in that kind of case here since I appear on the original uncropped version, the only difference being that those pictures have probably been taken by any member of the crew of the film La Petite Chartreuse for which I work, but let's be honest : how can you remember such facts as who took such pictures ?! Even if I did, this person will probably not remember it. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove who exactly took them.). How honestly could you find that person and ask him/her any information or authorization ? In that kind of case, copyright for the photographer doesn't apply. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- No that is not how it works. Copyright of works you did not create only belongs to you if you reached a specific agreement to transfer it. You are publishing a copyrighted work without authorization. You may have decided that it is not worth the effort to identify and seek permission from the copyright holder, but we operate on the precautionary principle (especially #4). ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have not DECIDED it wasn"t "worth the effort to identify and seek permission from the copyright holder", it is just IMPOSSIBLE ! I can understand the precautionary principle, but let's try to be honest with such cases : it means that it's impossible to use (never and ever) a picture for which you asked someone to take it for you (generally because you appear on it while it was your camera). Indeed : 1) it's generally impossible to remember who really took it ; 2) it might often be some anonymous person whom it's impossible to contact ; 3) even if you manage to fulfil the previous points, this person would very probably not remember having taken this photograph and it would be impossible to prove it anyway ! For some of those pictures, I suspect they were taken by actor Yves Jacques during the shooting of that film (but I'm not sure). I could try to contact him and ask him, but really : how could anyone expect that he would remember such a thing and be able to prove it was him ? The precautionary principle doesn't even mention such cases (pictures taken with the uploader's camera by anonymous persons). When it says "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted", it doesn't mean there are automatically significant doubts. For such files, there are NO significant doubts ! COM:PRP also mentions "good faith" in order to determine if there are significant doubts. Do you really consider that my history of contributions on Commons lead to the fact that we may have significant doubts about what I claim for those shots ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's some irony about that DR : if I hadn't been honest in the credits of those files, no-one would have ever noticed or complained about anything. Deleting those files would sound like an appeal of cheating. That's sad. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note that I had another picture with the young Bertille and me on it. I could have cropped it and uploaded it too, but I didn't. Why ? Because that one had been sent to me as a souvenir by Bertille's mother. I could clearely make the difference between that file (for which I couldn't claim any copyright owning) and those taken with my own camera. Just because of the fact that it's quite logical to own the rights of pictures of yourself taken with your own camera by an anonymous person on your behalf. Let's face it : in that kind of case, we have to assume good faith. So what if it's impossible to find the identity of the photographer ? And what if I manage to ask Yves Jaques ? Whatever his answer is, we'd have to assume good faith, hadn't we ? Could anyone explain what we should really do in such cases ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- NB : there are DRs for which we assume good faith from the uploader without asking any proof, like this one closed by Srittau. Considering my contributions on Commons, I think I could be considered as reliable enough. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have not DECIDED it wasn"t "worth the effort to identify and seek permission from the copyright holder", it is just IMPOSSIBLE ! I can understand the precautionary principle, but let's try to be honest with such cases : it means that it's impossible to use (never and ever) a picture for which you asked someone to take it for you (generally because you appear on it while it was your camera). Indeed : 1) it's generally impossible to remember who really took it ; 2) it might often be some anonymous person whom it's impossible to contact ; 3) even if you manage to fulfil the previous points, this person would very probably not remember having taken this photograph and it would be impossible to prove it anyway ! For some of those pictures, I suspect they were taken by actor Yves Jacques during the shooting of that film (but I'm not sure). I could try to contact him and ask him, but really : how could anyone expect that he would remember such a thing and be able to prove it was him ? The precautionary principle doesn't even mention such cases (pictures taken with the uploader's camera by anonymous persons). When it says "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted", it doesn't mean there are automatically significant doubts. For such files, there are NO significant doubts ! COM:PRP also mentions "good faith" in order to determine if there are significant doubts. Do you really consider that my history of contributions on Commons lead to the fact that we may have significant doubts about what I claim for those shots ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- No that is not how it works. Copyright of works you did not create only belongs to you if you reached a specific agreement to transfer it. You are publishing a copyrighted work without authorization. You may have decided that it is not worth the effort to identify and seek permission from the copyright holder, but we operate on the precautionary principle (especially #4). ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151: To my knowledge that doesn't work when you ask an anonymous person to take a picture on your behalf with your own camera, for instance when you ask someone in the street to take a picture of yourself in front of a monument (we're in that kind of case here since I appear on the original uncropped version, the only difference being that those pictures have probably been taken by any member of the crew of the film La Petite Chartreuse for which I work, but let's be honest : how can you remember such facts as who took such pictures ?! Even if I did, this person will probably not remember it. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove who exactly took them.). How honestly could you find that person and ask him/her any information or authorization ? In that kind of case, copyright for the photographer doesn't apply. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: as per TwoWings. --Yann (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Work from w:Jean Moulin
[edit]w:Jean Moulin (fr) died on 8 July 1943 which is 76 years ago. However, he "died for France" ("mort pour la France") which extends the standard copyright term by 30 years according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France#General. (requested via OTRS ticket:2019082310006606)
- File:157 Jean Moulin Piétà.jpg
- File:324 Jean Moulin Paysage mauvais.jpg
- File:325 Tristan Corbière Armor Romanin.jpg
- File:326 Jean Moulin Jeunes mariés portant la statue de sainte Anne.jpg
- File:Musée de l'imprimerie de Bordeaux - lithographe de Jean Moulin 1.jpg
- File:Musée de l'imprimerie de Bordeaux - lithographe de Jean Moulin 2.jpg
AntonierCH (d) 06:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Is this still applicable under the current copyright laws? If so, that would indicate a broader problem, e.g. we would also need to delete all files in Category:Le Petit Prince (1943 book). Jcb (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jcb: this is very complicated (it's not just "+ 30 years") but yes, this is still applicable (see also fr:Prorogations de guerre), if my calculation is correct Jean Moulin works will enter public domain on 30 April 2032 (1 January 1944 + 88 years and 120 days). Yes, it also concerns Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Le Petit Prince is public domain everywhere in the world since 2015, except in France where we need to wait until the 30 April 2033 (#CopyrightMadness). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am affraid this will be a delete then :-( - Jcb (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jcb: this is very complicated (it's not just "+ 30 years") but yes, this is still applicable (see also fr:Prorogations de guerre), if my calculation is correct Jean Moulin works will enter public domain on 30 April 2032 (1 January 1944 + 88 years and 120 days). Yes, it also concerns Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Le Petit Prince is public domain everywhere in the world since 2015, except in France where we need to wait until the 30 April 2033 (#CopyrightMadness). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This means that the pictures could be used in all other countries with "70 (full) years post mortem auctoris" as a standard due to the Berne Convention which is 99 per cent of the rest of the world. -- 2001:4DD5:D1EF:0:C498:ED33:3ECA:C2FF 16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That may be, but we demand files to be free in the source country. Jcb (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought it would be 1944 + 70 + 30 = 2044, but I will trust VIGNERON calculations (you seem to be taking into account the previous legislation) and categorize to undelete in 2032. Platonides (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Platonides: I'm not 100% sure of my calculation (this is really complicated) but I'm sure it's not 1944 + 70 + 30. There is regularly articles about this odd situation, here for Saint-Exupéry or there for Apollinaire (both recent articles on the current state of the legislation). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: undelete on 30 April 2032. --Platonides (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Edwin Julian Manzano Rndon. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Wrong license and contain a painted logo Which is most likely not free
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYRIGHT: Source: "gogle images" (sic). --Platonides (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Screenshot of a deleted page on Chinese Wikipedia. Out of scope. Techyan（Talk） 12:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Unneeded image. At least it was free!. --Platonides (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This photo was taken by me and has my name on the copyright. I would like to remain anonymous so could this photo please be deleted. Thank you LakeKnowledge (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep where is your name? I don't see it. So you are anonymous anyway.--ProfessorX (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Name appeared in Exif data. LakeKnowledge, please reupload with sanitizing the data you may not want to be public. Platonides (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request Platonides (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Low-re image, no metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete Low res of stock image https://stock.adobe.com/149867351. First found on Apr 26, 2019 by Tineye Platonides (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Platonides (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
arquivo errado e licença errada Irapuan Glória Júnior (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per uploader request. --Platonides (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
False ownership claim. No way this year 1965 photo was taken by a wikipedian. It looks like it is a scan from a book or a newspaper, most probably the one cited in Russian wikipedia at the moment of article creation: номер газеты "Вечерний Минск" от 1 ноября 1967 года. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. Here is the place where this photo is with real attribution: Так телевышка выглядела в 1965 г. Фото Иванова Н.А. Из архива Воложинского В.Г. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- PPS. In fact there was an AfD in ru wiki due to copyvio: the initial article (together with the photo) was ripped off the webpage I cited in previous P.S. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Platonides (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyright. Higher resolution can be found here. The only contribution of the user and no meta data. Wouter (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Original image seems to be [1] (1280×1920), which is actually CC-BY 2.0: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pahudson/5924187942/ so it could be uploaded to commons if needed. This copyright-infringing image is unused, though. Platonides (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6147/5924187942_a3483f0334_o.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per above. --Platonides (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France. Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Platonides (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
and
Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Articles should be edited in wikipedia, not uploaded as pdf or images. --Platonides (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- also file:Palmier lgo.png
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- User: Perhelion 20:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Cannot determine copyright status in the US as it lacks publication info, if any Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly PD. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per Secondarywaltz. -- User: Perhelion 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Cannot determine copyright status in the US as it lacks publication information Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The ship was destroyed in 1926. This picture is PD. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per Secondarywaltz. -- User: Perhelion 20:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
_FriedhofOhlsdorf_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_FriedhofOhlsdorf_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Because it is ƏLİYEV MÜQAMƏT SÜLEYMAN OĞLU (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
_FriedhofOhlsdorf_(2).jpg){kind=link}
- It is - what? Theres no reason for deletion given. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- speedy keep, nonsense request --Magnus (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Strange entries on user's (=red link, mobile) Contribs page ... Thank you both for intervention! --Vitavia (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- speedy keep, nonsense request --Magnus (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. -- User: Perhelion 20:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
_FriedhofOhlsdorf_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Загружено по ошибке ƏLİYEV MÜQAMƏT SÜLEYMAN OĞLU (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader nomination. -- User: Perhelion 20:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shortermtrading (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE
- File:نمونه ای از Jesma و پارامترها و فاکتورها و نمودارهای آن.gif
- File:SESC1.gif
- File:مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک بورس، فرابورس .gif
- File:مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک بورس، فرابورس و حومه.gif
- File:MORTEZA Rahmani.gif
- File:MORTEZA.gif
Ahmadtalk 19:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, keept SESC1.gif as it was in use. -- User: Perhelion 20:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
duplicate File:CFP-2 Millerand (cropped).jpg Cheep (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment One has the caption cropped off, the other does not. Possibly both could be of use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: not exact dupe, per above. -- User: Perhelion 20:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1969 and no indication that the author would have been unknown at the time. Jcb (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: It is indeed a weighting of the assumption. The photograph was made more than 70 years ago. The author cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry and a publishment is to presume. -- User: Perhelion 21:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfie of subject, unlikely to be own work. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Photograph taken by James and shared with me directly for the purpose of uploading here — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMadden (talk • contribs) 2019-09-04 15:36:19 (UTC)
- JonathanMadden: Then this is not own work, but the author is James. Would be desirable to have an COM:OTRS release. Platonides (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted no OTRS nor clarification of license since. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Jerk and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Close as Kept no evident problem nor reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work of a mural Ytoyoda (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I used the CC-Zero license for the photograph itself. Perhaps I should have used another one? I realize that the owner of a copyrighted work retains the rights to the work itself, and I cannot publish the photo under a different license. However, I do not believe the mural has a copyright. There is no author information and no notice of copyright on or around it, at the entrance to the stadium, in the team yearbook, nor on the team's web site. I see staff members watch people take pictures of of it, and they make no attempt to prevent or caution about doing so. Also, it is permanently displayed and is viewable from outside of the stadium. I'm certainly no expert on copyright law, just judging by the policies posted on Commons. That was my rationale for uploading it. Waz8 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Waz8: The relevant policy is COM:FOP US—a photograph displayed in public is still under copyright. That the staff doesn’t stop people from photographing it doesn’t change the copyright status. Presumably, fans are photographing it for their personal enjoyment, and they’re not re-publishing it under a license that allows commercial and/or derivative use on a global platform. In any case, copyright holders are under no obligation to provide a copyright notice or warn users against relicensing. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Does not seem like own work. Should be re-sourced/-licensed if applicable.
- File:Interieur Faut.jpg
- File:Schapen in de wei .jpg
- File:Portret van een dame .jpg
- File:Kerkinterieur .jpg
- File:Drie nymfen in het paradijs.jpg
大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 03:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
No EXIF metà data, Copyrighted and have multiple instances in google - IndrajitDas 04:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
copyright violation Paul Brussel (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036346-4.png and File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036345-3.png
[edit]
Half a scan of something from this old book. A duplicate is available at File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036347-2.png, which will be saved for future reference. -- Deadstar (msg) 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I found the full image available on Commons already - File:Frictional Electrical Machine. Wellcome M0018262.jpg. As there is no need to keep the other half scan for future reference, can I suggest we remove all these related files:
- File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036346-4.png (bottom half of the page)
- File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036345-3.png (bottom half of the page)
- File:The history and present state of electricity, with original experiments, by Joseph Priestley, LL Fleuron T036347-2.png (bottom half of the page)
and
- I will mark them for deletion. Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 08:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, per Deadstar's investigation. Taivo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
This is possibly a copyrighted work. It's taken from an unknown source, its reference is unclear, its veracity is unverifiable. Cherkash (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This is possibly a copyrighted work. It's taken from an unknown source, its reference is unclear, its veracity is unverifiable. Cherkash (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
no source. Mutter Erde (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Metadata states copyright holder "JAKUB JOACHIM". It is not the uploader NoJin (Jindřich Nosek). 194.79.55.130 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Portrait was taken during a guarantee repair of my Nikon with camera provided by Nikon company. I did not notice exif data. I have uploaded second portrait from the same series. File:Jiří Hanák (2016) II.jpg--NoJin (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
_II.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Assume good faith. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Garbage descriptions, at least one is tracked to its web origin, the others are implausible as "own work". http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/deactivated-guns/modern-deactivated-guns/deactivated-enfield-arwen-37/prod_244.html
- Original apparently at https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/FHJ-84?file=FHJ84.jpg, CC-BY-SA compatible unless noted otherwise. Item depicted is an FHJ-84 incendiary rocket launcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenSeas (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- File:79tvvv-AK-15.jpg
- File:Beryl M762.jpg
- File:Arx-160-assault-rifle-grenade-launcher-stand-alone.png
- File:Stand alone 1.png
- File:L2H-1.png
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It simply does not seem plausible that these are all "own work" rather than scraped from the web. User has had a number of similar files deleted for this reason. At least a couple are watermarked/annotated inconsistent with the "own work" claim and others find many hits on web searches. (As an information note, user is probable sockpuppet of Nittin Das, who had similar deleted uploads here. See [2], [3]).
- File:Images hk33.jpg
- File:PICTgjbh.jpg
- File:Imagvnvvbb.jpg
- File:6pRjFkL.jpg
- File:Fxfffh.jpg
- File:2019rggg.jpg
- File:List of Indian rifles.jpg
- File:Golden-eagle-amd-65-ak-out-of-stock-1249-p.jpg
- File:LG 5 on the tripod.jpg
- File:Norinco LG5.jpg
- File:Inkunzi paw.jpg
- File:Mag 7 shotguns.jpg
- File:ARDE 40 mm.jpg
- File:Riot launcher.jpg
- File:Enfield riot.jpg
- File:Arx-160-assault-rifle-grenade-launcher-stand-alone.png
Begoon 02:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Delete and block. They know the issue, they're just deliberately ignoring it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Stamp. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This is {{PD-Art}}. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- What are country and date of issue to claim so? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Louis Rigal, the designer, died in 1955, so this will be under copyright until 1/1/2026. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Historical advertisment. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - 1890 USA image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
British film. Any reason for U.S. law to apply? Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The movie is a US-GB coproduction, isn't it ? --Guise (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The movie was screened in the USA, and gained the US law. Stanley Kubrick was the American film director and producer. Dgw (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Kubrick was American but was resident in the UK at the time (and thus qualifying as a US national living abroad), where he made the film. The copyright was shared by Warner Bros and Polaris productions (the latter of which seems to be a shell company, and almost certainly incorporated in the UK to qualify for the Eady levy). The film itself premiered in the US first but went on general release in the UK a month earlier. However, it is likely the trailer in both countries preceded the US premiere. If the trailer debuted in the UK first then the trailer is under UK copyright and not in the US PD due to the URAA. If the trailer debuted in the US first then it is in the US PD. That is my interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The trailer for A Clockwork Orange was not made by Kubrick himself, it was made by US resident Pablo Ferro using only outtakes for the film (1). Just found out there's also an US TV Spot for the film which includes some of the material used in the trailer (including the file in question). You can tell the TV spot was made for US exhibition because it has an MPAA "R rated" card near the titles.--Mayimbú (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Kubrick was American but was resident in the UK at the time (and thus qualifying as a US national living abroad), where he made the film. The copyright was shared by Warner Bros and Polaris productions (the latter of which seems to be a shell company, and almost certainly incorporated in the UK to qualify for the Eady levy). The film itself premiered in the US first but went on general release in the UK a month earlier. However, it is likely the trailer in both countries preceded the US premiere. If the trailer debuted in the UK first then the trailer is under UK copyright and not in the US PD due to the URAA. If the trailer debuted in the US first then it is in the US PD. That is my interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The movie was screened in the USA, and gained the US law. Stanley Kubrick was the American film director and producer. Dgw (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
British film. Any reason for U.S. law to apply? Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This image is included in a lawsuit against Forever 21. I don’t think we should have it on commons. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6379119-Grande.html page 9. Premeditated (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, including the images in a lawsuit may end up making them PD. Platonides (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion The TV tower is utilitarian and does not have a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Copyrighted file from https://www.vehicle-rent.com/en/international-driving-permit-in-which-countries-do-you-need-It/blog/ (all right reserved) Holapaco77 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - The TV tower is utilitarian and does not have a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep per COM:DM. Sealle (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- DM inapplicable because the photo was specifically of a protected object, not just a movie poster in the background. Ad it is used in wikipedia to illustrate the protected object. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion The TV tower is utilitarian and does not have a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion The TV tower is utilitarian and does not have a copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
no EXIF data, possibly autoPROMO MiguelAlanCS (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hégésippe Cormier as Speedy (speedy deletion) and the most recent rationale was: Unknown author, and the source (https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/c/christie.htm) shows the first version of the Commons image, which is a cropped version of the real image (later uploaded on Commons). Licence/License (public domain as in Argentina) can't also be real, bexause the large version was not done in Argentina but probably in the United Kingdom. No one can prove that this image is in the public domain, as we don't know who is the photographer. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC). The file has been 5 years in Commons and it is heavily used, so regular deletion request is created, but probably the photo should be deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP. The same for File:Agatha Christie in the 1970s.jpg. --VLu (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 11:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brianza2008 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Contain artworks
- File:Ikea nuova idea sea.jpg
- File:Nastro50th.jpg
- File:Panogia Dreams Las Faigas.jpg
- File:From Tecuna to Brooklyn.jpg
- File:Mastropichus.JPG
- File:Cosariello.JPG
- File:Dlo the mythe.JPG
- File:Ruddy drunked.JPG
- File:Kirin the piscinin nin nin.JPG
- File:Gösser Dark.JPG
- File:Golden Pinarella.JPG
- File:Bafet.JPG
- File:Ricaricami.JPG
- File:Laverguenza.JPG
- File:DESERTVILLE.JPG
- File:4luppoli.JPG
- File:SemperCiuc.JPG
- File:Alaninlove.JPG
- File:AgustinLubascch.JPG
- File:Londoner.JPG
- File:Lucian al bev.JPG
- File:RupertSciamenna.JPG
- File:Luich Pastich.JPG
- File:Sdurubai.jpg
- File:Euroshopper.JPG
- File:Gaita From Settala.JPG
- File:Slalom Canaja.JPG
- File:Lagerlager.JPG
- File:Petras05.JPG
- File:No Martens No Party.jpg
- File:Polska Drink.jpg
- File:Actien Brauerei beer bottle.jpg
- File:Vale46plus.jpg
- File:Romagna Secret's.jpg: To be deleted, but I couldn't delete it due to system error. – Kwj2772 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- File:Bevascion.jpg
- File:YoCubaneroFuerteBeer.jpg
- File:Drinking Van Pur.jpg
- File:Darguner Pilsener.jpg
ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep File:Ricaricami.JPG De minimis Haven't checked all of them yet, but this is just another of those unfounded scatter-gun deletions with no solid basis to it and a complete ignorance of the subtleties involved in copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The beer bottles (all of the others) would be Delete under COM:PACKAGING, although some might be too simple for that and wouldn't be protected by copyright, per COM:TOO. Quality's not great though, so I'm not going to argue that case.
- This is an example though (yet again) of why scatter-gunning with trivial nominations is so bad (and ought to be rejected anyway). Why is File:Ricaricami.JPG even listed here? It's a quite different situation for copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The beer bottles (all of the others) would be
- I notice a heavy fuss from you because of File:Ricaricami.JPG but this picture, like the rest of the pictures: contains other images, ie, derivative works ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PACKAGING. Kept for File:Actien Brauerei beer bottle.jpg: under the threshold of originality. – Kwj2772 (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Jerk, empty subject and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Jerk, lack of subject and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Jerk, subject available and don't meet the scope of commons and Wiki Loves Monuments too Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! มองโกเลีย๔๔ 13:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: superseded by File:Cambodia road sign R1-05.svg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Kyseessä on valokuva tekijänoikeudellisesta kirjasta. Valokuvan ottaja ei ole kirjan tekijä. Huhdanjo (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Файл взят из электронной версии Энциклопедии Волгоградской области. Нет никакого подтверждения авторства загрузившего. Почему нет версии с бОльшим разрешением? — Redboston 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The image is licecend under Creatives commons BY-NC-ND on National Portrait Gallery homepage. Skivsamlare (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep While the National Portrait Gallery claims copyright on all its images there are almost 4,000 of their images in Category:Images from the National Portrait Gallery, London. There are some NPG images in Category:Elliott & Fry such as File:EdLevLawsonGanzkörper.jpg. Boult appears to looks pretty much the same as this 1920 image from NPG, so I'm inclined to suggest this image is from the same time period, so it is in the public domain. The CC license is superfluous and incorrect and should be {{PD-1996}} and should also include {{SourceNPGLondon|1=x86551}} to link to the NPG source page. Ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 23:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AlbanGeller as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unknown date of publication.. The file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because it has survived a regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion. I think as Ww2censor. --Brunokito (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence for publication having taken place prior to 1948. AlbanGeller (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: I see no basis for the conclusion that because it is an image from around 1920, that it is PD. It was taken by the portrait studio Elliott & Fry, which was active until 1962. There are five cases under Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_T-Z#United_Kingdom -- Known Author. In three of them the rule is pma 70. We don't assume that an image that is 100 years old is PD under pma 70. In one case, the rule is 1/1/2040. The only case that might make it PD is case 2, published before 1989, but more than 20 years after the author's death. That's possible, but must be proven. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This image is not from the claimed source. The image isn't of a 1783 Nova Constellatio as claimed in the description, but is of the reverse of a 1795 Immune Columbia pattern coin. ZLEA T\C 13:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- The Immune Columbia was produced by the United States Mint, correct? In that case the file should be renamed and given a proper source, but I believe would still be PD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear source of this 3D reproduction. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
