Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/05/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Files uploaded by MikhaillLK (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyright violation. Person on photos died in 1993.
- File:ЛОК081.jpg
- File:Khavkiny Rostov 1937.jpg
- File:Ищдырумшл Khavkin Stockholm 1917 Fredrik Strom.jpg
- File:Oscar A. Khvakin.jpg
Maxinvestigator (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy per nomination, definitely not own works as claimed. --Sealle (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Photo sous copyright Geralix (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Copie de la photo https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/affaire-gregory-villemin-bernard-laroche-apr%C3%A8s-sa-news-photo/1084557494?language=fr Geralix (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SPEEDY: F1. Apparent copyright violation. --BrightRaven (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Metadata says: "This photo is protected with copyright." OTRS-permission from author Shamani is needed to confirm free license. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I am Shamani. Everything is fine. Sorry, I fogot to delete the EXIFs. (Sorry, I just want to give this Photo to wikimedia. I have no idea how this edits works. Here is my IG-Page: Shamani = Sandra Schink: https://www.instagram.com/shamani/
Kept, now I believe own work. Please do not delete EXIF in the future, EXIF helps to confirm own work. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake Sanjanabubber (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
quiero modificar nombre del archivo MarcosPatagoniaNqn (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- MarcosPatagoniaNqn, → File:Portada mm.jpg → "Más" → "Trasladar". --Achim (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Although this does not seem to be a deletion but a move request, and since it is an unused user photo, I pfefer it to be deleted. user has no contribution history. --Cuatro Remos (nütramyen) 15:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)- Keep @MarcosPatagoniaNqn: No es necesario pedir el borrado de la imagen para efectuar un renombrado de la misma.
Comment: @Cuatro Remos: Perhaps the file has not been used because the user has not yet started to link it to Wikis pages. In fact, the account is only 7 hours old. I think we should not assume that the user already knows how to use wikis codes. Let's give it some time to familiarize itself, and well, if after time the image does not show any use, nominate it for deletion. Kind regards.--ℳaʐbeʟ Work • Talk • Mail 19:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Was Uploader's request. Kept and moved without redirect to File:Marcos Muñoz.jpg by Mazbel. --Achim (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touseef bhat1 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Page User:Touseef bhat1 doesn't exist. --Achim (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The file info says that the photo was pulblished in Ogonyok, and the author is unknown. Ogonyok did not publish photos made by unknown photographers. Most likely, the issue of the magazine contains the name of the photographer. The uploader, who mass-nominates similar photos asking from their uploaders to prove the time of the first publication, must be critical not only to others but to herself as well, and prove tha the photographer died before 1942, or that other provisions of PD-Russia apply. This is not even difficult: Ogonyok is still around, write to the eduitorial office, ask who the photographer was, and trace the biography of the photographer. They might even assist you with tracing the bio and determining the death date. As easy as that. Best regards Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, all the output of the photograph is given in its description. If in doubt, instead of threats to delete photo, just open the magazine and check for yourself. The magazine "Ogonyok" repeatedly published photographs without an indication of the author. And in this case, the author was not indicated. Accordingly, the author is anonymous and the copyright has expired. See page 6.--Ctac (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It does not say "photos of anonympous photographers". I am sure the magazine knows the names.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yaroslav, you are trying to replace the law with your assumptions. It is not necessary. The work was published anonymously. For 70 years after the publication of the photo, the author did not disclose his name. Accordingly, the term of protection shall be considered from the date of publication. See the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, article 1281, paragraph 2--Ctac (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is completely false that Ogonoyok did not include photos by unknown or uncredited photographers in their magazines. The photographer of the photo is not indicated anywhere in the magazine (view the magazine page in the link). Even if the photographer (whomever they may be) is secretly known to the magazine owner right now, this item is still PD, because there was no public attribution to the photographer of the photo in the magazine, and the photographer has remained unknown to the public for the 70+ years required. Literally thousands of photos without attribution were published in Ogonoyok, claims otherwise are patently absurd. Since the name of the photographer is unknown to the public, this item is PD. You should have at the very least viewed the magazine page before filing this deletion. You don't even have a name or suspected name for whom the photographer(s) could be. This is absolutely ridicious. There is no dispute that the identity of the photographer is not known to the public right now and has remained unknown to the general public long after the cut off date, and that the photo was published early enough. I do not understand why on earth you would file such a groundless nomination.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yaroslav, you are trying to replace the law with your assumptions. It is not necessary. The work was published anonymously. For 70 years after the publication of the photo, the author did not disclose his name. Accordingly, the term of protection shall be considered from the date of publication. See the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, article 1281, paragraph 2--Ctac (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It does not say "photos of anonympous photographers". I am sure the magazine knows the names.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Besides, it would be more constructive to help rather than fight each other. --Materialscientist (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture Vaynissa (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
falsche Dateiversion und -typ hochgeladen Chriz1978 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was reported for copyright violations MicheleGregorioAlberto (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Getty Images. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Screenshots from Roblox Adventure-Up game, which are not free.
A (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Fair use material is not permitted on Commons. --Regasterios (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio. Bottom of the art piece mentions the copyright is from 2014. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Regasterios (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by StrangeloveFan101 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Incorporates copyrighted material: Blender logos are copyrighted (https://gooseberry.blender.org/about/).
- File:Spring2019PillarPosterBlender.jpg
- File:Spring2019AlphaPosterBlender.jpg
- File:ElephantsDreamPoster.jpg
File:CosmosLaundromatYouTubeThumbnail.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Patrick Rogel: ! I'm afraid this notice is not valid. The notices on the sources for these posters clearly show them as free content.
- For File:Spring2019PillarPosterBlender.jpg, File:Spring2019AlphaPosterBlender.jpg, File:ElephantsDreamPoster.jpg: Within the sources, the symbol for CC-BY is shown under these three, which means they are under CC-BY. Here's the other piece of info that backs this up: "Unless notified otherwise, all digital content (webpages, video, artwork, 3D data) is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0." Also, the logos here are not the main focus. I know there's a valid template for that condition on here, but I do not know where it is.
- For File:CosmosLaundromatYouTubeThumbnail.jpg: This piece of artwork does not even include the Blender logo. And this was published with the video on YouTube under CC-BY 3.0.
- And the Blender logo is copyrighted, but it has been uploaded here to Commons under Public Domain TM due to the logo consisting of text and geometric shapes.
- It's not the same. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: We could hide the two Blender logos and that should satisfy everybody. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Asclepias: No. Blender themselves published these as free posters with the Blender logos in them. I think we could add this template: Template:De minimis. It's used in File:Sintel poster.jpg as well. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here's more info: According to Blender's official website here (https://www.blender.org/about/logo/), under the "Blender logo usage guidelines" section, it states, "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications." These posters are products and publications made by Blender. So, they chose to publish these posters under free licenses with Blender logos in them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @StrangeloveFan101: You have really a strange way to read things: "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications" and "Excluded from the Creative Commons license is: all logos on this website (including the Blender logo, Gooseberry logo, Creative Commons logo, sponsor logos) and associated trademarks." are explicit enough. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying Blender themselves chose to put small logos on the posters, and chose to license those posters freely with logos on them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's not that I'm not understanding what you are saying. I simply say your supposition is contradictory since Blender explicitely says their logos are not CC. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying Blender themselves chose to put small logos on the posters, and chose to license those posters freely with logos on them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @StrangeloveFan101: You have really a strange way to read things: "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications" and "Excluded from the Creative Commons license is: all logos on this website (including the Blender logo, Gooseberry logo, Creative Commons logo, sponsor logos) and associated trademarks." are explicit enough. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here's more info: According to Blender's official website here (https://www.blender.org/about/logo/), under the "Blender logo usage guidelines" section, it states, "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications." These posters are products and publications made by Blender. So, they chose to publish these posters under free licenses with Blender logos in them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Asclepias: No. Blender themselves published these as free posters with the Blender logos in them. I think we could add this template: Template:De minimis. It's used in File:Sintel poster.jpg as well. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: We could hide the two Blender logos and that should satisfy everybody. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since it's just those tiny logos that are problematic, if DM cannot be applied, we should just block out the problematic icons. If an icon does not meet the TOO, we shouldn't need to do that (such as the Blender software icon).
- I took the liberty of striking the file you removed the deletion template from. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as the logos are de minimis here, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Clindberg. In fact, I put De minimis templates on all of these files (excluding the Cosmos Laundromat thumbnail). StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Clindberg. Although I can see how Patrick Rogel could read the "specifically excluded" section of the text and infer that the posters are all of a sudden entirely copyrighted and excluded, I don't think that is the intent nor does it follow logically: The posters are licensed under CC. The logos aren't. If Blender wanted to prevent use of the posters, they wouldn't need a "gotcha" clause that the logo is copyrighted and thus so are all of the posters because they contain the logo... Instead, it would appear that the exception is there to preclude amd clarify that just because the logo is there and the poster is licensed under CC, you can't now go around using the logo itself under CC and claim "oh, but use of the logo is a derivative from the poster..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewell D D (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Selfie, not uploader's work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Nick at 17:35, 22 Mai 2020 UTC: copyright violations --Krdbot 01:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating other copyrighted logos, notably Blender logos (which are copyrighted, https://gooseberry.blender.org/about/).. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Within the source for this, the symbol for CC-BY is shown under the poster, which means it is under CC-BY. Here's the other piece of info that backs this up: "Unless notified otherwise, all digital content (webpages, video, artwork, 3D data) is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0." Also, the logos here are not the main focus. I know there's a valid template for that condition on here, but I do not know where it is. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think we could add this template: Template:De minimis. It's used in File:Sintel poster.jpg as well. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here's more info: According to Blender's official website here (https://www.blender.org/about/logo/), under the "Blender logo usage guidelines" section, it states, "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications." This poster is a product and publication made by Blender. So, they chose to publish this under a free license with Blender logos in them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it does not help that Blender originally published the image; we need to allow other re-users to publish it commercially as well. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here's more info: According to Blender's official website here (https://www.blender.org/about/logo/), under the "Blender logo usage guidelines" section, it states, "The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites, and publications." This poster is a product and publication made by Blender. So, they chose to publish this under a free license with Blender logos in them. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think we could add this template: Template:De minimis. It's used in File:Sintel poster.jpg as well. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since it's just those tiny logos that are problematic, if DM cannot be applied, we should just blur the problematic icons. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- If it's just the logos which are an issue, Keep as de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Clindberg. Yesterday, I put a De minimis template on this file. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per Carl. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nijemi Krik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional band photos. No permission.
- File:Slika 113.jpg
- File:Slika 112.jpg
- File:Slika 111.jpg
- File:Slika 101.jpg
- File:Slika 100.jpg
- File:Slika 117.jpg
- File:Slika 11.jpg
- File:Slika 10.jpg
- File:Slika 09.jpg
- File:Slika 08.jpg
- File:Slika 07.jpg
- File:Slika 05.jpg
- File:Slika03.jpg
- File:Slika02.jpg
- File:Slika01.jpg
- File:Cover EffaTha "Nijemi Krik".jpg
Smooth O (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nijemi Krik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Additional files
- File:Slika 12345.png
- File:Slika 1098.png
- File:Slika 20190.png
- File:Slika 00045.jpg
- File:Slika 80012.jpg
- File:Slika 90012.jpg
- File:Slika 9001.jpg
- File:Slika 0012.jpg
- File:Slika 00111.jpg
- File:Slika 2001.jpg
- File:Slika 0015.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Possibly out of project scope? Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: SD, G7. --Wdwd (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Small files, no metadata, unlikely own work.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not find licenses compatible with Commons licenses on the sources given for these images.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYVIO. --4nn1l2 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Historical photos and document. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:امیر اعظم 08.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 07.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 04.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 06.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 05.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 02.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 01.jpg
- File:امیر اعظم 03.jpg
- File:شاهرود.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kyle Smith NYB (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion of another famous rapper, out of project scope. No contribs to any wm project.
- File:Kyle Smith NYB (Rapper).jpg
- File:Kyle Smith NYB Rapper.jpg
- File:Kyle Smith NYB 2020.jpg
- File:Kyle Smith NYB.jpg
- User:Kyle Smith NYB
Achim (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
No source, no author, no permission.
- File:Carmenariza7.jpg
- File:CarmenAriza4.jpg
- File:CarmenAriza3.jpg
- File:Carmen Ariza.jpg
- File:CarmenAriza2.jpg
- File:Carmenarizagalalirica.jpg
- File:Gigantesycabezudos3.jpg
- File:Carmenarizadorabella.jpg
Achim (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, appears to be a non notable musician
Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fiifi Gerald (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, non notable musician
- File:2020 01 21 15 07 IMG 6798.jpg
- File:2019 11 03 10 27 IMG 2833.jpg
- File:2020 01 21 15 08 IMG 6960.jpg
- File:2020 01 21 15 07 IMG 6962.jpg
- File:Fiifi 1.jpg
- File:FIIFI.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luciddecree (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo pics, no permission, likely taken from https://www.reverbnation.com/luciddecree/song/23344710-minds-of-liberty
Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muiz Murad (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these files are definifitely not own work as the uploader claimed.
- File:Astro XTY.png
- File:Astro WLT.png
- File:Astro Warna.png
- File:Astro Vinmeen.png
- File:Astro Vellithirai.png
- File:Astro Vaanavil.png
- File:Astro TVIQ.png
- File:Astro Tutor TV.png
- File:Astro SuperSport 4.png
- File:Astro SuperSport 3.png
- File:Astro SuperSport 2.png
- File:Astro Shuang Xing.png
- File:Astro SuperSport.png
- File:Astro Ria.png
- File:Astro Rania.png
- File:Astro Quan Jia.png
- File:Astro Hua Hee Dai.png
- File:Astro Prima.png
- File:Astro Oasis.png
- File:Astro Cricket.png
- File:Astro Citra.png
- File:Astro Ceria.png
- File:Astro Aura.png
- File:Astro Awani.png
- File:Astro Arena.png
- File:Astro AOD.png
- File:Astro ABO.png
- File:Astro AEC.png
A (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely own work: all images of the same person, including promotional and private. Very unlikely that this uploader was present at every event. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zivtx.jpg.
- File:Zivfasy.jpg
- File:Speakingzz.jpg
- File:Zivfasas.png
- File:Speakingz.jpg
- File:Ziviron.jpg
- File:Zivkikar.jpg
- File:Zivpm.jpg
- File:Zivcl.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused apparently personal photograph. Out of scope. Sije (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture. Out of scope. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete (For FBMD at MD, only that). See this and this and ask me for more of the kind if you wish. --E4024 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope -βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Wikimedia Commons is not an external hosting tool for opengeofiction.net (https://wiki.opengeofiction.net/wiki/index.php/Mallyore) Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused suspicious personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Sakhalinio (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
OoS avatar Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture. Out of scope with no educational value. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Looks like some sort of personal artwork. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: non-notable artist. Promo. Can't be used to illustrate Romanian traditional clothes either. Gikü (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: non-notable artist. Promo. Can't be used to illustrate Romanian traditional clothes either. Gikü (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thumbnail, unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. Only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
too blurry, unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope Estopedist1 (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. Only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not private media repository.
Estopedist1 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope. Image was only used for vandalism: ro:Special:Diff/12428992. Gikü (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Javier Llerez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused low quality photo of rose. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (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) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 26 May 2020 (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) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 26 May 2020 (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) 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement 67.184.0.138 15:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be out of scope, not used on Wikipedia Ytoyoda (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope; private image collection. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope; private image collection. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - personal photo Mindmatrix 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
uneeded image SecretName101 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dallas.Catz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability.
- File:Sydney Personal Trainer TeamWIn1.jpg
- File:SydneyPersonalTrainerTeamWin.jpg
- File:Sydney Personal Trainer- TeamWin.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:Cdfbvcer.jpg
- File:Htdi re.png
- File:Logginger.png
- File:Barerer.png
- File:Bredie.png
- File:DdfDE.png
- File:Ddf derer.png
- File:Satref 1.png
- File:Srevder.png
- File:Ssrfr.png
- File:Téléchargement 01.png
- File:Beterhvg.png
- File:Asmenjen.png
- File:Mon betre.png
- File:Mon travaile dab.png
- File:Tpdef.png
- File:Derbybb.png
- File:Babiloune.png
- File:Asder.png
- File:Siter.png
- File:555d5d55d.png
- File:Hetyet.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
User is continuing to upload screenshots of what look like emails from companies, with no description or context. None are in use. I've speedy-tagged the ones that have clearly copyrighted content, but the remainder are still out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Im490.png
- File:Mplree.png
- File:Deere.png
- File:Photofgfdef.jpg
- File:Iymptssr.png
- File:Magie.png
- File:Tgrefdr.png
- File:Rseul.png
Lord Belbury (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE screenshots of emails from companies. Text wouldn't be public domain either.
Belbury (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In additional to the potential copyright issues, without context, explanation, or description that might indicate some educational value, these files (like all the previously deleted ones) are outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Sakhalinio (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE (es:Usuario:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia, es:Usuario:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia/Taller).
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia. IMG 20190113 194423.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia. B IMG 1547298337829.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-FotografiaIMG 20190112 163246.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia FB ItMG 154.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia. Scretenshot 2018-12-21-22-02-23.png
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia. IMG 20181222 115929.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia. IMG 20181220 121923.jpg
- File:LOREGUZMÁNSILEO-FOTOGRAFIA IMG 20181219 115332.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia IMG 20181218 112108.jpg
- File:LoreGuzmánSileo-Fotografia necochea.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused file. Most probably OoS. Someone who can read the text can say something please? E4024 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ABDELLAH LACHHAB (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused and not properly categorised files. Commons is not private media repository.
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable persons, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Kissa21782 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable musician, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leticia Valadez H (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos without original author, source, dates, or permission. All unused.
- File:Alfonso Guerrero Briones.jpg
- File:Juez.jpg
- File:Campana Politica 1964.jpg
- File:Lider Estudiantil.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Javiervittor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own works: historical photos without proper attribution/permission, transmission code or FB in EXIF, and also not notable, out of scope.
- File:Equipo historico.png
- File:Jugadores 1ra division 2015.JPG
- File:Equipo con historia.jpg
- File:Nueva cancha Salucho.jpg
- File:ULTIMO CAMPEON.jpg
- File:Carlos Monzon y Titi Vittor.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarago0112 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photos of non-notable band, no educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Costa Nova (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability.
Kissa21782 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Julián José Rodríguez Durán (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, no educational use, out of scope.
- File:JULIAN JOSE RODRIGUEZ.JPG
- File:JULIAN JOSE RODRIGUEZ D.jpg
- File:Julian Rodríguez.png
- File:JULIAN JOSE RODRIGUEZ DURAN.jpg File deleting issue (API error)).
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. And likely DW, screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photos of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. And likely DW, look like screengrabs.
- File:ProfOliveMMugenda.png
- File:PeterKagwanja.png
- File:GeorgeNjoroge.png
- File:JulianKyula.png
- File:AndrewKariu.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Downinfrontband (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photos of non-notable musicians, no educational use, out of scope. And likely not own works (3 photos, 3 different cameras).
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Educational project logo & graphic. Probably not own work and probably out of scope.
Kissa21782 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused text-only doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable performer, no educational use, out of scope. And previously published, needs COM:OTRS. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a movie poster, so a derivative work. And if this is a personal collage, then it's out of scope. Kissa21782 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Socratesof (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent bulk COM:NETCOPYVIO upload - most low res, no camera EXIF, most (all?) appeared elsewhere before Commons upload (e.g., File:Vozinha 87.jpg is here; File:Kukula-88.jpg is here; File:Sócrates imagem.jpg and File:Socrates......jpg are here, etc.) Duck/COM:PRP issue.
- File:Vozinha 87.jpg
- File:Kukula-88.jpg
- File:Oliveirasf.jpg
- File:Sócrates imagem.jpg
- File:Socrates top.jpg
- File:Yverdon11.jpg
- File:Sjdjejjbjcbj.jpg
- File:SOF...jpg
- File:Socrates......jpg
Эlcobbola talk 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: The account, Socratesof, was blocked at pt.wiki for making nonsense modifications to articles and templates. He appears to be some novice with no experience making test edits, but who ignored any warnings sent on pt.wiki. Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal images, no educational use, out of scope.
- File:Tufda sprite west.png
- File:Tufda sprite south.png
- File:Tufda sprite east.png
- File:Tufda sprite north.png
- File:JUMPER.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Obled spiritos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Corporate merchandise, out of COM:SCOPE.
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal text-only doc, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nazmul.raj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos. Per COM:HOST.
- File:College last day photo 10.jpg
- File:College last day photo 8.jpg
- File:College last day photo 7.jpg
- File:College last day photo 9.jpg
- File:College last day photo 4.jpg
- File:College last day photo 5.jpg
- File:College last day photo 6.jpg
- File:College last day photo 2.jpg
- File:College last day photo 1.jpg
- File:College last day photo 3.jpg
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Federicolinares (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, no educational use, out of scope.
- File:Puesto de Julián en la FLIA.jpg
- File:Julián Arango, foto 4.JPG
- File:Natura, Por Julián Arango.jpg
- File:Portada de Alambique, Destilografía Morfoenigmática 1.jpg
- File:Núcleo de amigos de la generación de Julián Arango.jpg
- File:Julián Arango en su noche de graduación.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
personal photos out of COM:SCOPE
- FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Savvaskleanthous (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused posters of unnotable events, out of COM:SCOPE.
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused logo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Estebantv1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, uncategorized promo files for a musical group that is most probably not notable. Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Foto glow 19.jpg
- File:Foto glow 10.jpg
- File:Come 2U Primera Temporada.jpg
- File:Logo Come 2U Latinoamerica.jpg
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Дмитрий Потов (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability.
- File:Comedy-battl-aleksandr-plotnikov-iz-volgograda-na-pobedu-v-shou-ne-rasschityvaet 1.jpg
- File:ТНТ 4.png
- File:Comedy club KZ.jpg
- File:ТНТ Браво.png
- File:ТНТ 51.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused comics. Either copyvios or out of scope.
- File:Comic 1s.png
- File:Comic 1d.jpg
- File:Comic 1.png
- File:Comic 1.jpg
- File:Fingo.jpg
- File:فينجا.png
- File:Fingo-N 00001.png
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Kissa21782 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zheludkevich.anna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uncategorized diagrams, not in use since 2016, unlikely to ever have a realistic use.
- File:Noncorrectedp.jpg
- File:Correctedholm.jpg
- File:Comparemethods.jpg
- File:Correctedbonf.jpg
- File:Correctedbenhoh.jpg
- File:Holm my.jpg
- File:BenHoh.jpg
- File:Distribution my.jpg
- File:Bonferr.jpg
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Kissa21782 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adib.bin.shahid (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures of crowds. Unidentified people, no educational value.
Kissa21782 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused blurry selfie Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RiverSideSong (talk · contribs)
[edit]A fan gallery of "Jerome Foster II" with at least four photos copied from Facebook (FBMD), many pictures without any metadta, and several cameras. This is unlikely own work due to sizes/qualities, places, whitebalance, metadata and so on.
- File:School Strike for Climate with Jerome Foster II.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II on Amtrak Train.jpg
- File:Jerome-foster-ii-white-house-climate-strike.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II on Icelandic Glacier with National Geographic.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II's 2nd White House Climate Strike.jpg
- File:September 13th White House School Strike for Climate with Greta Thunberg and Jerome Foster II.jpg
- File:September 13th Youth Climate Strike.jpg
- File:September 13th White House Climate Rally featuring Greta Thunberg.jpg
- File:C-SPAN Coverage of September 20th DC Climate Strike.jpg
- File:Panel with D.C.'s Youth Climate Activists featuring Jerome Foster II.jpg
- File:Ambassadors of Conscience Award 2019.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II and Debby Chang Citizens Climate Lobby.jpg
- File:September 13th White House Climate Rally.jpg
- File:Panel with D.C.'s Youth Climate Activists with Jerome Foster II.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II at Citizens Climate Lobby DC Chapter Meeting led by Max Broad.jpg
- File:Full Jerome Foster II U.S. Capitol Skywalk.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II and Greta Thunberg September 13th Climate Strike.jpg
- File:White House Climate Strike with Fire Drill Friday and Jerome Foster II.jpg
- File:September 13th White House Climate Strike with Greta Thunberg.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II and Alexandria Villasenor at March for Science NYC.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II LCV Annual Speech.png
- File:Jerome Foster II U.S. Capitol Skywalk.jpg
- File:Jerome Foster II.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Looks like some sort of personal artwork. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 20:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not private media repository. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Leyo 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work to me as the uploader claimed. A (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyrighted logo that needs OTRS permission. --Ahmadtalk 14:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, replaced by nearly identical File:Hexafluoroethane (structure).png. Leyo 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Proposed replacement is in the same perspective and general style, by the same uploader on the same day. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. For some reason I myself forgot to apply for deletion. Redgolpe (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and the username of the uploader can suggest that they are the person depicted in the photo, not the photographer. OTRS permission needed. --Ahmadtalk 19:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Requires OTRS. E4024 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; small, no EXIF, has apparently been available here (direct link) since 2013. --Ahmadtalk 19:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work to me A (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete per COM:SCOPE, COM:NOTUSED, COM:NOTHOST. Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Because it is Logo, Random photo from internet EninE Talk 06:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted book cover. --Hanooz 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Matwiyj as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Offensive content. Matwiyj (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as image does no qualify for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Nonsense. --Achim (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos F. Beautell (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low resolution, all of them have watermarked, against the project scope, promotional purpose account
- File:La curación por el espíritu.gif
- File:La curación por el espiritu.gif
- File:Barcas Valle-Gran-Rey-.gif
- File:Un-plátano-al-día-.gif
- File:Surfista Valle Gran Rey.jpg
- File:Surfista Playa Valle Gran Rey.jpg
- File:Isla del Hierro.gif
- File:Reflejos y formas Playa-Valle-Gran-Rey.gif
- File:Somos dos en la playa.gif
- File:Playa-Valle-Gran-Rey.gif
- File:En la Playa a la puesta del sol.gif
- File:Olas-Playa-Valle-Gran-Rey-(3).gif
- File:Olas y rocas Playa Valle Gran Rey.jpg
- File:Mirando-al-mar--Valle-Gran-Rey.gif
- File:Fotografiando el ocaso , Valle Gran Rey La Gomera.gif
- File:Olas-Playa-Valle-Gran-Rey-.gif
- File:Torre-control-antiguo-aerodromo del Revolcadero.gif
- File:Ubicación del antiguo aerodromo del Revolcadero, la Gomera.jpg
- File:Canal de riego.png
- File:Hangar-y-torre-control.gif
- File:Hangar-antiguo- aerodromo del Revolcadero Alajero.gif
- File:Valle Gran Rey.gif
- File:Roque de la America- Valle Gran Rey - La Gomera.gif
- File:Alfarera del Cercado.gif
- File:El Roque de la Bonanza.gif
- File:Laderas del Julan y Mar de las Calmas.gif
- File:Volcan de Punta Orchilla y faro.gif
- File:Volcanes en Orchilla - Isla del Hierro.gif
- File:Merlin.gif
- File:El ultimo Bimbache.gif
Triplecaña (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by A1Cafel as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Obviously in scope (one of the few images we have of Mondlane University) and already positively reviewed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bioshar 02.jpg. It being similar to File:Bioshar 02.jpg doesn’t constitute an argument for deletion, in view of the well known additional interest of image sets and of the similar deletion effected on it at the same time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: CDS F10 is at best being abused, likely due to poor implementation; at worse it is officialized deletionism. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Tuválkin. --Strakhov (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by A1Cafel as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. This person is an WMF employee (hardly fits the bill for «users who have no constructive global contributions») and this photo is much better than the one in his user page, regardless of pixel count. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: When I created this DR, I was sternly warned thusly:
- This page was kept after a deletion request. Please contact the administrator who kept it before re-nominating.
- Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2015-11– that links to this page.
- Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Selfies– that links to this page.
- Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/03/04– that links to this page.
- Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2019-31– that links to this page.
- Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/07/16– that links to this page.
- This page was kept after a deletion request. Please contact the administrator who kept it before re-nominating.
- How is it possible that either
- the automated process of queueing this file for speedy deletion doesn’t show this warning, which is shown when filing a (slower) deletion request, or
- A1Cafel overlook this warning…?!
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Neutral Whee! Every 5 years I'm told that I'm useless by some commons patroller. If the server kitties are tired of me then I won't fight. As I responded 5 years ago, "Uploaded myself before I had an official head shot for foundationwiki. Unused now so I have no strong objection to it being deleted." I do have personal opinions about deletionists, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hanooz 20:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Same as https://soundcloud.com/blamethemusic/blame-essential-mix - unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --Strakhov (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi I am a new actress to the scene and I was so excited to finally be recognized with my very own Wiki page. I was disappointed when the primary picture was a screenshot of me in an interview and its not the most professional. Please remove as this is not the way I would like to be represented on your prestigious site. THANK YOU 111goodbook (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use, in scope. --Strakhov (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Low resolution and no EXIF, unlikely to be own work 67.184.0.138 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Selfie, no source, no author. --Achim (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tayler25410 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:อาคาร 3 .jpg
- File:อาคาร 1 .jpg
- File:ป้ายหน้าโรงเรียนสุวรรณภูมิพิทยไพศาล1.jpg
- File:อาคาร 1โรงเรียนสุวรรณภูมิพิทยไพศาล.jpg
- File:ป้ายหน้าโรงเรียนสุวรรณภูมิพิทยไพศาล .jpg
- File:ขบวนสีฬาคณะมรกต .jpg
- File:คณะมรกต.jpg
- File:คณะโกเมน.jpg
- File:ภาพมุมสูงโรงเรียน.jpg
- File:ภาพมุมสูงโรงเรียนสุวรรณภูมิพิทยไพศาล.jpg
- File:สวนสุขภาพศรีสุวรรณภูมิ.jpg
- File:ต้นกะบาก.jpg
- File:ป้ายหน้าโรงเรียนสุวรรณภูมิพิทยไพศาล.jpg
- File:คณะเพชรไพลิน.jpg
- File:สวนพฤกษศาสตร์.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
41 kb without EXIF. Own work? E4024 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE requires "media files" which are defined as excluding "Files which are representative merely of raw text". This is unused, low quality, likely not even the uploader's own (all other contribs unambiguous copyvios), and appears to have no genuine educational value. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Duck copyvio - professionally staged, professional camera, "intimate" vantage of notable person, uploaded in batch of blatant copyvios (all user uploads are such). COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ViggianoSpiritoLucano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not own works. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ViggianoSpiritoLucano (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Unlikely to be own works: inconsistent sizes and quality, some with borders or captions, all different cameras or missing EXIF data.
- File:Monumento portatori.jpg
- File:Basilica Pontificia.jpg
- File:Chiesa san pietro.gif
- File:Chiesa convento.jpg
- File:Museo lupo.jpg
- File:Mtlv f2.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
request for personal upload to be deleted Ishida639 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Licenses are irrevocable. We do not delete files simply because the author changed their mind. --Green Giant (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
low-quality image; author request due to privacy Ishida639 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Quality is fine. How is it a privacy issue? Brianjd (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Photo from user with 1 edit, not in use. Out of SCOPE Shakko (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Picture of a poster - derivative work and no real use either. Kissa21782 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Screenshot of numbers. Nonsensical, no use. Kissa21782 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Previously published, needs COM:OTRS. And likely not own work: if person in the picture is the same as uploader, than he can't be the photographer. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not 2015 own work. If PD, needs licensing and info as such. Kissa21782 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Rebecca Brizaco
[edit]Delete the following contributions by new user Rebecca Brizaco (talk · contributions · Statistics) as apparent copyright violations:
All files uploaded by new user who is probably unfamiliar with copyright.
- File:Sem_Título-2.png: Author is claimed to be Sofia Vassilieva, the subject of the photo; source is "Google". No indication that Vassilieva owns the copyright or that, if so, the uploader represents Vassilieva. In fact, the original photo from which this is cropped is found on a professional photographer's site: http://www.valentinasocci.com/portfolio-1/2019/10/21/sofia-vassilieva-actress-2
- File:Sofia vassilieva.jpg: Again, author is claimed as Vassilieva and source as "Google". Photo is also found on IMDB, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1100839/mediaviewer/rm1953341185 , where it is credited to professional photographers Theo & Juliet. Theo & Juliet has a web page at https://theoandjuliet.com/ (but it does not appear to display the image in question).
-- TJRC (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Misread license, this image is for non-commercial use only. Nkon21 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Misread license, this image is for non-commercial use only. Nkon21 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Мне не нравится что скачал Ferasino (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Info: In use on ru:Звезда Давида. --Achim (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete Image is a copyvio anyway, which is why Google Translate says the nominator/uploader didn't like what they downloaded. Which probably came from here. --pandakekok9 06:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. --Strakhov (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
screenshot of a video game. No authorization Tyseria (d) 20:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
from Facebook. No evidence that own work. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Henriquewelch (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused and uncategorised files. Looks like some sort of personal artwork.
- File:A casa dourada.jpg
- File:Xxx A REVELAÇÃO DE NARCISO -PAGINAS DO LIVRO alta (11).jpg
- File:A Revelação do Narciso.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work, forgot to filter out during upload. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Bad Flickr account, https://somaliainvestor.so/mahat-mohammed-ahmed-the-fresh-pair-of-hands-at-the-helm-of-international-bank-of-somalia-ibs/, COM:LL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also:
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping deleted by Storkk. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The building shown is w:fr:Maison des Hommes et des Techniques, built in 1917 and authored by René Ménard, who died in 1958. As there is no commercial freedom of panorama in France (see COM:FOP France), this architectural work is still under his posthumous copyright and is unfree. Copyright expires on January 1, 2029 (70+1 years after his death), at which point these photos will be restored/undeleted.
- File:Maison Hommes Techniques - Nantes (FR44) - 2022-09-18 - 4.jpg
- File:Maison Hommes Techniques - Nantes (FR44) - 2022-09-18 - 3.jpg
- File:Maison Hommes Techniques - Nantes (FR44) - 2022-09-18 - 2.jpg
- File:Maison Hommes Techniques - Nantes (FR44) - 2022-09-18 - 1.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This photo violates copyright. Source is at train-photo.ru. This website use "all rights reserved" by default if author didn't uploaded it with any other permission. 176.59.36.228 21:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This can in fact be found at train-photo.ru. It was uploaded there on 13 May 2007, i.e. a month earlier than the upload at the Russian Wikipedia. Also the authors' names don't match, while "Vovchik" is attributed in the EXIF. The uploader at Wikipedia, however, was indef-blocked for vandalism in 2008: Участник:Олег Бхамбри. De728631 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Image does not belong to the author, it was taken from a travel website https://www.alaturka.info/en/albania/tirana/3829-sea-balls-on-the-beach-of-durres-in-large-quantities Lizzy150 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- speedy: Obvious copyvio. --Achim (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Photos of vintage images, no permission. COM:SCOPE too.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4).jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
DR for this file now included in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4).jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: In a different DN. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not own work - bogus CC license. Cartoon leaf appears above TOO. Эlcobbola talk 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Петър Биволарски (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of vintage images, not Petar Bivolarski (uploader)'s work (File:Petar Bivolarski.png).
- File:ТКЗС-Селкостопанско-Летище-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Съветски-войници-в-помощ-на-новообразуваното-ТКЗС-Ръжево-Конаре-1945г.png
- File:Сортиране-на-грозде-за-износ-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Орденосците-на-село-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Общинско-партийно-бюро-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Изглед-от-парка-на-селото-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Кооперативен-дом-на-ТКЗС-в-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Откриване на обновена детска градина с. Ръжево Конаре 1975 - Иван Палийски, Иванка Кузова, Атанас Биволарски.jpg
- File:Гости-на-ТКЗС-Ръжево-Конаре-1948г-Васил-Коларов-Марсел-Кашен.png
- File:Бране-на-грозде-за-износ-Ръжево-Конаре.png
- File:Дар-от-Маршал-Толбухин-ТКЗС-Ръжево-Конаре.png
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I am writing to the right place. If the photos are from a family archive, how should I mark them on Wikipedia, so that they are not deleted? Thanks in advance for any guidance or help. --Петър Биволарски (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Петър Биволарски: First you have to replace {{Own}} by the actual names of the photographers and provide their permission (or the heir's) via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- File:Rimiko Futamura art 7.jpg
- File:Rimiko Futamura art 5.png
- File:Rimiko Futamura art 6.jpg
- File:Rimiko Futamura art 4.jpg
- File:Rimiko Futamura Art 2.png
- File:Rimiko Futamura art 3.jpg
- File:Rimiko Futamura.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Scope is not the problem here, all pictures could be used for the illustration of art styles, genres, techniques etc. But I highly doubt that all these very different images are made by the same person/the uploader. So even without finding them elsewhere online, I suspect copyright violations. --Don-kun (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of a publication before 1987. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of a publication before 1987. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect category; also appears to be an unfree file 45.237.50.14 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + Out of com:PS. --Hanooz 10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope. Advertisement without historical or educational value. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would nominate it for speedy deletion, but I'm unsure if it was created with the purpose to advertise something. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it is an advertisement as it is unidentifiable, but definitely out of scope --67.184.0.138 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hanooz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image from icana.ir
farsnews.ir license photos under {{Fars}}, so license review should be done if free. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a Fars work, but icana.ir's. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The black borders on this image (only on 3 sides) seem to indicate it was copied from somewhere. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Not at source given. No source for map.\ Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Old logo
[edit]All these files were tagged as with {{Copyvio}} or {{Logo}}, but since they are widely used, I start this DR to ask if these two versions of Mojangs logo pass COM:TOO.
- (old logo) File:Mojang logo.png
- (old logo) File:Mojang logo.svg
- (old logo) File:Mojang old logo.svg
- (old logo) File:Mojanglogo.PNG
- (old logo) File:Mojang Logo.png (added to this DR on 05:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC))
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment File:Mojanglogo.PNG (old logo) was kept in previous DR by Natuur12. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- No objection against deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
New logo
[edit]All these files were tagged as with {{Copyvio}} or {{Logo}}, but since they are widely used, I start this DR to ask if these two versions of Mojangs logo pass COM:TOO.
- (new logo) File:Mojang Studios Logo May 2020.png
- (new logo) File:Mojang Studios Logo.svg
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: File:Mojang Studios Logo.svg and File:Mojang Studios Logo May 2020.png restored per undeletion request.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, better alternatives in Category:Perfluoroheptane. Leyo 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The opaque (white) background is another quality issue. File:Perfluoroheptane.svg looks good as replacement. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 08:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Suspected Flickrwashing - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:松本潤.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jun Matsumoto 2017 松本潤.png (from the same Flickr account). Flickr review template forged by the uploader, see Special:Diff/420223368. Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Who is the painter? Permission? Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These all appear to be work for hires owned by the CDU and released by their foundation per Commons:Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The artist is in the description (Künstler_Grafiker section) - Sandau/Ignatius Werbeagentur Dr. Hegemann GmbH. It indicates that the client (Auftraggeber) is the CDU's Bonn office. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Presumably all rights were transferred to the CDU who then released these images through their Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung under a free license. It's part of the Commons:Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung project. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Who is the painter? Permission? Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep These all appear to be work for hires owned by the CDU and released by their foundation per Commons:Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The artist is in the description (Künstler_Grafiker section) - Paul Aigner. It indicates that the client (Auftraggeber) is the CDU's Bonn office. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Presumably all rights were transferred to the CDU who then released these images through their Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung under a free license. It's part of the Commons:Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung project. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Missing EXIFs. Dubious copyright claims: Flickr owner claims ownership of images shot in space though he is not an astronaut. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there, Daniel Molybdenum is a NASA photographer who visited the Space Station Processing Facility (a factory at Kennedy Space Center) in 2007, 08 and 09. I've met him in person several times, and he took some incredible photographs or edited NASA ones to make them look more beautiful. He emailed me that image earlier today when he was going through his archives, where he remembers meeting Tommy there in the high bay. The SSPF is a factory where members of the public can visit, especially during the ISS construction era. Also NASA images are public domain.User:Raphael.concorde (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Raphael.concorde: Hi. Then first he could modify the problematic Public domain mark for a valid one. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I sent him an email and he's updated the status on his flickr page. Also by the way what tag code do I need to put in the image (because I couldn't find a template)? Thanks User:Raphael.concorde (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Raphael.concorde: He has to choose "Some rights reserved" on Flickr but there's nothing to change to the file description page here. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Okay he's done it now. What's next? (Also he stated in his latest email he's a little confused about this suituation - he dedicates his images as free to use and share). User:Raphael.concorde (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Hello, are you still there, is this discussion closed now? (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2020 UTC
- @Raphael.concorde: He has to choose "Some rights reserved" on Flickr but there's nothing to change to the file description page here. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I sent him an email and he's updated the status on his flickr page. Also by the way what tag code do I need to put in the image (because I couldn't find a template)? Thanks User:Raphael.concorde (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Raphael.concorde: Hi. Then first he could modify the problematic Public domain mark for a valid one. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep BUT the licensing must be changed, because the license on the Flickr upload is CC-BY-SA 2.0 (which is fine for Commons), but it's not PD. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I fixed the licensing on this (since the picture is licensed as CC-BY-SA on Flickr), and it seems like it should be fine now. (Edit: also pinging @Raphael.concorde: ) StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion and fixed licensing. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Image vandalism/hoax by a long-term troll. The Flickr source is the user’s own. The original is at https://images.nasa.gov/details/KSC-07pd0899, and as a NASA work, it’s freely licensed and might be worth keeping (without the Tommy Lee Jones face swap). Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: photoshopped dishonest troll image - it was not noticed in the previous discussion that this was a photoshop putting someone who wasn't there in the photo (it's rather less obvious than some of the user's other pranks). Flickr user "Daniel Molybdenum" since added to the bad Flickr user list. Note User:Raphael.concorde vouching for "Molybdenum" above - if they are not the same person, they are collaborators in promoting hoaxes; User:Raphael.concorde has since been indef blocked both here and on en:w. (The original unmodified NASA image is welcome here, but this file is not it.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cjp24 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: External source, no permission.
Subject died in 1917, possibly public domain. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Went longer than a week with no help from uploader. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
image floue, inexploitable, pas d'indication sur l'origine - blurred image, unusable, no indication of the origin Thor19 (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Et aussi, demande de suppression annulée 2 fois, sans argument par la même IP + photo utilisée pour illustrer un vandalisme sur Wikipédia en français -- And also, deletion request twice cancelled by an IP + photo used on a vandalism on french WP. Habertix (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
Deleted: Obviously not own work, unclear source & copyright situation. fr:Robert Durand (syndicaliste français) has been deleted per 'Vandalisme'. --Achim (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain.
- File:Mondulkiri Seal.jpg
- File:Seal of Pailin Province, Cambodia.jpg
- File:5d84732480b86 1568961300 medium (1).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Bunch of different cameras. Doubtful own work.
- File:Tbeng Mountain.jpg
- File:Batheay District.jpg
- File:Chol Kiri district.jpg
- File:Koh Ke Temple.jpg
- File:High-rise buildings in Chroy Changvar.jpg
- File:Tasal Lake Dam.jpg
- File:Tasal Lake.jpg
- File:Bamboo bridge to Kaoh Paen.jpg
- File:View of Andoung Meas District.jpg
- File:Oyadav Bridge.jpg
- File:Russey Keo District.jpg
- File:Samraŏng District.jpg
- File:Prek Kdam bridge in Ponhea Lueu District.jpg
- File:Cheung Chhnok Mountain in Batheay.jpg
- File:Camko City 2020.jpg
- File:Mountains in Ba Phnum.jpg
- File:Tonle Bati Temple.jpg
- File:Senmonorom Town from Dos Kromom hill.jpg
- File:Mermaid Roundabout.jpg
- File:Western Stadium.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fox.leo2018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Logo Aéroport Dole Jura vFB.jpg
- File:Logo Aéroport Dole Jura 2017.png
- File:Logo Aéroport Dole Jura 2018.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Official symbol. Proper license tag should be used if in public domain. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Obliquely related: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#COI_editor. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 08:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Historical photo and document. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Historical photos and newspaper. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko these symbols were created by me, while I worked in the organization that uses them officially (2010-2016). I understand that they are indeed in public domain, but I'm not sure which license tag I should use. Can you please help me? Thank you. JonJon86 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- You need to dig into copyrights law of your country. Were copyrights transferred to organization or you retained them? It may depend on your contract. Some works of government may be exempted from copyrights. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Busto marques da silva.jpg
- File:Francisco Marques da Silva.jpg
- File:Uniformeparaquedista-portugal.jpg
- File:Portuguese Army's Pandur 2.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko These are all photos that I have taken or were given to me by the author. Should I provide individual copyright info for each of them? Where should I do it? Thank you. JonJon86 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko Under Portuguese Law, "All photographs taken until 30 June 1970 are in the public domain in Portugal, as Decree Law n.° 334/97 of 27 November". Also, Freedom of panorama states that It is lawful, without the author's consent, to make the following uses of a work:[100/2017 Art.75(2)] ... use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;[100/2017 Art.75(2.q)] "Use" includes taking a photograph of such a work and publishing it.[100/2017 Art.68]. As such, I believe the proper tag would be:
|
This work is in the public domain both in Portugal and in the United States because it was first published in Portugal (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities, such as copyright notice and it is one of the following:
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
As of 1 January 1996, the following were in the public domain in Portugal: works whose author died before 1946; anonymous works, works deemed to be anonymous, or works by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, first published or disclosed before 1946; photographic works, works deemed to be photographic works or works of applied art created before 1 July 1970; news articles or economic, political or religious articles, published or disclosed before 1996, provided that rights have not been specifically reserved and mentions, wherever possible, the name of the author and of the publisher, of the title of the work and other elements enabling it to be identified. |
 |
- See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal for proper copyrights tags. It's hard to tell how permanently photos are. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko That's where I got the above tag from. All the photos were taken prior to 1970, so they should be in the public domain, as Decree Law n.° 334/97 of 27 November, shouldn't they? Thank you in advance! JonJon86 (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- If photos are in public domain source/date of creation and license tag should clearly explain why. What about drawing? It's not photo. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko That's where I got the above tag from. All the photos were taken prior to 1970, so they should be in the public domain, as Decree Law n.° 334/97 of 27 November, shouldn't they? Thank you in advance! JonJon86 (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal for proper copyrights tags. It's hard to tell how permanently photos are. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used or used in promotional Wikidata item.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko These files were used in a wikipedia page that was, in the meantime, deleted, so it's ok for them to be deleted as well. JonJon86 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
→ I started the OTRS release process and sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today. JonJon86 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Ticket:2019051610003851 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 09:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: files seems to have been shot before 1970. As for previous may 2019 batch uploader is welcomed to fill more accurately the Source description instead of "unknown" or "self-scanned".
Photos of photos, no evidence of publication, no authors.
- File:ALF Mota da Costa.jpg
- File:ALF Mota da Costa 02.jpg
- File:Major Luis Tinoco de Faria.jpg
- File:Serafim Soares Leite.jpg
- File:João da Silva Correia.jpg
- File:ADO 1930-1931.png
- File:Francisco marques da silva.jpeg
- File:Fernando R Rodrigues.jpg
- File:Fernando Raimundo Rodrigues.jpg
- File:Inauguracao marques da silva.jpg
- File:Carnaval sujo ovar.png
- File:Carnaval Antigo Ovar.png
Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Patrick Rogel: !
- All the photos were self-scanned and were originaly taken before july 1970.
- I uploaded them under this license:
|
|
This work is in the public domain both in Portugal and in the United States because it was first published in Portugal (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities, such as copyright notice and it is one of the following:
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
As of 1 January 1996, the following were in the public domain in Portugal: works whose author died before 1946; anonymous works, works deemed to be anonymous, or works by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, first published or disclosed before 1946; photographic works, works deemed to be photographic works or works of applied art created before 1 July 1970; news articles or economic, political or religious articles, published or disclosed before 1996, provided that rights have not been specifically reserved and mentions, wherever possible, the name of the author and of the publisher, of the title of the work and other elements enabling it to be identified. |
|
- That puts them in the public domain without the need for a permission, no? JonJon86 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- May you precise how you are sure that File:Kaúlza de Arriaga.jpg, File:ALF Mota da Costa.jpg have been created before 1970? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I scanned File:Kaúlza de Arriaga.jpg from an army book published in 1961 and the person depicted in File:ALF Mota da Costa.jpg was KIA in 1961.[1] JonJon86 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Beside having access to historic documents and photos, I am a rollbacker in the Portuguese wiki. I fully understand how copyright works and whenever I can't find a photo in the public domain, I upload it to the local wiki under fair use. Please remove the deletion requests to my recent photos. JonJon86 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: I scanned File:Kaúlza de Arriaga.jpg from an army book published in 1961 and the person depicted in File:ALF Mota da Costa.jpg was KIA in 1961.[1] JonJon86 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- May you precise how you are sure that File:Kaúlza de Arriaga.jpg, File:ALF Mota da Costa.jpg have been created before 1970? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
One of these four has Metadata showing it was taken by a Joel Leal. Unlikely own work.
- File:Hippies ovar rei 2019.jpg
- File:Hippies ovar 2002.jpg
- File:Hippies ovar 1998.jpg
- File:Hippies ovar 2014.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: That's actually "João Leal" and that's my real name. The "joel" is probably my cam not recognizing the "ã" word. JonJon86 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- JonJon86 For best results send a note to COM:OTRS as shown on that page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: Thank you! In the meantime, can you please dismiss the deletion request? Thank you!JonJon86 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- JonJon86: We both wait for closing administrator. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: Thank you! In the meantime, can you please dismiss the deletion request? Thank you!JonJon86 (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- JonJon86 For best results send a note to COM:OTRS as shown on that page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: own work credible, his website address linked from his userpages includes the typo "joaoolealaaee". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It shouldnt - its tagged in error. It has the Youtube tag and the youtube is cc-by-sa Victuallers (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Image license passes COM:WHERE LICENSE as CC BY 3.0 --Leoboudv (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The file includes thumbnails for other Youtube videos which are not free licensed. Also, the YouTube channel uses material it doesn't fully own (such as stock images, licensed photogrpahy etc.) and therefore it is possible copyfraud. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to cropped version. There is no educational merit to keeping the problematic inclusions in this file. Note: I speedily deleted this before restoring due to a note on my talk page. Storkk (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- comment - the screenprint includes enough in the image to give the video context and to show that it is from the video cited and where the timeline is for anyone to check. The screenprint does include slices of thumbnails from other videos. I would argue this is not even fair use its trivial. Its like claiming that a selfie of me includes the levis logo on my shoes or the Ford logo on a car 5 miles away on the freeway. As for the claim of copyfraud... don't we need more than speculation to accuse a reputable company like MTV? Thanks to Leoboudv & Storkk ... a reasonable approach. I will try and avoid catching thumbnails in future. Victuallers (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Is there any conceivable situation where you would use this file in the article space of Wikipedia or any other sister project (as opposed to the crop)? If no, then it's out of COM:SCOPE. You can note the fact that it comes from 22:51 in the description or link it in the source tag. Are Youtube comments CC-BY? Why would Masithembe Mvunyiswa's comment not be afforded copyright protection? If everything but the video is "trivial", then this would appear to be the old scope vs de minimis issue: the uncropped image being in scope would seem to argue against the cropped parts being de minimis. Storkk (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that I said "a reasonable approach. I will try and avoid catching thumbnails in future. ". Not sure these additional comments are required, but thank you anyway, its a tricky job and someone has to work out a common sense approach. Victuallers (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Is there any conceivable situation where you would use this file in the article space of Wikipedia or any other sister project (as opposed to the crop)? If no, then it's out of COM:SCOPE. You can note the fact that it comes from 22:51 in the description or link it in the source tag. Are Youtube comments CC-BY? Why would Masithembe Mvunyiswa's comment not be afforded copyright protection? If everything but the video is "trivial", then this would appear to be the old scope vs de minimis issue: the uncropped image being in scope would seem to argue against the cropped parts being de minimis. Storkk (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- comment - the screenprint includes enough in the image to give the video context and to show that it is from the video cited and where the timeline is for anyone to check. The screenprint does include slices of thumbnails from other videos. I would argue this is not even fair use its trivial. Its like claiming that a selfie of me includes the levis logo on my shoes or the Ford logo on a car 5 miles away on the freeway. As for the claim of copyfraud... don't we need more than speculation to accuse a reputable company like MTV? Thanks to Leoboudv & Storkk ... a reasonable approach. I will try and avoid catching thumbnails in future. Victuallers (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per Storkk. For the record the original file have been successfully reviewed, the issue being the area now cropped out. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Suspected Flickrwashing - see arguments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jun Matsumoto 2017 松本潤.png. Note that the Flickr user changed username from "kristal Kris to "karin yu" between the other deletion request and this one.
Don't trust the template saying that a bot reviewed this file. The uploader forged this template, see Special:Diff/420233641. Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jun Matsumoto 2016.01.29.png - another file from the same Flickr account. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
No indication this is CC licenced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bishu373005 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW - clearly scans from various publications with no evidence of permission or free license. Scans likely not even uploader's own, as all appeared elsewhere before Commons upload (e.g., File:Banyan-Deer 5.jpg is here; File:D71 (1) - F1 SMG.jpg is here, etc.)
- File:D71 (1) - F1 SMG.jpg
- File:Banyan-Deer 5.jpg
- File:Beretta 1915-1919 schem.jpg
- File:Beretta-1915-Cutaway.gif
- File:Beretta22 catalogo1.gif
- File:465aceb2bab73443deca36b85b7b702a--ww-italy-arditi-ww.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- For the file 465aceb2bab73443deca36b85b7b702a--ww-italy-arditi-ww.jpg the license expired, being a photo from 1918, dating back to the first world war.--Civa61 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not private media repository. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yvesrioual (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scans of articles. Both text and images under copyright. Should be written in wikitext in a relevant project to be useful.
Kissa21782 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems that produced the image is not a government entity, making the PD-USGov-NASA license invalid. Permission claimed as valid by User:JuTa. BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sakhalinio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio unused logo --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unused logo of questionable notability. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Pretty obviously not own work. Needs actual source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Kuva on Viljo Savikurjen tekijänoikeuden alaisesta teoksesta, se pitäisi tallentaa suomenkieliseen Wikipediaan Kulttuurinavigaattori (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - FOP issue. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This picture seems to be copied as it appears in several places on the web. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
This picture seems to be copied as it appears in several places on the web. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. --Odedbarzilay (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) --Odedbarzilay (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Low quality version. Actual and high-quality version https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POL_COA_Fiedorowicz_(herbu_Oginiec).svg. Duplicate. Should be deleted. Legalwizard 2018 (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the uploader's request as it is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Mela Muter (1876-1967), copyright violation Mutter Erde (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Mela Muter (pseudonym used by Maria Melania Mutermilch) created The Old Breton in Paris around 1905–10. Without evidence otherwise, presumably it was first published in France. Copyright term in France is Life + 70. As Meia Muter died in 1967, copyright for her French works will not expire until January 1, 2038. —RP88 (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doppler Shift (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files uploaded by this user are taken from different websites without permission.
- File:Структура обавештајно-безбедносне заједнице Израела.png
- File:Седиште МИ6.jpg
- File:Бечка конвенција 1961..jpg
- File:Na početku 21. veka dolazi do naglog povećanja organizacija civilnog društva koje se bave podizanjem svesti o klimatskim promenama.jpg
- File:Međunarodno korišćeni simbol civilnog društva.png
- File:Međunarodno korišćen simbol civilnog društva.png
- File:Медицински шатори.jpg
- File:Авион за гашење пожара се карактерише употребом у ванредним ситуацијима изазваним великим шумским пожарима.jpg
- File:Хелихоптери се убрајају у летачку опрему и средства цивилне одбране.jpg
- File:Чамаци су један од главних инжењерских средстава цивилне одбране.jpg
- File:CIVILNA-ZASTITA.jpg
- File:Поплаве у селу Јаша Томић априла 2005. године су директна последица деградације Система цивилне одбране.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
All files taken from different websites without original source and permission.
- File:Nikodim Milaš.jpg
- File:Mitropolit-cpc-mihailo.jpg
- File:Митрополит Михаило.jpg
- File:Патријарх Филарет.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation, taken by her talent agency ZappaOMati 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZappaOMatic (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
At least one non-COM:DM image is -nc- license. Might or might not meet fair-use requirements in some countries, but commons cannot accept fair-use at all. DMacks (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I get the point of the NC license of the photo being incompatible with the license of the rest of the file, but I am the one who shot the photo. So I can just reupload with another, compatible license instead of deleting it. -- Rohini (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- That would be great! Make sure you are very clear in your re-uploading that the image you are re-tagging really is your own original (not just changing what you are claiming about someone else's original). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have reuploaded. -- Rohini (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have fixed this issue and re-uploaded the file. Could you please remove the deletion notice? -- Rohini (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have fixed this issue and re-uploaded the file. Could you please remove the deletion notice? -- Rohini (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have reuploaded. -- Rohini (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- That would be great! Make sure you are very clear in your re-uploading that the image you are re-tagging really is your own original (not just changing what you are claiming about someone else's original). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept new revision: no longer a valid reason for deletion. But older version with nonfree content rev-del'ed. --DMacks (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Mircea Popa (1915–1975). This photo may very well be from the 1960s, in which case license is incorrect. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dirijorul Mircea Popa crop.jpg. Gikü (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.arteinformado.com/guia/f/etna-velarde-40840 --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Etna Velarde died in 2014. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader attributed this to Carlos Wood (1792-1856). Who is the artist? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As mentioned in the image description, I got the image from the "Instituto Nacional Sanmartiniano", a cultural organization sponsored by the state of Argentina that studies everything about José de San Martín. The link goes to a "Pinacoteca Virtual Sanmartiniana" (an image gallery). Unfortunately the site is no longer there and the Wayback machine can not retrieve the gallery, but fortunately the institute uploaded it to Flicker as well. See the image [here]. As you can see, it is credited to C. Wood. With further investigation I found the image at [here], credited to "Carlos Wood" (so the "C" stands for "Carlos") and his lifetime years. The first link also informs that the physical portrait is currently held at the "Museo Histórico Nacional de Chile." (Historical National Museum of Chile). Cambalachero (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Creo que todo se debe a un error del referido Instituto. El estilo del pintor Charles Chatworthy Wood Taylor, conocido también en Chile como Carlos Wood, no es ni meramente similar a la pintura cuestionada. Mirad aquí, o aquí, y en la misma categoría del pintor. Es más, esta pintura se asemeja a las pinturas murales de mediados del siglo XX. En este video sobre una exposición monográfica sobre la pintora Etna Velarde en la UNMSN en Lima, títulada Etna Velarde: Trazos de una vida, se ve claramente que la pintura es de dicha autora, quien falleció en 2014. Traducido: I believe that everything is due to an error of the referred Institute. The style of the painter Charles Chatworthy Wood Taylor, also known in Chile as Carlos Wood, is not merely similar to the painting in question. Look here, or here, and in the same category of the painter. What's more, this painting resembles wall paintings from the mid-20th century. In this video about a monographic exhibition on the painter Etna Velarde at the UNMSN in Lima, titled Etna Velarde: Traces of a Life, it is clearly seen that the painting is by said author, who died in 2014.) MiguelAlanCS (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Esta no es una fuente fiable, ya que copia contenido de otras fuentes como Commons, es decir, arrastra errores. Por otro lado, en el catálogo del Museo Histórico Nacional de Chile no aparece dicho cuadro como parte de su colección, mientras que si aparecen otras dos pinturas de C. Wood, ni en otras colecciones chilenas. ¿Más pruebas que la pintura es obra de Etna Velarde? En esta foto realizada durante la exposición Etna Velarde: Trazos de una vida se aprecia la pintura. Y aquí otra foto de la autora junto a su obra. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: In Several sources author is Etna Velarde. --Ezarateesteban 18:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Not found at URL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. --ƏXPLICIT 01:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. Only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by image in svg: "Diagramme Matrix fr.svg". Thank you --Tux-Man (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by image in svg: "Diagramme Matrix es.svg". Thank you --Tux-Man (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by image in svg: "Diagramme Matrix eo.svg". Thank you --Tux-Man (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, given the watermarks and the uploader's history. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Replaced by image in svg: "Diagramme Matrix en.svg". Thank you --Tux-Man (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Fitindia (per Commons:Deletion requests/Fichiers de l'utilisateur: Tux-Man), thanks! — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader has problems with copyright. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Metadata says "Eclipse Sportswire Inc. (Eclipse or ESW) All Rights Reserved" Ytoyoda (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like own work to me A (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think it's below COM:TOO. Ahmadtalk 15:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Below COM:TOO. Used on Wikipedia -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, below TOO. --Minoraxtalk 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture. Out of scope. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 06:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- A foto refere-se a um pesquisador sergipano. Não entendo a xenofobia dos presentes aos pesquisadores nordestinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuaju (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Não existe "xenofobia", meu caro. A WikiCommons não é um repositório de imagens. Para que imagens sejam mantidas aqui elas devem ter um propósito e estar dentro do escopo do projeto. O que não é o caso dessa imagem.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, by Podzemnik. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. JGHowes talk 18:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Used for a joke perhaps, OoS. E4024 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
superseded by jpg & svg files. Larryasou (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Corporate logo, claim of "own work" is non-credible. creffett (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Possibly {{PD-logo}} in the US per COM:TOO United States, but not sure about the India (assuming that's the country of origin) per COM:TOO India. If India's COM:TOO is deemed to be closer to the UK's than the US's in this case, then this most likely would be considered too complex per COM:TOO United Kingdom and cannot be kept. The "own work" claim would really only matter if the uploader wants to send a COM:CONSENT email to COM:OTRS to verify copyright ownership, or can get the copyright owner to do the same per COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The arrows don't seem like simple geometric shapes to me. 212.238.160.74 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: spam. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Copied from subject's blog at [2] creffett (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
André Farfan André Farfan (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: User has since edited page, likely does not want it deleted. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
flickrwash of music video still 100cellsman (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I suspect at the time I uploaded this image, the gallery of images at that account was too small and did appear to be legit uploads by the band (This is after they had a bunch of problems with their label and went on their own). But reviewing some of the images uploaded now, this definitely looks like a fan account and can't be trusted to be by the band, so we can assume flickrwashing. --Masem (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The file is the "flag of Macau" if it was colonized by the UK (instead by Portugal). However, Macau has never been placed under British rule. Besides, it seems that the flag is also not used on other Wikimedia projects (such as describing a hypothetical or fictional situation). As a result, the file's educational purpose is questionable. 廣九直通車 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
from Facebook. Copyvio? No description. unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. Only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The main image on the phone screen is of the person holding the phone at the moment he took the photo of the screen (see the reflection on the top of the phone), so there's no problem there. The rest of the screen elements are probably too simple for copyright, with the exception of the hot air balloons at the bottom, which could be blanked or labeled de minimis. I'm not sure if it's really in scope, though. clpo13(talk) 19:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet the requirements for PD-textlogo nor PD-shape; precedents at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 Start button.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg. Chenzw Talk 09:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Logo is quite simple, almost like Windows 10 logo. I don't see 3d shapes. I said it is under trademark, so..... The background part of file is too simple (gradient, shadow). I think we should keep it, because Commons doesn't have any start buttons of Windows 7. Windows 7 is an important OS, and its logo should be known to public. This is why i vote for keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitjas1 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 Start button.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg. Leonel Sohns 09:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - It is easy to slap a gradient on any image if you have Inkscape, it is nonsense to remove pictures on the basis that they have one, however, I'm sure the admins will do that anyway like they always do. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
No permission of author and Avg Timlovesoma (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Old photo. This is obviously not taken in 2016, as the subject died in 2006. The copyright status of this image must be clearly indicated. pandakekok9 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Request upload user(after elapse 7days) Mario1257 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coderenius (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images uploaded to Pexels after June 2018, license no longer valid
Ytoyoda (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello! Hope everyone is doing well. In all honesty, I am not fully aware of the exact legal implications that Pexels switching from its now deprecated universal CC0 license to its own license with much of the same terms (detailed in section 5.5) has. That being said, I used the Pexels wikitext template for the license info because it seemed to be the most relevant option for these photos (even though they were published after June 2018). However, as far as I know, these photos are still licensed under a free license, so to me, nominating all of these files for deletion because they are not licensed under CC0, but under a license that is more or less identical to it seems excessive (with all due respect). I would appreciate the input of those more knowledgable on these matters than myself. Thanks! Coderenius (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- On second review: So, I found this village pump discussion and this guideline on Pexels as a bad source and it seems that the consensus argument is that purely because of some clause that appears in the terms that states "Don't redistribute or sell the photos and videos on other stock photo or wallpaper platforms," photos on Pexels are not fully redistributable and subject to a non-commercial restriction that prevents their use on Commons. Even if this were indeed the case, one could make the argument that Commons is neither a stock photo nor wallpaper platform by nature, as it does not exist specifically for those purposes. Taking that into consideration, I have checked and found that as of now, the license agreement does not contain that particular clause anywhere. In fact, the only similar clause I did find was that the Pexels license excludes "the right to compile any Pexels Content to replicate a similar or competing Service" as one of only two explicitly stated exclusions, the other concerning the selling and distribution of physical copies of unmodified content which isn't relevant here. I admit I do not have the knowledge or authority to make legal judgements at all, but from my point of view, it should be plain to see that Wikimedia Commons could not be considered a 'similar and competing service' besides the fact that they both host media for free use, as they do not share the same purpose and are in most ways completely different and in different lanes altogether – no one could reasonably make the argument that these sites are direct commercial competitors in the same way that a site also specializing in free stock photos and wallpapers would be. Furthermore, this clause says 'compile to replicate' – and though I might not understand the legal subtext here, in which case please correct me, what I and others who upload media from Pexels to Commons have done does not constitute a deliberate attempt to compile its photos with the intent to replicate its services as a highly similar repository that directly competes with Pexels itself. This is my argument, but perhaps this is not the optimal place for this sort of discussion. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate any sort of feedback on this matter. Thank you! Coderenius (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Coderenius: I think the issue is that any image that's stored on Commons needs to have a free license — that means you can upload any Commons photo to a stock image or sites that sell photograph prints. So if you upload a recent Pexels image to Commons, you're basically changing the license to allow uploads to stock image/printing sites. Sure, Commons doesn't compete with Pexels. But Commons allows users to compile images stored here in a Pexels competitor. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Ytoyoda: That's a fair point you make, I hadn't considered the possibility of license laundering of the Pexels license using Commons as the middle-man. Unless there is some sort of way to take the liability for license laundering incidents off of Commons through some agreement or legal framework and to then create a new Wikitext copyright tag for the Pexels license that specifically warns against these forbidden uses, which seems unlikely, then I suppose there's no way around it and these photos do have to go. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! To facilitate the deletion of these pics I globally removed all links to them (the Wikidata computer tags remain but that's not important), including those I had added myself. Take care! Coderenius (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Coderenius: I think the issue is that any image that's stored on Commons needs to have a free license — that means you can upload any Commons photo to a stock image or sites that sell photograph prints. So if you upload a recent Pexels image to Commons, you're basically changing the license to allow uploads to stock image/printing sites. Sure, Commons doesn't compete with Pexels. But Commons allows users to compile images stored here in a Pexels competitor. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo from Sky5 NC5 Nashville, not works from NWS A1Cafel (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Image of a living person. Might have copyright issues in future. Outlander07 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: grabbed from facebook. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No FoP in South Africa, need permission from the painter B dash (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, {{Non-free graffiti}}. --B dash (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa. This is mural, not graffiti A1Cafel (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: It is true that South Africa, sadly, does not have FOP... yet. Although we are tantalisingly close to getting it. However this image
wouldcould arguably be excepted from copyright protection under South Africa's Fair Dealing allowance for educational purposes as outlined in 12 (4) of the South African Copyright act of 1978. However I feel that would be a weak argument for an exception as that exception only covers "literary or musical work[s]". That's also putting aside the whole debate whether Fair Dealing exceptions should be treated like Fair Use exceptions on Commons.
- One could also argue under section 15 (3) which states that "[t]he copyright in a artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film or a television broadcast or transmission in a diffusion service, if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place." The interpretation here being that the Internet is a "transmission in a diffusion service. Legal opinion Wikimedia ZA got a few years back indicates that this is a weak argument which is why we are advocating for FOP in South Africa.
- I hate to say it but I think there is likely a stronger argument here for deletion as things currently stand. HOWEVER, I would suggest we postpone a decision on this given that the Copyright Amendment Bill is in its very final stages of being passed into law having passed through both houses of parliament and currently only awaits being signed by the president. The bill has FOP in it thereby making pictures like this excepted from copyright protection as a work of public art. Unfortunately it is unknown how much longer the bill will continue to sit on the presidents desk given that it has been there since early 2019.--Discott (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this is a derivative work. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyviol from http://www.diocesidilameziaterme.it/fotografie.php?anno=2020&titolo=2020-01-11%20Ordinazione%20Diaconale%20di%20Alessandro%20Baglio%20nei%20Primi%20Vespri%20del%20Battesimo%20di%20Ges%F9 Antonio1952 (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 13:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Julius Shulman was a commercial photographer whose photographs are still for sale. Therefore, this image appears to be a copyright violation. Farragutful (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Julius Shulman was a commercial photographer whose photographs are still for sale. Therefore, this image appears to be a copyright violation. Farragutful (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The image was released under the CC 4.0 license in the link given by the uploader, but there is a larger version that can be found through Google Image. Therefore I doubt the origin of this photo. A (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be an old photo. This is obviously not taken in 2020, as the subject died in 1990. The copyright status of this photo must be clearly indicated. pandakekok9 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Although the photos were taken by the user him/herself, the objects of these photos may be not because I think all of their authors are still alive.
File:Venus fragmentada - Óleo sobre lino - 132,5 x 172,5 cm. (2019).jpg- File:Suave tensión - Óleo sobre tabla - 140 x 150 cm. (2017).jpg
File:Retrato a la mujer ausente y espejo - Óleo sobre tabla - 166 x 118 cm. (2018).jpgFile:Lucia, am komponieren - Óleo sobre lino - 116 x 89 cm. (2019).jpg- File:Lavadero minero de Fabero - Óleo sobre tabla - 125 x 112 cm. (2019).jpg
- File:Francisco Pérez Rosas esculpiendo - Óleo sobre tabla - 170 x 122 cm. (2019).jpg
- File:Escorzo boca abajo - Óleo sobre tabla - 193 x 122 cm. (2016).jpg
File:África - Óleo sobre tabla - 122 x 170 cm. (2017).jpgFile:Autorretrato en espejo con polvo - Óleo sobre tabla - 101 x 89 cm. (2017).jpg
阿 talk 02:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Venus_fragmentada_-_Óleo_sobre_lino_-_132,5_x_172,5_cm._(2019).jpg” under ticket:2020061810005691. --阿 talk 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Retrato_a_la_mujer_ausente_y_espejo_-_Óleo_sobre_tabla_-_166_x_118_cm._(2018).jpg” under ticket:2020061810005691. --阿 talk 19:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Lucia,_am_komponieren_-_Óleo_sobre_lino_-_116_x_89_cm._(2019).jpg” under ticket:2020061810005691. --阿 talk 19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:África_-_Óleo_sobre_tabla_-_122_x_170_cm._(2017).jpg” under ticket:2020061810005691. --阿 talk 19:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Autorretrato_en_espejo_con_polvo_-_Óleo_sobre_tabla_-_101_x_89_cm._(2017).jpg” under ticket:2020061810005691. --阿 talk 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW of the copyrrighted draw. COM:OTRS permission is needed. SCP-2000 10:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Mixed close as shown. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Per RfC, PDM 1.0 marked as PD-self/author is not allowed in Commons, they must be marked as {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-USGov}}, as they cannot specified the status of the sourced country and the USA. A1Cafel (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with flickr.com/photos/53180277@N06 Olivier LPB (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment These files are from the North Macedonian Government, the copyright status is not the same as the Polish Government. No proof that free license is available. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: the motivation is not just for Poland, but for government entity. Olivier LPB (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_flickr.com/photos/53180277@N06 and community consensus of PDM 1.0. That flickr account is official social media account per gov website. SCP-2000 11:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The image is not of Tedros Adhanom, as the image title states, but the President of the 69th World Health Assembly, Ahmed bin Mohammed al-Saidi. The image is from the chambers of the World Health Assembly, which I doubt the uploader went to and then provided Commons with only one low-quality image with no EXIF data from the Assembly. The uploader has a history of uploading images from videos that are not created by them. The Assembly was webcasted and videos of it are available online, so it is most likely that the uploader found a nonfree video of the 69th Assembly and then uploaded an image from it. We should apply precautionary principle and delete this image. FunnyMath (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Was adapted from a non-free work back when I was not well-aware of the copyright rules on adaptations of scientific diagrams. As a result, there may be possible copyright issues with this upload and it should be deleted to be safe. Macrophyseter (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Low resolution, probably taken from official website, not own work Triplecaña (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
1984 photo, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. COM:OTRS is needed. SCP-2000 08:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, since all other photos of same lake from same user are deleted as copyvios from different websites. Smooth O (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
So sorry, but the text on the page under the video says "This video is licensed under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-NC-SA-ND 4.0)." I know that
- That doesn't make sense, since you can't SA (share alike, which means relicense your modifications) and ND (no derivatives, which means you can't make modification), and
- there is also a YouTube Creative Commons License underneath that, which is CC-BY, which we would accept, but I suspect this is because YouTube only offers that CC license.
I think the uploader's intent is CC-BY-NC-ND, which we can't use on Commons. I took a quick look and can't find any other uploaded images from Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Southeast Asia videos with this strange restriction, so I think this is a one-off. The other Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung videos that we got images from (we have a number) seem OK. In fact, this seems to be such an outlier, that if uploader really wants this video screenshot, they might consider emailing Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung and asking them to release this video under CC-BY like most of their others. GRuban (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The desription likely means to express that the video is available under all CC-licenses, but anyhow the video is posted under a YouTube CC-license, so I see no reason to remove this file. Mentioning a none-existing license, or providing any second license in general, does not devaluate or overrule the YouTube CC-license. Eissink (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
- Keep Per above and Commons:Multi-licensing. Although the video is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA-ND 4.0 while has a Youtube CC-license tag, it is make sense in respect of copyright and this licensing form is known as Multi-licensing, which is not copyright violation when one of the license meet COM:L SCP-2000 16:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Not used anywhere so out of scope. Also borderline COM:TOO. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in Romania Gikü (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
1. Estadio = copyvio per TinEye 2. Historical photos, painting, drawing, video. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. 3. Bil 13= Unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope
Estopedist1 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Previously published image, metadata indicates this is copyrighted, OTRS ticket probably needed Ytoyoda (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielCDiniz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GabrielCDiniz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Oie transparent (2)gr.png
- File:Oie transparent (1)ht.png
- File:Troféu mundial feminino.png
- File:8e2196 7fc9510e2c0645a9b5e00374f37415d3 mv2.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
COM:FOP in Poland only for works which are permanently exhibited . Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, and now? WrS.tm.pl (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @WrS.tm.pl: The designer of the poster has to send a permission of release via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete COM:DW of the copyrighted work. SCP-2000 17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Piotr Kaczkowski - famous radio host - multiple times asked for not publishing his photographs, as he wants to be only "the voice" in the radio. Even Polish wikipedia says "Piotr Kaczkowski znany jest z tego, że unika fotoreporterów i nie pokazuje w mediach swego oblicza" Honey (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, however this photo was shoot on a public occassion, he is not the only subject of this photo, he is a recognizible person (a celebrity, meaning not anonymous), therefore there are no rules preventing this crop. Masur (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep In use. No valid reason for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This file has a proper license, but was set up for speedy deletion. Perhaps someone should check the page. Jeblad (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. SCP-2000 02:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Photo from a screen or a projection, plus no FOP for 3D artwork in Russia (according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama) Magnus (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Derivative works: File:Monument of Zainab Biisheva in Ufa.jpg, File:Monument of Zainab Biisheva in Ufa2.jpg --Magnus (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elenatheodora (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two copies same picture, different qualities. #1 is lower quality than the other. However the smaller one has the metadata and is sharper. Suggest that these were uploaded as part of a fan gallery, and may not be own work.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! These are two versions of the same image. I can confirm the image is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatheodora (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the original jpg has been converted to png while the depth was accidentally extended to 32 bits per pixel, so it became larger. I do not doubt {{Own}}. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
text possibly copyrighted Veverve (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It's a recent Polish translation of the Bible per pl:Biblia Ekumeniczna, so yes, the translation is presumably copyrighted, but on the other hand, the text is blurry and hard to read even in full resolution. Maybe make the text just a bit more blurry so it could be kept, as it's in use in the Polish article? Provided that we think the design of the cover is simple enough... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- I believe it could be a very good compromise. Veverve (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: could you do it as soon as possible? Veverve (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Blurry and hard to make out the text. Likely de minimis. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Chiedo cortesemente la cancellazione di questa fotografia perché mi sono accorto di averla pubblicata a suo tempo senza avere le necessarie autorizzazioni. Mi scuso con gli Admin per aver violato, sebbene in buona fede e in maniera involontaria per una mia imperdonabile svista, le regole di Wikimedia Commons. A cancellazione fatta, proverò a procurarmi un'altra fotografia e a dotarmi del copyright in modo da poterla pubblicare, questa volta, nel pieno possesso di tutte le licenze legali contemplate dal format di Wikimedia Commons. Come si evince dalla scheda del file, ho utilizzato la fotografia su Wikipedia a corredo della voce "Flora Graiff". Pertanto, il file dovrà necessariamente essere rimosso anche da quella pagina, e, naturalmente, anche da altre eventuali pagine dei progetti Wikimedia in cui fosse stato utilizzato. MI scuso ancora per l'increscioso infortunio di cui mi sono reso inconsapevolmente responsabile e ringrazio in anticipo dell'attenzione che verrà prestata alla mia richiesta. Cordiali saluti, Ibisco Ibisco (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ho risolto il problema del copyright. Il file pertanto può essere mantenuto in tutti i progetti Wikimedia.--Ibisco (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — Racconish 💬 18:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Shall we in this case delete all the files under the Category:Murals in Belfast ? I don't see what is different in this file than other files under the same category. --Yamen (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
OGL license not mentioned on Twitter post or on the URL in the tweet.
Also, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mark Carney with Boris Johnson in London - 2020.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump and May in Blenheim Palace, July 2018.jpg // sikander { talk } 🦖 13:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Minor correction, the gov.uk site is very clear that OGL applies to that content unless explicitly stated otherwise. There is no clarification I can see so far as to what the default is for photographs published on the official twitter or facebook feeds.
- However going for Keep on the basis that the Twitter feed is entirely controlled by 10DowningStreet and the same media policies (i.e. default OGL v3) must apply to its publications based on their own stated policies and law. Were the feed controlled by an MP or someone acting for the Prime Minister rather than claiming to be an official publishing outlet for 10DowningStreet, then there would be sufficient doubt. Note that the tweet includes photographs taken inside #10 during the meetings, so this is not some retweet of an independent journalist's photograph.
- I am aware of the prior DRs, however I disagree as it must be a general policy for 10DowningStreet that its publications are covered by OGL regardless of outlet. If this were not true, then it would be a massive loophole for 10DowningStreet to publish whatever they want under restrictive licences that were neither Crown Copyright nor OGL, this would conflict with legislation such as The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 which nowhere says it is limited to stuff published on certain websites, but it applies to all publications. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The linked DRs misapplied the OGL rules (and those files probably need to be undeleted). The appropriate approach to OGL is given in the following DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canoe Slalom - Kynan Maley.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olympic mascots.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill McKenzie.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara Follett.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ian Austin.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hilary Benn.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Denham.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lord Davies.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dan Norris.jpg. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no Fae. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of publication, other than in 2015: http://media.diariocoimbra.pt/prd-ios/da/54b19a11-6f58-4745-b3ec-5f395e7eaa97.pdf.pdf Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- You can clearly see this was taken in the 1930's! I work in Aveiro's District Archive and I scanned it myself! Under PD-Portugal-URAA license it must be older than 1970 and it clearly is!. JonJon86 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're right. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Besides having access to historic documents and photos, I am a rollbacker in the Portuguese wiki. I fully understand how copyright works and whenever I can't find a photo in the public domain, I upload it to the local wiki under fair use. Please remove the deletion requests to my recent photos. JonJon86 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're right. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
De foto is volgens historicus dhr. henk Komen niet het poldermuseum Heerhugowaard. Uit mail dd 19 mei 2020: Op de volgende foto zien we het polderbestuur van het Geestmerambacht (niet van Heerhugowaard) bij de opening van het gemaal aan de Oosterdijk 6 in Zuid-Scharwoude. Dit pand staat er nog, zonder schoorsteen. Uit het onderschrift zou blijken dat dit de schoorsteen is van het stoomgemaal aan de Huygendijk. Dat is niet zo. Het betreft het stoomgemaal in Zuid-Scharwoude dat aan de Oosterdijk stond en evenals het poldergemaal van Heerhugowaard uitwaterde op de ringvaart van Heerhugowaard. Vandaar dat op de foto Heerhugowaard wordt genoemd. Deze foto bevindt zich in de collectie van historisch Langedijk en betreft dus niet het poldergemaal aan de huygendijk. Robderuiter.hhw (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- In plaats van verwijdering kan deze foto ook gewoon hernoemd worden. -- Mdd (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: If the name has a problem, use {{Rename}}. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
and: File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4) Cropped.jpg . --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Film shot in UK so no reason for U.S. law to apply. Besides it's a photo and not a video: in which country has it been shot? Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- This was a trailer made for America by Columbia Pictures, and because of the terms in the box here, it's Public Domain. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know if it's the UK or the US trailer. Nevertheless image uploaded here is an image in the trailer too so the question is: in which country has it been shot and when does it dates back (since Kubrick was still an UK resident at the time and returns back briefly in the US only for shooting The Shining some years after) and has it been published independently before appering in the trailer. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Since this photo was published in the trailer, it is part of the trailer. As for it being a UK or US trailer, I'm assuming someone did research on whether or not if it is Public Domain before uploading it here. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Who knows? I put a few hundreds of files on deletion each day just because files are not free... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- However, it was produced by Columbia Pictures, an American company. At least, that's what the infobox for Dr. Strangelove says on Wikipedia. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- The production company is Hawk Films, Kubrick's British own. Nevertheless nationality of the distributor of the trailer is irrelevant since it's a photography inserted in the trailer, not a video so the copyright is with the photographer. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- However, it was produced by Columbia Pictures, an American company. At least, that's what the infobox for Dr. Strangelove says on Wikipedia. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know if it's the UK or the US trailer. Nevertheless image uploaded here is an image in the trailer too so the question is: in which country has it been shot and when does it dates back (since Kubrick was still an UK resident at the time and returns back briefly in the US only for shooting The Shining some years after) and has it been published independently before appering in the trailer. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where it was shot. It matters where it was first published. If that was in a U.S. trailer, then the U.S. is the country of origin. Publication is usually when films (or trailers) are sent to distributors. If the photograph in question was earlier published in the UK, it would be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The picture here is part of a trailer that was released and published for American audiences. I cannot find any evidence that this picture was published prior to this trailer. And like the PD info on the trailer indicates, it has no copyright notice. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, there's no indication it's the American trailer. And what are you talking about? There's no trailer at https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dr-Strangelove-or-How-I-Learned-to-Stop-Worrying-and-Love-the-Bomb-Blu-ray/152607/#Review. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also, when I put in an edited version of the file, and said original photo, I should have specified original screenshot not an original photo, because I edited it from the high-res trailer. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: , with the link you provided from Blu-Ray.com, under the Special Features and Extras section, it lists the trailer. It says it's four minutes, but I'm pretty sure they were rounding out the number there. As for whether it's an American trailer or not, I asked Racconish (who uploaded this version of the trailer) how they may have found out it was published in America. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- It was a worldwide trailer and the country of registration (if any) seems secondary since it's the country of first publication which matters. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: , with the link you provided from Blu-Ray.com, under the Special Features and Extras section, it lists the trailer. It says it's four minutes, but I'm pretty sure they were rounding out the number there. As for whether it's an American trailer or not, I asked Racconish (who uploaded this version of the trailer) how they may have found out it was published in America. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is not about the film but about the theatrical and TV trailer, which was notoriously made by Pablo Ferro [3] [4] [5], produced by Polaris Inc. and distributed by Columbia [6] [7]. — Racconish 💬 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nice research @Racconish: but not all of them are good picks. First and according to @Clindberg: the nationality of the designer, of Polaris, of Columbia Pictures doesn't matter. Second the article of Film Bulletin has been written before the shooting: it obviously doesn't say in which country's theaters the trailer has been screened first (as far as I have understood is the million-dollars question here which will be hard to adress since the film enjoyed a simultaneous release in both U.S.A. and U.K.). Note: I remember a similar DR involving a Barry Lyndon shot was less time-consuming... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: , the nationality of the distributor(s) should matter, because if they own something or first published something (or did), then that'll indicate which country's copyright laws apply. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- No the nationality of the distributor(s) (they are often different distributors for one same movie) is irrelevant since they don't hold the copyright; it's the production company which does. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: OK, thanks for telling me. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- No the nationality of the distributor(s) (they are often different distributors for one same movie) is irrelevant since they don't hold the copyright; it's the production company which does. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also, Clindberg was talking about how it doesn't matter where something was first shot/filmed, and that it matters where it was first published. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Peter Krämer explicitely writes : "Ever since the first public announcement of Kubrick's new project in the summer of 1962, Americans had been kept informed about its progress by the press. The number of publications about the film increased in 1963 and early 1964, complemented by print advertisements and also, eventually, by trailers in cinemas and on television. [8]" His dedicated article here details the American promotion of the film ahead of the premiere, including the use of the trailer. See also here. — Racconish 💬 14:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- And? You should have misread what Clindberg and I have written. It seems this discussion is going nowhere: nobody has said that there have been no publicity campaign in the U.S.A. Before I quit it I add that movies are released on Fridays both in the US and UK (if it helps).--Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure it helps, since we are discussing the trailer, not the film
. As you can see here the trailer was available to US theaters before the premiere. — Racconish 💬 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure it helps, since we are discussing the trailer, not the film
- And? You should have misread what Clindberg and I have written. It seems this discussion is going nowhere: nobody has said that there have been no publicity campaign in the U.S.A. Before I quit it I add that movies are released on Fridays both in the US and UK (if it helps).--Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Peter Krämer explicitely writes : "Ever since the first public announcement of Kubrick's new project in the summer of 1962, Americans had been kept informed about its progress by the press. The number of publications about the film increased in 1963 and early 1964, complemented by print advertisements and also, eventually, by trailers in cinemas and on television. [8]" His dedicated article here details the American promotion of the film ahead of the premiere, including the use of the trailer. See also here. — Racconish 💬 14:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: , the nationality of the distributor(s) should matter, because if they own something or first published something (or did), then that'll indicate which country's copyright laws apply. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nice research @Racconish: but not all of them are good picks. First and according to @Clindberg: the nationality of the designer, of Polaris, of Columbia Pictures doesn't matter. Second the article of Film Bulletin has been written before the shooting: it obviously doesn't say in which country's theaters the trailer has been screened first (as far as I have understood is the million-dollars question here which will be hard to adress since the film enjoyed a simultaneous release in both U.S.A. and U.K.). Note: I remember a similar DR involving a Barry Lyndon shot was less time-consuming... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
(1).jpg){kind=link}
_Selfie_(red_shirt_edition).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-2020-05-19T17:50:00.000Z-File:Vladimir_Putin_(illustration).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(1).jpg){kind=link}
(1).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Selfie_(red_shirt_edition).jpg){kind=link}
_Selfie_(red_shirt_edition).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Selfie_(red_shirt_edition).jpg){kind=link}
_Selfie_(red_shirt_edition).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-23_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-22_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-22_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-22_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-22_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-21_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-21_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-05-20_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-18_-_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-18_-_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-18_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-18_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_-_F1_SMG.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
gr.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ht.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://www.artofthetitle.com/assets/sm/upload/u8/k5/q1/va/pf_Photo-of-film-can-of-trailer.jpg?k=5a35791ccd){kind=link}
- The film was released on the same day in the UK and the US, and later in other countries. Seems likely the film was simultaneously published (i.e. within 30 days of each other) in both countries. The rules would probably favor the U.S. being the country of origin in that case ("the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection", per the Berne Convention). And while the UK was the Berne country of origin at the time, but the U.S. has since joined it. The trailer I guess would presumably be similar, as it would have been published before the movie in a similar fashion, if it was used in both countries. The UK and other countries would likely protect it longer, since they have treaties with the U.S. saying they will protect works per their own terms (i.e. the rule of the shorter term may not apply). The trailer seems to be fine in the U.S. either way (it's considered an American work there, did not have a copyright license, and would not have been subject to the URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Clindberg. --4nn1l2 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Is Parlamento Nacional the Government? To be discussed. Besides image may be found the same date under a NC license. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is a state institution. The law is valid for all of them. --JPF (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- BTW: "publication and reprodl.Jction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; " --JPF (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- "In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary." Quote from a well known Online Encyclopedia --Wuselig (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a broad definition because in almost every countries executive, legislative and judiciary branches are supposed independent of each others so @J. Patrick Fischer: and since you are a specialist of this territory may you find out in the East Timor Constitution something supporting your claim? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Um es klar zu sagen, das sind Spitzfindigkeiten, die vielleicht Verfassungsrechtler interessieren, nicht aber das gültige Urheberrecht in OSttimor. Die Bilder werden zur Weiternutzung veröffentlicht und so wird es gehandhabt. Ich habe keine große Lust, hier juristische Klein-Klein-Diskussionen zu führen, während ich mich um die Updates der Artikel kümmern muss, weil genau solche juristische Formaldiskussionen das Land in die Krise stürzen. Die Rechtslage ist klar und Du kannst Dich gerne an einen Experten für osttimoresisches Recht wenden, wenn Du meinst, dass Du eine Neuinterpretation einführen willst, um zu belegen, dass das Verständnis von Rechtswissenschaften eines ausländischen Laien jenen eines Dritten Weltlandes überlegen ist. Es gibt schlichtweg keine weiteren Unterlagen zu dieser Frage, weil sie niemand in Osttimor stellt. Obwohl es bei den Institutionen dort inzwischen durchweg bekannt ist, dass deren Bilder den Weg in die Wikipedia gefunden haben. --JPF (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like a very collaborative reply! --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do not want to be misunderstood, answering helpful deletion requests, so I prefer to write detailled in German. The constitution is available in English, Portuguese and Tetum here in the Weblink chapter: de:Verfassung Osttimors von 2002. --JPF (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. After reflexion it seems that Indonesia Copyright Law No 6, 1982, is still valid in East Timor after independence 20 May 2002 so Constitution of East Timor seems irrelevant here.
- So "there shall be no infringement of copyright for:
- a. publication and reproduction of the symbol of the State and the national anthem in accordance with their original nature;
- b. publication and reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the workis published.", etc...
- As guessed works by the Parliament are not mentionned in the copyright law so are not considered public domain per se. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I do not want to be misunderstood, answering helpful deletion requests, so I prefer to write detailled in German. The constitution is available in English, Portuguese and Tetum here in the Weblink chapter: de:Verfassung Osttimors von 2002. --JPF (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like a very collaborative reply! --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Um es klar zu sagen, das sind Spitzfindigkeiten, die vielleicht Verfassungsrechtler interessieren, nicht aber das gültige Urheberrecht in OSttimor. Die Bilder werden zur Weiternutzung veröffentlicht und so wird es gehandhabt. Ich habe keine große Lust, hier juristische Klein-Klein-Diskussionen zu führen, während ich mich um die Updates der Artikel kümmern muss, weil genau solche juristische Formaldiskussionen das Land in die Krise stürzen. Die Rechtslage ist klar und Du kannst Dich gerne an einen Experten für osttimoresisches Recht wenden, wenn Du meinst, dass Du eine Neuinterpretation einführen willst, um zu belegen, dass das Verständnis von Rechtswissenschaften eines ausländischen Laien jenen eines Dritten Weltlandes überlegen ist. Es gibt schlichtweg keine weiteren Unterlagen zu dieser Frage, weil sie niemand in Osttimor stellt. Obwohl es bei den Institutionen dort inzwischen durchweg bekannt ist, dass deren Bilder den Weg in die Wikipedia gefunden haben. --JPF (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a broad definition because in almost every countries executive, legislative and judiciary branches are supposed independent of each others so @J. Patrick Fischer: and since you are a specialist of this territory may you find out in the East Timor Constitution something supporting your claim? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- "In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary." Quote from a well known Online Encyclopedia --Wuselig (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- BTW: "publication and reprodl.Jction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published; " --JPF (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Es müssen nicht sämtliche staatlichen Institutionen aufgeführt werden, für die das Gesetz gilt, weil in dem Fall Regierung mit staatlichen Institutionen gleichzusetzen sind. Es liegt auch im Verständnis des damaligen indonesischen Staates, der ja bis dato auch eine Diktatur war. Bitte interpretiere nicht das Verständnis eines westlichen, demokratischen Staates in jenes einer südostasiatischen Diktatur der 1980er Jahre. --JPF (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:J. Patrick Fischer. --4nn1l2 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
