Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/06/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
per COM:PACKAGING (DVD media of Japanese singer Yuri Komagata) 毒島みるく (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
per COM:PACKAGING (CD media of Japanese female voice actors) 毒島みるく (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
per "Out of scope" (Not educationally useful) - It says: "A specific nerd sent hundreds of disgusting message to Nono Morikubo (Japanese female voice actor) on SNS. She says 'I CAN'T STAND IT!!!'" 毒島みるく (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Photo by Jon Kopaloff/FilmMagic Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as clear copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
As an uploader of this file, I'd like to request for its deletion as license indicated below is inappropriate and just realized it is not suitable for upload here in Commons. McVahl (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested instead. FredWalsh (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Metadata refers to an artist, no COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the explanation of how to change the correct state for Stulstube gross 4867x.jpg. The only way I know till yet ist to delete the picture and put in a new one, copied from the original. This is already the second picture which is set for deletion. How do I have to set the licence attrubutes of a picture (that is made by myself!) to keep it in wikipedia without being deleted at some time? Is there somewhere an exampl for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KVdG2601 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Likely culled from internet and self attributed... when it is actually coming from Commons. — Racconish 💬 07:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Racconish: My intention was absolutely not to hide the source nor to pretend I was the only and original author : I'm just ignorant of the mystering of sources (and of good english…), sorry !
- I hope, I think it's correct now. Marlaguette 10:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. — Racconish 💬 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — Racconish 💬 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
1. unused 2. really stupid name choice 3. no apparent need for this photo ~ DaChickenKing 00:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Unused personal photo, out of scope. Xalapeño (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
추후 재변경 하겠습니다. 김대국 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Amirhosein92 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:35, 13 Juni 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: advertisement --Krdbot 20:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
http://www.nurettinaydin.com/kitaplar/ Sakhalinio (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:33, 13 Juni 2020 UTC: Commons:Licensing: book cover --Krdbot 20:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Gomdoli4696 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 18:50, 13 Juni 2020 UTC: Copyright infringement --Krdbot 02:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Teclacity as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7. Uploader's request is valid reason for deletion only during first week after upload; here almost month has passed. The file is used in it.wiki. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 17:51, 13 Juni 2020 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Book cover --Krdbot 02:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Buxtehude (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photos are out of project scope. This is the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
UPF and OoS. Could have been deleted before. E4024 (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's a previously deleted (very common file name) unused personal file. E4024 (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Another OoS "my photo". E4024 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
UPF and OoS. E4024 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I have a feeling like files titled "my photo" are generally out of scope selfies. This one also. E4024 (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not MY PHOTO. 181.203.64.67 22:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
lAols😇 hzflr😎 by 😪 by 168.195.182.18 22:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request. --Achim (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
doutes sur les droits VKaeru (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 00:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
No tiene licencia libre ni es obra propia del uploader: https://www.kiwilimon.com/receta/rollitos-de-jamon-con-queso JOAN ~ (Questions?) 19:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 12:38, 15 Juni 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: https://www.kiwilimon.com/receta/rollitos-de-jamon-con-queso --Krdbot 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Image without the proper license or permission: https://www.lineadecontraste.com/todo-listo-para-el-desfile-militar-que-encabezara-la-guardia-nacional/ Luisalvaz (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The user who uploaded the file, hasn't prove that ownes the rights: https://www.facebook.com/Guardianacionaldemx/photos/p.481630572653150/481630572653150/?type=1&theater Luisalvaz (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Copy of image already on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blepharostoma_trichophyllum_(Gew%C3%B6hnliches_Wimpernmoos)_IMG_7663.jpg) ... wrong date, source and license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE so processed as a dup. --Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thomas Whitebread (talk · contribs)
[edit]No sources for basemaps or data.
- File:Map of World Countries by GDP PPP Per Capita.png
- File:Country Subdivisions by HDI (Europe Map).png
- File:Country Subdivisions by HDI (World Map).png
- File:Map of World Countries by Population Growth Rate.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
By file sizes and lack of quality, these images appear to be from websites and so on. All but one is tiny/low quality... and there are way too many cameras.
- File:PM Abiy Ahmed with Presidfent Guelleh of Djibouti.jpg
- File:Abiy Ahmed and Esayas Afeworki.jpg
- File:EV 3 wheeler-cool.jpg
- File:Abiy Ahmed and Lemma Megersa.jpg
- File:Birole Misooma Magala.jpg
- File:Ministry of science and technology, Ethiopia.jpg
- File:Abiy Ahmed next einstein forum.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Personal file added to somewhere but no project activity at all. E4024 (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. LTA Ratna Sarita. MRZQ (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Of note; the uploading account is globally locked. See global account details for more information. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. MRZQ (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. LTA Ratna Sarita. MRZQ (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Screenshots.
- File:Gabriel da Silva Sky News.png
- File:Gabriel da Silva The Age.png
- File:Gabriel da Silva ABC News.png
Patrick Rogel (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RICH PUBG GAMER (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Kaushik.nath.rich.pubg.gamer.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.jpeg.g.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.jpeg.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.heros.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.brother.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.brother.enjoy.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.gilhari.jpg
- File:Kaushik.Nath.totoise.jpg
- File:Kaushik.nath.jpeg
- File:Kaushik nath.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Also
4nn1l2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Private picture. Out of SCOPE. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file, no useful description, no location Estopedist1 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr ching chong (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maxedo.67EG (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:مسجد-باصونة 1.jpg
- File:حرم الجامعة بصحاري مدينة أسوان.jpg
- File:Faculty agriculture aswan.png
- File:مقر الجامعة الجديد بمدينة أسوان الجديدة.png
- File:المستشفي الجامعي الرئيسي.jpg
- File:Internal Medicine Hospital Aswan U.jpg
- File:Ahmed gallab.jpg
- File:Faculty of Dentistry Assiut University.png
- File:Mohamed Hassan Qnono.jpg
- File:315x420 1f99a9229061ec9f1cea9a352672e0740378ee06e70cff661603a3bad1414146.jpg
- File:جامعة أسوان الحرم الرئيسي.jpg
- File:مطار سوهاج الدولي.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Roji Charuvila (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
̈ I withdraw my nomination Please provide verifiable source. Another leaflet (https://artmuseum.pl/pl/archiwum/archiwum-wlodzimierza-borowskiego/1651/77600) from the same catalog proves that the work is, indeeed, copyrighted. Besides why .png? Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my photo comes from leaflets that were distributed freely to the public at the Fourth Biennale of Spatial Forms in Elbląg (Polish People Republic) in 1971. That's how they came to my mother who was there personally and finally to my collection. I have more of them, but some are in a pretty damaged state, so I didn't add them all. I can provide more photographs if you want. As there is no author definied on them, nor copyright, and it was first published outside the United States, was first published before 1 March 1989, and was given freely, I assured it could be suitable for this particular license. I wasn't aware, however, of the source that you posted. It appears that this brochure from MSN is from the same Biennale, but it seems different - it's larger and contains more detailed description of the artists and their works. Probably another type. As far as I know, they were also publicly available in 1971 (I suspect it could also be part of one of artistic action, as it was typical for polish conceptual artist of this time, who depended mostly on spontaneous action with the audience, especially Barbaraba Kozłowska, who where part of this particular Biennale) I am not sure on what basis MSN has copyrighted them - as you can see, there is no author definied directly on them. As far as I know about the Biennale of Spatial Forms in Elbląg, Weronika Borowska (is she the one with copyrights according to the site?) was not organizer or artist. Perhaps she acquired it the way I did mine? If that so, I don't think it's properly to copyright them, but nonetheless, it remains unclear. But perhaps what is most imporant, I don't see the exact pictures that I provided on that site with copyrights. Those are about Włodzimierz Borowski and I have nothing for him (unfortunately, because he was also a great artist). As for .png, you're right, my mistake. I can change it for .jpg if that would be better. Evidamii019 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Evidamii019: May you upload the entire leaflet so we can verify if there's a copyright mark or not? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: Of course, I hope this will suffice:
-
Obverse -
Reverse -
Other photos with magazine from 80s (a4 size) for scale
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_year_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
_22_July_17.jpg){kind=link}
_2017_July_23.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_IMG_7663.jpg)){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(not sure if I added them correctly, I didn't know what to choose in "categories" in this case) Evidamii019 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for all. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Artworks in non-public place. So, FoP in Germany does not apply. See also Com:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Legoland Deutschland and Com:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Miniland (Legoland Deutschland).
- File:2017-07-04 (069) Legoland Deutschland at Günzburg.jpg
- File:2017-07-04 (113) Lego Friends at Legoland Deutschland Günzburg, Germany.jpg
- File:2017-07-04 (179) Giraffa camelopardalis at Legoland Deutschland at Günzburg.jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (004).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (005).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (007).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (022).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (037).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (040).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (043).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (044).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (047).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (048).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (049).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (052).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (053).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (054).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (057).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (058).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (060).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (061).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (063).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (065).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (070).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (071).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (072).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (073).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (074).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (082).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (083).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (084).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (088).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (096).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (098).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (099).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (102).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (128).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (161).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (165).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (170).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (189).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (191).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (195).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897962691).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897964681).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897972279).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897976985).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897978023).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5897982533).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898003741).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898006739).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898010043).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898012237).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898024687).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898034645).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898039367).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898045955).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898047801).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898049707).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898053563).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898056635).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898058485).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898059241).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898064363).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898067727).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898075757).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898099293).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898104947).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898105833).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898106715).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898107719).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898480100).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898482874).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898484018).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898528928).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898535930).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898538308).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898544772).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898545928).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898546878).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898565394).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898566992).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898570402).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898572488).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898579366).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898588932).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898591524).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898596822).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898598070).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898602836).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898607842).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898616554).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898617356).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898620544).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898625736).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898627330).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898628366).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898630694).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898634796).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898637028).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898638206).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898639942).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898642100).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898643516).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898662526).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898665894).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898667084).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898668086).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898674162).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898675368).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898676588).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland - 2002-08-20 - P0002051.JPG
- File:Legoland Deutschland - 2002-08-20 - P0002074.JPG
- File:Legoland Deutschland - 2002-08-20 - P0002076.JPG
- File:Legoland Deutschland - 2002-08-20 - P0002087.JPG
- File:Legoland Deutschland - panoramio (11).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland - panoramio (21).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland - panoramio (24).jpg
_Legoland_Deutschland_at_G%C3%BCnzburg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Lego_Friends_at_Legoland_Deutschland_G%C3%BCnzburg,_Germany.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Giraffa_camelopardalis_at_Legoland_Deutschland_at_G%C3%BCnzburg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- support deletion - thanks for the reasoning and examples. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding, Mliu92. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Artworks in non-public place. So, FoP in Germany does not apply.
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (010).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (055).jpg
- File:2017-07-04 Legoland Deutschland Günzburg (162).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898022407).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland (5898540476).jpg
- File:Legoland Deutschland - panoramio (45).jpg
- File:Sprechende Lego-Giraffe - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support deletion per above reasoning. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
copyviol - screenshot from a tv show, not an own of free-licence photo — danyele 23:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
file in copyviol - is clearly a screenshot, and not an "own" photo -, uploaded by a user who continually ignores copyright and "plays" with licenses — danyele 15:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
photo without a valid copyright tag - a 1991 photo shooted (probably) in Italy, inelegible for Commons under PD-Italy/PD-1996 licences — danyele 23:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 19:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
file in copyviol, cf. Pinterest — danyele 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
a post-1976 TV screenshot, inelegible under the PD-Italy/PD-1996 photo licence — danyele 15:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 20 upper 15:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; very similar or identical to first of previously deleted images of same name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Regasterios at 09:51, 21 Juni 2020 UTC: No permission since 11 June 2020 --Krdbot 08:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Godfreypanam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Petra Panam my wonderful daughter.jpg
- File:Petra Panam 1000001254BC3D4-D9E2-4B46-9252-84031D5F363E.jpg
- File:Petra Panam 109.jpg
- File:Petra Hallow Jazz Panam 5 days old.jpg
- File:Petra Hallow Jazz Panam 1003.jpg
- File:Petra Hallow Jazz Panam 1002.jpg
- File:Godfrey Panam Percy Paul 2 2E6D8621-CA9D-4DCD-8DFA-5EB85B464404.png
- File:Godfrey Panam Percy Paul A7FA5BD8-33FB-46DD-B450-FCDD77E5AF24.png
Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KiwiiiPedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots.
- File:Magdalenalopez2020.png
- File:Magdalenalopez.png
- File:Macariaactriz.png
- File:Tantrum.png
- File:Oscarbenjamin.png
- File:Ashnikkostupid.png
- File:YOLANDA.png
- File:Ybtgrammy.png
- File:Tatefarris.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KiwiiiPedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KiwiiiPedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I no longer want this content public Acefitt (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Brianjd (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC) [also withdrawn by nominator, as noted by @Samwilson below Brianjd (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)]
- @Brianjd: This media is uploaded in error. Why can it not be deleted? Acefitt (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Acefitt:
So just to clarify, you only noticed the “error” after you added it to an article and another user objected to it? I think what you meant to say is that you changed your mind.But the licence you granted is irrevocable, there doesn’t seem to be anything private in this file and therefore I am opposed to courtesy deletion. Brianjd (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)- @Brianjd: You should maybe read it again, the other user is in support of this image and wants it over the others. It's fine, it just means I will no longer contribute any images to Commons because the wishes of creators are obviously not supported here. Acefitt (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Acefitt: On closer examination, you yourself changed the image in an edit described as +ref, phrasing. That makes comments like Sorry, but the new lead montage image … hard to interpret.
- Anyway, this is not really relevant here. COM:CSD#G7 has a time limit of 7 days. You were outside the 7 day limit. That does not automatically mean that your request will be rejected, but I believe it should be, for the reasons I explained above. Luckily for you, it’s not up to me. I hope that other users will come here and express their views. Brianjd (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: You should maybe read it again, the other user is in support of this image and wants it over the others. It's fine, it just means I will no longer contribute any images to Commons because the wishes of creators are obviously not supported here. Acefitt (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Acefitt:
- @Brianjd: This media is uploaded in error. Why can it not be deleted? Acefitt (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep: Licenses are irrevocable. CC licenses are not a joking matter, even though they were developped by free knowledge activists, as opposed to ARR devised for corporate profit. The problem is that creator’s wishes cannot jeoperdize the legal safety of potential reusers. Please consider this “business model”:
- Creator takes great photo.
- Creator makes it freely available throught a CC license.
- Avid reuser community legally integrate photo in a myriad artworks, signage, academic papers, and assorted ephemera…
- Creator changes their mind and revokes licesing.
- Copyright lawyers swarm over reuser community.
- Profit!
- Cannot have this. So, Commons respects the irrevocability of licenses. Creators prone to changing their mind are suggested to try their luck elsewhere and sign up with Getty Images or some such. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Which is why I'm baffled that I'm being accused of trying to sue somebody for requesting deletion of an image I intended to replace with a higher quality one as per the original discussion, negating the need for this one. Given the content I have contributed to Commons thus far, it seems moronic to even suggest I have some corporate team behind me ready to swoop in. As stated above, I will never be uploading to Commons again, and rest assured I do not intend to sue anybody. Acefitt (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Acefitt: You’re not being accused of trying to sue anyone. You’re being explained why CC licenses are irrevocable and why therefore your attempt at revocation is not even possible. Please note that I had no idea about the goals and intents behind this deletion request, other than what you stated in the o.p.: That you «no longer want this content public». To reuse your kind word, it is moronic to expect DR participans to sleuth the requester’s past dealings with the file beyond the deletion rationale presented (as Brianjd even so did). And once you start dissing Commons («wishes of creators are obviously not supported» etc) for merely upholding the contents of a license you yourself selected, there’s scarce room left for collegial spirit: You want it deleted? Cannot do. Next. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral, but a reminder here that our taking down the image does not remove the irrevocable license. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Absolutely, and thank you for pointing it out. That’s why these are called courtesy deletions: Once it was licensed, the author cannot be able to avoid the dissimination of a licensed work, but we can help making it less visible online. And saying that one «no longer want»s« this content public» is not a good way to garner any courtesy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like Acefitt has removed the deletion nomination. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 00:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Samwilson: That’s not good: The removal of a DR tag should be done only once the discussion is closed (and by an admin only, I think); if Acefitt wants to withdraw this DR, they should add
*{{withdraw}} ~~~~as a new line. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)- I have restored the DR tag, as I normally do when the DR is still open. Brianjd (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Samwilson: That’s not good: The removal of a DR tag should be done only once the discussion is closed (and by an admin only, I think); if Acefitt wants to withdraw this DR, they should add
- Keep CC licenses are irrevocable. In rare cases we could decide to do and exception, like for example if an image is embarrassing to the photographer or recognizable subject. However in this case I do not see any reason to do an exception. --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Multiple users, including an admin, have rejected this courtesy deletion request. It also appears that the nominator wants to withdraw the request per Sam Wilson. Brianjd (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC) (non-admin close)
new version is wrong ahuR ☘ 09:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted it to the first version, All we need to do is delete the middle version by an admin! --Maometto97 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: fixed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Copy of Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/BtOJMFlhlZH/ Edu! (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete from Instagram Saayeeh (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and no license at all. --JuTa 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This file can be deleted. Thanks --Heuboden (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 14:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. Used in promotional Wikidata item. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and no license at all. --JuTa 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Tiny resolution, no Exif data – unlikely to be own work of the uploader. jdx Re: 15:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as a mere advertisement. --Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
not certain that someone's creation of a photograph and then phrases is within our scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I am the creator of the File:presenting norman mailer.tif, which has been nominated for deletion.
As per the request from Billinghurst I am responding here to provide information I hope will succeed in withdrawing the nomination.
The title was a bad choice and I have requested renaming. If approved the new name will become: Sinclair Lewis - opinion of Norman Mailer as a writer. The image has a left and right part. The left part is a digital composite graphic - my interpretation of Norman Mailer's personality; The right part is a graphic presentation of words spoken by Sinclair Lewis in his last interview, about his admiration of Norman Mailer. I have all the rights to the interview and other content.This image is part of a series that memorializes Sinclair Lewis' last interview in graphics. My aunt did the interview in 1948, gave me all the materials and told me the story. I received a copy of the newspaper version from the librarian at the Chelsea, Ma. library. I would like to spare the image from deletion. Thank you for "listening"Janvermont (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- The nomination relates to Com:Scope and has nothing to do with the name. The work is not one single piece, it seems to be elements of derived works and its educational purpose, as required in the scope, is not obvious. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the 1948 interview material, I did some research since I live near Williamstown.
In 1948 Sinclair Lewis lived at Thorvale Farm in Williamstown, Massachusetts. This was to be his final residence. Rural Williamstown provided vistas of rolling hills and intellectual compatability. It is the home of Williams College. Sinclair Lewis had been awarded the first Nobel prize for literature in the United States. It was natural for him to expect a welcome into the intellectual community. That did not happen. His reactions to this experience of a cool reception are perceptible in this interview.
The image under discussion about Norman Mailer is the segment that clearly shows Sinclair Lewis' generosity of spirit. In the graphic text you can clearly see the joy he takes in Mailer's success.
The image is one of the twelve sequential images that constitute a graphic portrayal of Sinclair Lewis' last interview. I do believe it meets the Commons scope requirement.Janvermont (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: For each part of the "digital composite graphic" and the whole, who created or combined it, when, and where? Where do you intend to use the twelve images? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment The subject is depicted in File:Sinclair Lewis 1930.jpg, which is used on many other projects, including in an enwiki article on the subject. Therefore, the subject is certainly notable. But I have no opinion on whether this file or the other files in this series are notable. Brianjd (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)- @Janvermont: Both of your rename requests were declined because they need to wait until this discussion is resolved. Please do not request renaming until that happens. Brianjd (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and due to nonanswers re scope in these edits. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete What worries me here is the sculpture or building, and that if in the USA it looks too modern to be out of copyright and almost certainly does not benefit from freedom of panorama. As to scope, that is troublesome to me because allowing this sort of thing starts us on a slippery slope that I do not think we should traverse, with crampons or otherwise. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
To Jeff G.
On the nominated for deletion page you said to either ping or talk to you. I am inserting this text to you here. Another response requested I just put on your talk page.
First a pending matter. I believe I have not
heard back from you with respect to what, about my response to the who shot the photo, helped you to make your decision. I am trying to learn from this multifaceted experience whatever I can to improve my technique using the system. That will be an essential component so please enlighten me.
Now I respond to the trio of JMabel Brianjd and Jeff G. with respect to my not understanding the scope requirement.
At this point I certainly accept that criticism even though I have studied its presentation on Wikimedia Commons. I know that my image has educational value because it is being specifically used for that purpose. However there must be something embedded in the overall concept of educational that I have wrong. Before you delete my file, and I understand deletion has its own meaning on Wikimedia, please tell me if there is anything I could do to the image to save it.
I reported to Jeff one component of it namely the small section of the Tony Rosenthal sculpture Rondo in front of the 58th St. branch of the New York public library. I did not tell him about the reflection which I composited with it and an a filter from another photo as well. I didn’t understand what he was looking for when he asked me who shot the photo. I thought he was looking for me to claim my responsibility. Please do whatever you can to help me. I believe I have rectified the omission as of this current worksession with a talk to me on his talk page. The composite image in question is a synthesis by me of praise by Sinclair Lewis of Norman Mailer and letters by Norman Mailer parts of which are printed in this project indicating personal qualities. It embodies both strength and caring. .It Is of course abstract but nevertheless represents the feeling of an artist about his or her subject.Janvermont (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings: @Jmabel, @Jeff G.. My only interest here is whether the nominator understands Commons:Project scope. I have no specific comment on this DR. Brianjd (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the copyright status of the sculpture? 1969 in the U.S.; for sculpture, that could go either way, depending whether it was registered, etc.
- @Janvermont: You say, "I know that my image has educational value because it is being specifically used for that purpose." Could you be more specific? That is an assertion, not an explanation. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: I am also concerned that Tony Rosenthal's statement to you that "that photographs were authorized"[1] was insufficient for you to claim File:Presenting norman mailer.tif was your "Own work" and that you had sufficient authority to claim your manipulated photo of his sculpture as "{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}". — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: yes Jeff, I agree. I just responded to Jmabel re same concern. My primary confirmation is always from my lawyers which I received based on the sidewalk attribute and clearance for photography not literal reproduction. Also, the librarian who was the caretaker of the sculpture was responsible for all my use of it. He offered to rotate the sculpture for me to get lighting on different surfaces. It is on a rotating platform. I need to end this computer session now and he has since been replaced. If you want documentation from him let me know and i will track him down.17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk)
BEGIN copied from User talk:Jmabel, clearly should have been here, not there.
- @Jmabel: Janvermont here answering you question on my notification list today. Not sure I'm doing the right thing because I did not find the topic in your list on talk page. I reported to Jeff G. this morning that I spoke to the sculptor Tony Rosenthal who had had a studio in Centrak Park New York City when of course he was still alive and he said any photographs were automatically ok. That conversation is not documentation. So I always clear things with my lawyers which I did way back and they said its sidewalk position,
Janvermont (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2020 attribute of sidewalk sculpture, was enough to establish photographic use. Janvermont (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: with respect to the educational function of the image File:presenting norman mailer.tif, It is scheduled for a hanging version of images 40"x20" for three months beginning September 2020 in the Tufts University Art Center.. It was selected by the Art Center director, because when she saw a hanging version viewing it required not to just pass by a sequence of images but needed to spend the time to learn from the significant facts and feelings in it, as well as the personalities of the three people involved. There is profit from the additional research i did to give insight into Sinclair Lewis' personality. I have given an interview involving it and scheduled to do a video in August. Next March another hanging show will be at the Hart Memorial Library in Westchester County, New York. The same reasons, a different kind of walk-by than usual. I'16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk)m willing to send you a picture book of the images if you want.Janvermont (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
END copied from User talk:Jmabel, clearly should have been here, not there.
- If there turns out to be a copyright issue, the librarian would have nothing to do with it. That would be a matter of the Tony Rosenthal's heirs.
- "Its sidewalk position" has nothing to do with the copyright issue. There is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would say that if the copyright issue can be sorted out, the Tufts exhibit is sufficient to cover the scope issue. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I just noticed in a reread that I did not answer your question with respeact to where I intend to use it. My answer: in a Commons Gallery.
@Jmabel: If you would like me to provide a legal opinion on lawyers letterhead I will go after one. as you know, my use is a photo of a very small area not a rebuild of the model.Janvermont (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: Again: there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the United States, and Commons does not allow copyrighted material on a fair use basis, so we really don't care whether your lawyer says this is OK because the small portion you are using is OK on a fair use basis. We are not questioning whether publication of this is legal; we are questioning whether it conforms to Commons' rules about derivative work. Either the sculpture is still in copyright or it is not. Do you have evidence that it is not? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The sculpture is still in copyright. All of Tony Rosenthal's work is protected by the Visual Artists Rights Act. Permission is required to reproduce, photograph,Janvermont (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC) sell and or use any Art created by Tony Rosenthal in any manner and for any reason from VAGA at Artisi Rights Society (ARS) NY., the copyright agent for Tony Rosenthal. If I obtain that permission in writing will that satisfy the scope requirement?Janvermont (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: Yes that is exactly what we would need, sent as per instructions at COM:OTRS. It is simplest if the copyright-holders (presumably his heirs) contact the OTRS team themselves and cc you, but if they would rather give you a signed document on letterhead, you can scan that and send them a PDF or such. - 19:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I want to be careful so I don't make a mistake. The detail in my previous ping is that VAGA at Artist Rights Society (ARS) is the copyright agent for Tony Rosenthal and it is that group within ARS that gives the permission. Does that meet spec? they are called the copyright agent.Janvermont (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: Yes, and if there is a copyright agent, they are probably quite familiar with this sort of thing. They may need some back-and-forth with the OTRS team to fully sort this out, but if they have no problem with the photo being free-licensed I'm sure that this can be worked out. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, Jeff G., and Rodhullandemu: Would you all agree that at this point the scope issue has been addressed, and that this now comes down to an OTRS matter, which it sounds like can be addressed? - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Thank you, I'll get going on it, Monday.Janvermont (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Would potential for use solely on Commons satisfy INUSE and make a file in-scope? I think not. I don't see any current use here, let alone on another WMF project. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: If it going to be hung in a show at the Tufts University Art Center, then that would be a prominent enough venue that I think it would be notable in its own right. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Another of my images will also be hung at the Tufts University Art Center along with the twelve images in the Sinclair Lewis series. It is on Wikimedia Commons in Category:Janice Lourie, subcategory Art Works by Janice Lourie and called Delmonico trumped. It is in the print collection of the Museum of the New York City Historical Society.Janvermont (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I "successfully submitted" the licensing (copyright clearance) request. I also explained that the library manager rotated "Rondo" in order for me to get the best lighting on the reflection and that I had captured many reflections on Rondo.Janvermont (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I include here the parts of my conversation with Artist Rights Society that relate to the progress of the current issue as well as provide information I think will be useful to Commons generally.
ARS Licensing Request confirmation Fri, Jun 26, 2020 7:31 am Artists Rights Society (web@arsny.com) To:you Details Your licensing request has been successfully submitted. Artists Rights Society, 65 Bleecker St, 12th fl, New York, NY 10012 (P) 1.212.420.9160 (F) 1.212.420.9286 (E) info@arsny.com www.arsny.com this is the first communication answer
Licensing Requests Form Submission_Janice Louri_JUNE 2020
Fri, Jun 26, 2020 10:52 am
Lisa Ballard (lballard@arsny.com)
To:you Details
Dear Janice,
Thank you for your inquiry. Could you explain what precisely you are reproducing, just a detail of Rondo? Further, please let me know what the title of the article is, and for what duration the article will be featured online, as we cannot grant rights in perpetuity. Your project will likely require the review and approval by the Rosenthal estate, do you already have a layout/mockup available?
If you are planning on using additional ARS member work in your project, please let me know. If you are unsure who is an ARS member artist, please feel free to look at the complete listing of our member artists on our website to see if there are any other artists for which I can help you clear permissions:
https://www.arsny.com/searchartists/
Please note that ARS does not maintain or license image files of our members’ artwork. We solely clear the copyright inherent in the artwork, as controlled by the artist or their estate. You will have to source the image file elsewhere, and still gain the copyright clearance through ARS. I can recommend Art Resource (www.artres.com) as a trusted image licensor of fine art images. Another option is to contact the institution which houses the original work you are seeking.
Best, Lisa
Lisa Ballard Licensing Executive
ARTISTS RIGHTS SOCIETY | 65 BLEECKER ST, 12th FL | NEW YORK, NY 10012 P: 1.212.420.9160. F: 1.212.420.9286 E: lballard@arsny.com arsny.com
RE: Licensing Requests Form Submission_Janice Louri_JUNE 2020
Fri, Jun 26, 2020 12:00 pm
Lisa Ballard (lballard@arsny.com)
To:you Details
Dear Jan,
Thank you for this additional information, could you please send me the layout featuring the works, this will give me a better idea of whether I need to send this for approval. Please note that I require a duration for the web use, as we cannot grant rights in perpetuity.
All the best, Lisa
Fri, Jun 26, 2020 2:13 pm
Lisa Ballard (lballard@arsny.com)
To:you Details
Dear Jan,
I was advised by our Director of Legal Affairs that while we appreciate your request, we do not license uses on behalf of our members for Creative Commons projects.
All the best, Lisa
From: JAN LOURIE <janvermont@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:26 PM
To: Lisa Ballard <lballard@arsny.com>
Subject: Re: Licensing Requests Form Submission_Janice Louri_JUNE 2020
Thank you Lisa. In our earliest communication I believe you mentioned the possibility of communicating with the Tony Rosenthal estate to obtain use privilege. If you know the appropriate way to reach the estate for permission I would appreciate having you send me that information. I’m glad to know about your organization and your service . Best, Jan
Original Message-----
From: JAN LOURIE <janvermont@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:51 PM To: Lisa Ballard <lballard@arsny.com> Subject: Follow on question
I’m sorry to bother you again so soon Lisa. When I checked on the net about reaching the estate it said that VAGA at ARSNY is the only way to get license approval. I thought I read that VAGA approval was handled by ARSNY. perhaps I made a mistake in interpreting what I read. As you can see I’m trying to achieve my goal. I’m sorry for taking your time. Jan this is the penultimate communication
Dear Jan,
On behalf of our members for Creative Commons projects. VAGA was absorbed by ARS in 2018.
All the best, Lisa
Lisa Ballard (lballard@arsny.com) no time stamp To:you Details Dear Jan,
We are the agent for the estate of Tony Rosenthal and exclusively clear the rights to his work in the U.S. Not only am I not permitted to share the estate’s contact information, but the guidance I received was based on the estate’s wishes and preferences.
All the best, Lisa
ARS is the only source for copyright clearance of Rosenthal's work. Wikimedia Commonns requires copyright clearance. It appears to be case closed. BUT, I have one more source. The sculpture in question, Rondo, is on the mid-manhattan walking tour sponsored by the city. The library is the custodian of the sculpture and the presenter of the talk for the tour including the presentation of the sculpture. Photographing the sculpture by the tour goers has been a primary element of the "presentation". The staff comes out and rotates the sculpture on its base ( it is a massive 12' in diameter) to provide optimal angles and lighting for the tour goers. It is possible since Tony Rosenthal's studio was in Central Park near the library, that he or a representative fostered additional favor on the tour and that otherprivileges may exist for Commons. I will investigagte.Janvermont (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- The library manager is not the copyright-holder, so their conduct is irrelevant.
- That's an awfully long quoted email. What I glean from it is that the organization that controls the rights will not grant the relevant license, so I don't see how we can keep this image on Commons.
- But, assuming this has been going through the OTRS process, the rights determination falls to the OTRS team, not me or anyone else contributing to this page, so it really doesn't matter what any of us think on that aspect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Your last line appears to contain a rash assumption, I can't find an OTRS ticket, and neither can Krdbot. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, jeez. User:Janvermont, you were told pretty clearly that we needed email from the copyright holder or their representative per COM:OTRS. If that isn't even beginning to move forward after more than two weeks, this is getting to where I can't support continuing to keep the image. If that permission is eventually forthcoming, we could always restore the image, but so far I see no indication that the copyright-holder considers this image of the sculpture appropriate for a free license.
- I am firmly of the opinion that this is in scope if the rights can be cleared, but I see no sign that the rights can be cleared. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I have two questions I want to ask OTRS. One is about the 20 images they accepted and are on Commons which have the same substance as the one now in question and another one, how do you get a license if there is no agent who will deal with Creative Commons wrt to the creator of the artwork? The sculpture is akin to an attractive nuisance, and therefore raises an important question about policy. How do I put a question to OTRS please?Janvermont (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Janvermont: You contact OTRS through the email address given on the COM:OTRS page.
- In general, most copyrighted public artwork in countries without freedom of panorama for copyrighted public artwork is unsuitable for Commons. The only exceptions are if we can get the relevant permission from the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an OTRS email received for “File:Presenting_norman_mailer.tif” but not processed yet, ticket:2020070210006431. --Ankry (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture: no FoP for sculptures in US. --Ankry (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luzma8737cuellar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claims of own work. One image has transmission data suggestive of Facebook or Instagram, the other images are smaller than Facebook and none appears to be own work.
- File:Colegio Javier.jpg
- File:Omni Hotels & Resorts.png
- File:Foto Margarita Cabello Blanco.jpg.png
- File:Foto Margarita Cabello Blanco.jpg
- File:Margarita Cabello Blanco.jpg
- File:Ángel Custodio Cabrera.jpg
- File:Partido nacional ciudadano.png
- File:Isidro Fernández Ortuño.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luzma8737cuellar (talk · contribs)
[edit]I have some concerns about whether these files are indeed own works. For one thing, there is no or sparse EXIF. For the other thing, the different author information bothers me: File:Violet Brown.jpg is attributed to "Ragimu", File:Chiyo Miyako supercentenarian.jpg to "Macarrones", File:Tane Ikai.jpg and File:Besse Cooper.jpg to "Taty2007" despite their totally different styles, File:Elizabeth Bolden at 114.jpg to "Theo's Little Bot" (an enwiki bot that resizes non-free files) and File:Nabi Tajima.jpg to "Monoklon" but the first and the last links go to Luzma8737cuellar and the second to User:Macarrones. I see that File:Violet Brown.jpg already exists on this slightly older webpage. File:Nabi Tajima.jpg exists at higher resolution on this older webpage, File:Tane Ikai.jpg was posted on this webforum first, File:Elizabeth Bolden at 114.jpg to this webpage, File:Jeralean Talley.jpg from this webpage which attributes someone else, File:Besse Cooper.jpg already exists as fair use on enwiki at en:File:Besse Cooper.jpg and File:Chiyo Miyako supercentenarian.jpg is already on on this older webpage. Note to self that if File:Violet Brown.jpg is deleted the ShadowsCommons tag on en:File:Violet Brown.jpg needs to be removed; if it's actually kept then {{subst:rfu}} needs to be added to the enwiki page instead. Some of these files exist on other Wikimedias or other non-wikimedia projects under fair use. I see that the uploader has had already warnings for improper uploads and I suspect that all uploads were taken from other websites without regard to their copyright status; I am only listing these I had time to check.
- File:Violet Brown.jpg
- File:Nabi Tajima.jpg
- File:Chiyo Miyako supercentenarian.jpg
- File:Tane Ikai.jpg
- File:Elizabeth Bolden at 114.jpg
- File:Besse Cooper.jpg
- File:Jeralean Talley.jpg
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE (en:Draft:Kexin Di).
Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kamalthakurbscit (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images...
This account likely a sock of User talk:Nawab Afridi.
- File:Panj Tirath at Hashtnagri.jpg
- File:Foundation Stone of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Sword in Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Conerstone of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri During Functional.jpg
- File:Inside View of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Painting on wall of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Ticket Gate of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Entry Gate of Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:2nd Day of Samagam at Babe De Ber Gurdwara, Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Old View of Babe De Ber Gurdwara at Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Babe De Ber Gurdwara at Babey Beri.jpg
- File:Top view of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Ruins of Aditya Sun Temple Windows at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Entry Gate of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Ruins Wall of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Door of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:View of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Ruins Walls of Aditya Sun Temple with at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Aditya Sun Temple with cornerstone at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Wall of Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Aditya Sun Temple at Suraj Kund.jpg
- File:Valmiki Mandir at Neela Gumbad.jpg
- File:Jagannath Temple at Hassanpura.jpg
- File:View of Jagannath Temple.jpg
- File:Jagannath Temple Hassanpura.jpg
- File:Shree Mamai Dev Asthan (Dome).jpg
- File:Shree Mamai Dev Asthan.jpg
- File:Shree Mamai Dev Ashthan @ Makli (Inside View).jpg
- File:Shree Mamai Dev Ashthan @ Makli.jpg
- File:Maharaja Sir Kameshwar Singh Goutam.jpg
- File:Idol of Shyama Mai Temple.png
- File:Cornerstone-of-shyama-mai-temple.jpg
- File:Shyama-Mai-Temple.jpg
- File:Kameshwar-singh-with-great-mugal-emrald.jpg
- File:Maharaj-Kameshwar-Singh.jpg
- File:Ramapir Temple at Tando Allahyar.jpg
- File:Shivaharkaray-by-kamal-t.jpg
- File:Ghatotkacha Buddhist Caves.jpg
- File:Mitthu Dada Ji.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir @ Pokhar Ghat.jpg
- File:Road-Side View of Mitthu Shiv Mandir.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir view on Maha Shivratri Festivals @ 2020.jpg
- File:Mitthu Thakur.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir Bell.jpg
- File:Inside Top-View of Mitthu Shiv Thakur Mandir 'Kalasa'.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir Idols.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir - Shiv Ling.jpg
- File:Back-Side View of Mitthu Shiv Mandir @ 2020.jpg
- File:Lighting view on Maha Shivratri Festivals @ 2016.jpg
- File:Bhajan during Maha Shivratri Festivals @ 2016.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir with Mitthu Thakur Tomb and his wife Tomb view on Maha Shivratri Festivals @ 2016.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir view on Maha Shivratri Festivals @ 2016.jpg
- File:Black Stone, Mitthu Thakur use to pray as shiva .jpg
- File:Fishing Hooks, Pyramid of Teti, Egypt, Sixth Dynasty, 2325-2175 B.C.E..jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir at Darbhanga, Bihar.jpg
- File:Old Jogeshwari Caves Images.jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir (Foundation Stone).jpg
- File:Mitthu Shiv Mandir.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Saqib (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PozsonyiBiró (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos, publications, maps, documents, paintings, drawings. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Gábler Vilmos családja és rokonai.jpg
- File:Jurenák Sándor aláírás.png
- File:Jurenák Sàndor könyve.jpg
- File:Gyászjelentés Jurenak.png
- File:Sig. Jurenak Károly.png
- File:Vezei Mondok István.png
- File:Siebenfreud Christina levele, 1822.png
- File:Jacob Siebenfreud áldozata.jpg
- File:Jenny Jurenak & Fischer.png
- File:Karolína Jurenak.png
- File:Karl Hofer.png
- File:Jeanette Siebenfreund.png
- File:Rupp Ludmilla.png
- File:Albert Siebenfreund.png
- File:Johanna Mayer.png
- File:Reisepass Jurenak.png
- File:Händlerbuch Jurenák.png
- File:Anton Jurenák.png
- File:Anton Jurenak.png
- File:Jurenák Viktor.png
- File:Jurenák ház.png
- File:JurenákAurél gyászj.png
- File:Jurenák Aurél aláírás.png
- File:Jurenák Aurél.png
- File:AdamJurenak.png
- File:Jurenak gyászjelentés.png
- File:Jurenakujsag.png
- File:Eliasmohlalairas.png
- File:Poolgabler.png
- File:Acélgyári korcsolyapálya2.jpg
- File:Acélgyári korcsolyapálya.jpg
- File:Acélgyári gyerekek.jpg
- File:Vasöntöde Salgótarján.jpg
- File:Salgótarján Acélgyári lakótelep a fasorban, háttérben a Pécskő.jpg
- File:Gábler.png
- File:Jurenák Ádám.png
- File:Ott husar.jpg
- File:Buda 1529.jpg
- File:Jurenák Eduárd.jpg
- File:Jurenák tégla.jpg
- File:Jurenák címer.jpg
- File:Ott nemeslevél.png
- File:Ott címer.jpg
- File:Lobler See.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
not sure of the rights VKaeru (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 08:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation 24.101.191.92 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation 24.101.191.92 21:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, source – subject's Twitter account https://twitter.com/zgoldsmith21 , uploaded there 4 days before upload into Commons. Taivo (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Historical photos, painting, drawing, video. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Svbuehlertal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos, painting, drawing, video. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Junioren.png
- File:A-Junioren.png
- File:Erste Mannschaft.png
- File:Meister 84-85.png
- File:Zuschauer.png
- File:Meister 70-71.png
Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
uncategorised, personal file, same as File:Portrait um S.JPG, which is used as "User page images" Estopedist1 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
ফাইল নামের বানানে ভুল হয়েছে সে জন্য Hossain Kafy (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --~Moheen (keep talking) 11:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
"本频道所有视频开源！欢迎任何形式的转载、搬运 允许重新上传至任何平台（包括youtube）" (Translation: All videos in this channel are Open source. Welcome any form of reproduction and transportation. Allow re-upload to another platform (include YouTube) ) is not a valid free license per COM:L. SCP-2000 03:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The photo was taken at 3:11 to 3:15 in the source video. This part of the video is originally based on this video. This original video does not contain copyright information and should be considered as copyrighted by default.--Jimmyshjj (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted characters. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
per "Out of scope" (Not educationally useful) - private letter for Japanese female voice actor. It says: "To Yuri Komagata / How are you? I'm fine. / That's all. Take care. / from me" 毒島みるく (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- 削除 The picture is the letter too private. Wikimedia is not a place to post private thoughts. On the Japanese Wikipedia user page, has been a deletion request.--Mario1257 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- 削除 Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_on_Commons_onlyの許容範囲を超えている。--Linuxmetel (会話) 13:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently Sweden - parent country of the company - has a low threshold of originality. Note to self that if this is kept or deleted en:File:Telia logo.svg will need appropriate editing Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; I think it's above the American TOO as well. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Marked © all rights reserved at Flickr source. Uploader at en:wiki claims to be same person as Flickr user, but this needs OTRS proof before file can be accepted at Commons. Keep only if OTRS obtained. MPF (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No, we do not need identity tests that users are actually who they claim to be unless they are some public figure. We have the {{Own work}} tag for a reason. Please do not create spurious deletion requests just because some upload doesn't pass your arbitrary standards (copyright holders are more than welcome to use one license on Flickr and another on their own uploads here). Uploaders do not need to upload their government ID and have certificates signed by affidavit just to upload files to Commons. Opencooper (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Valid transfer from enwiki, long-term declared account since 2006. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
absolutely useless Joschi71 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
sadly the flickr license says non-commercial Victuallers (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The file description contains these words: "This photo, and all related crops, are released under an Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. This means that you can use, share and adapt it, as long as you give proper attribution, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made to the image." Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep as CC-BY-3.0 per description. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Valid CC license found in Flickr description rather than Flickr license directly. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photos of vintages photos, no permission. Backs of the 3rd and 4th images must be provided to determine if there's a copyright notice.
- File:TBT Publicity Pic.jpg
- File:Truman Taylor &Ted Kennedy.jpg
- File:Truman Taylor WLNE-TV.jpg
- File:Truman Taylor WTEV-TV.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom and as derivative works without source; they appear to be scans by a Hewlett-Packard Officejet 5700 e-All-in-One Printer of photographic prints, all in the possession of the uploader. See also the uploader's user talk page. All of the uploader's work here and on English Wikipedia appears to involve promotion of Truman B. Taylor via en:Truman Taylor. Strangely, that is also true of User:Happlyi. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment An email has just been received from the uploader concerning this DR (OTRS ticket:2020070110009215). Although insufficient information was provided to confirm copyright ownership, the uploader has been informed of the additional info required. File:TBT Publicity Pic.jpg has been #F8 speedied as a duplicate of File:Truman Taylor WLNE-TV.jpg (update)-> and File:Truman Taylor WTEV-TV.jpg deleted at uploader's request via above OTRS email and Permission now received for File:Truman Taylor &Ted Kennedy.jpg, closed as Speedy Kept. — JGHowes talk 13:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment All three remaining files have been tagged {{OTRS received}}. If we are in a position to approve permission, an OTRS Agent will do so here (and I will change my !vote), or will request undeletion via COM:UDR, as appropriate. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: File:Truman Taylor &Ted Kennedy.jpg kept, others deleted as no permission. JGHowes talk 12:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The metadata reads "screenshot". Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
No apparent CC0 1.0 license at site given as source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not the author of this image; I uploaded it by mistake Alexvargasmilne (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I guess so. Finding a camera with this sharpness at those times was quite difficult, and a dinosaur could always grab it from your hand. :) --E4024 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:DW. — Racconish 💬 12:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
File:Fuck Cops written on a pig nearby a memorial for George Floyd on Wednesday afternoon, after the death of Floyd on Monday night in Minneapolis, Minnesota (49943076983).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete Image from the source indicated, but the license stipulated here is not shown at the source. Bottom of page indicates copyrighted, all rights reserved. No license compatible with Commons present. Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
DW or amateur art. E4024 (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from en:TA3 (news channel) Slovak TV channel. Harold (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
movie poster. OTRS-permission needed. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of date, unused file with {{Vector version available}} + two more up to date PNG versions. Lcawte (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Racconish at 12:44, 1 August 2020 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:C-17 Globemaster Operators.jpg --Krdbot 01:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom and COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989talk 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader's record. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader's record. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Pi.1415926535 at 18:09, 10 August 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search --Krdbot 07:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
copie de https://www.theatresparisiensassocies.com/acteurs-theatre/deck-gregory-7314.html
Habertix (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour, je ne comprends pas du tout ce qu'il se passe. J'ai voulu créer un article sur un artiste, il a été supprimé et j'ai envoyé des sources afin que mon article soit restauré. De quoi s'agit-il ici ? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.67.101.179 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PastorPeitl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own works, metadata, artwork, maps, etc.
- File:HGP7.png
- File:FlughafenMalevo.png
- File:HaskovoBild3.jpg
- File:HaskovoBild2.png
- File:GeographischeLage.png
- File:HaskovoFlughafen.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, pcp. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have to split my votes:
- Delete: File:FlughafenMalevo.png, File:HaskovoBild2.png, File:HaskovoBild3.jpg
- Keep: File:GeographischeLage.png, File:HaskovoFlughafen.png – I fixed both; these are screenshots from OpenStreetMap (PastorPeitl had apparently previously uploaded a screenshot from Google Maps; I recommended in COM:HD to use OpenStreetMap instead because of the license situation).
- Indecisive for File:HGP7.png: Admittedly it’s taken by his wife, so we would need a permission by her, but actually we can implicitly assume consent from her. It’s in use on his user page in dewiki, so not out of scope.
- — Speravir – 02:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know whether to be amused that a Wife's permission would be considered implicit - or wonder why anyone in 2020 would consider that a separate individual fails to have rights based on gender. I think we need OTRS from wives & children, coworkers, nephews, neighbors, etc. regardless of gender. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, no objection, but as clarification: I did not want to make an amusement about this (where do you read this from?), and I didn't refer to gender, but to relation between husband and wife. — Speravir – 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speravir Where I am from, it is not ok to assume implicit permission from a spouse - either man or woman. Each person retains their own rights. A piece of paper does not create chattel. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ellin, let me repeat: “OK, no objection”. :-) — Speravir – 02:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speravir Where I am from, it is not ok to assume implicit permission from a spouse - either man or woman. Each person retains their own rights. A piece of paper does not create chattel. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, no objection, but as clarification: I did not want to make an amusement about this (where do you read this from?), and I didn't refer to gender, but to relation between husband and wife. — Speravir – 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- PastorPeitl is new to Wikipedia. He uploaded the image to his profile page but does not want it on other pages. It seems he had licesed it by error and wants the picture gone. Under his other pseudonym (a name that can be found on his Wiki page, too), he has opened a discussion here (https://www.gutefrage.net/frage/wikipedia-bilder-linzensiert-die-mir-gehoeren) and is asking for the image to be deleted from Wikipedia. Since it is credibile that PastorPeitl himself really does not want this picture on Wiki, please delete the file! Being new to Wikipedia obviously, there is reason to believe he was not sure about the possible consequences when he uploaded this image to a site he considered "private". Boocan
Info “His Wiki page“ means apparently de:Benutzer:PastorPeitl and the other pseudonym is “H.K.Dornbusch” (or “HKDornbusch” on gutefrage.net). But obviously you misunderstood the intention or, better, his confusion: He wants to use the image picturing him, but thinks someone other wants to license it for themselves. It seems he has not understood at all the whole concept of licensing. — Speravir – 01:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- PastorPeitl is new to Wikipedia. He uploaded the image to his profile page but does not want it on other pages. It seems he had licesed it by error and wants the picture gone. Under his other pseudonym (a name that can be found on his Wiki page, too), he has opened a discussion here (https://www.gutefrage.net/frage/wikipedia-bilder-linzensiert-die-mir-gehoeren) and is asking for the image to be deleted from Wikipedia. Since it is credibile that PastorPeitl himself really does not want this picture on Wiki, please delete the file! Being new to Wikipedia obviously, there is reason to believe he was not sure about the possible consequences when he uploaded this image to a site he considered "private". Boocan
- Info PastorPeitl cannot respond until end of June. — Speravir – 02:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- If it's not his picture, and he can get OTRS, then the OTRS would save that image. I do not agree, in fact I object a lot, to the assumption that a wife's creation is automatically husband's property or the opposite. If he can't get his wife to OTRS, then we can't keep the picture. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. There are three copyvios, one that needs OTRS and two that are fixed to OpenStreetMap. Whether uploader can reply in June or not is moot. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Now I get slighty angry, too: I never have claimed that a wife is the property of her husband. Please calm down. — Speravir – 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speravir Read more carefully. I wrote " I do not agree, in fact I object a lot, to the assumption that a wife's creation is automatically husband's property or the opposite." The word "creation" is what you overlooked. At Commons we are dealing with copyright issues. Do please assume good faith and read more carefully in future. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, oh, oh, sorry (better: SORRY) for my misunderstanding, Ellin! And to say it clear: I can follow your words and do not contradict your demand for explicit permission. — Speravir – 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speravir Read more carefully. I wrote " I do not agree, in fact I object a lot, to the assumption that a wife's creation is automatically husband's property or the opposite." The word "creation" is what you overlooked. At Commons we are dealing with copyright issues. Do please assume good faith and read more carefully in future. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Now I get slighty angry, too: I never have claimed that a wife is the property of her husband. Please calm down. — Speravir – 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The point of getting OTRS from a spouse, child, parent, friend, etc. is not to verify anything, since these claims for unpublished works are entirely unverifiable. The point is that assuming that everyone is telling the truth, the uploader literally cannot legally release a work on behalf of someone else. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, but maps are fixed and kept. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Этот файл не имеет никакого отношения к ВИА "Здравствуй, песня" Serkosha (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Спасибо что сообщили это человеку бывшему там на концерте. Сами то опу от дивана отрывать не пробовали? Впрочем я не возражаю против более нейтрального переименования - уберите "Здравствуй песня" - фото то зачем удалять? А время рассудит... S, AV 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
- Serkosha - пинг для "знатока" . И сколько не спорь - это именно Конферансье. S, AV 16:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: номинация не основана на правилах проекта. И выясняйте, пожалуйста, отношения за пределами Викисклада и вообще проектов Фонда Викимедиа. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Этот человек не имеет никакого отношения к ВИА "Здравствуй, песня". Прошу убрать эту фотографию из википедии. Serkosha (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Повторяю для самых одарённых: конферансье не должен иметь отношение к объявляемым коллективам - раз; два, даже если бы да кабы, удаляется не фотография, а изменяется информация в описании; три - повторное вынесение без новых обоснований является деструктивом и спамом и ведет к бану, куда вас, надеюсь, и отправят на месяцок правила проекта поизучать или поискать другой. S, AV 10:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:Well-Informed Optimist - тут с первого раза не доходит. Мешает работать. S, AV 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Это фото не является достоверной, прошу удалить его, т.к. оно нарушает авторские права. Serkosha (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Убраны упоминания ВИА из описания файла. Претензий больше не будет? --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well-Informed Optimist - человек продолжает кроспостить у меня на СО. Слова не помогают. Прричем его личная СО весьма забавна. S, AV 12:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well-Informed Optimist и на странице файла вандализм продолжается. S, AV 22:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sealle (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Missing EXIF informations, Flickr account with only one image, https://twitter.com/NegritaCantina/status/1237822147738972161/photo/1, COM:LL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carlos Rivera.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I support the deletion, at the time I didn't notice that I had no metadata.. --Hispano76 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bogus licensing. March 1917 is the date of the events depicted, but not the date the painting was created. The copyright status is unclear. VLu (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MPowerDrive (talk · contribs)
[edit]Bogus licensing. These modern maps are definitely not in public domain.
VLu (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Dubious licensing, no indication this was published before 2009. VLu (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Dubious licensing, no indication this was published before 2009. VLu (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carnivalship (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unknown person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 15:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pauliusgal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Generolas Punzdevičius II.jpg
- File:Petras Pundzevičius Petliukas.jpg
- File:Stasys Pundzevičius Smetona.jpg
- File:Laibiskiai 1929 m..jpg
- File:Petras Pundzevičius.jpg
- File:IsakymasDelVilniaus.jpg
- File:Stasys.jpg
- File:Apklausa4 0.jpg
- File:Apklausa16.jpg
- File:Apklausa15.jpg
- File:Apklausa14.jpg
- File:Apklausa13.jpg
- File:Apklausa12.jpg
- File:Apklausa11.jpg
- File:Apklausa10.jpg
- File:Apklausa9.jpg
- File:Apklausa8.jpg
- File:Apklausa7.jpg
- File:Apklausa6.jpg
- File:Apklausa5.jpg
- File:Apklausa4.jpg
- File:Apklausa3.jpg
- File:Apklausa2.jpg
- File:Apklausa1.jpg
- File:S. Pundzevičiaus CV3.jpg
- File:S. Pundzevičiaus CV2.jpg
- File:S. Pundzevičiaus CV.jpg
- File:Generolas Stasys Pundzevičius.jpg
- File:Gen. S. Pundzevičius.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Bad Flickr account, Facebook metadata. Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The image is named and described incorrectly (due to error in the source). The photo depicts Vladimir Alexandrovich Kolchak, not Alexander Vasilievich Kolchak. There is a correctly described and not cropped copy of the photo, see file:Gardemarine Vladimir Kolchak 1915.jpg. Yellow Horror (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Description says "Picture provided by Mr. kamanda himself". Uploader can't be the author, no authorization Titlutin (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyright violation. Not enough information has been provided to show that the uploader is the copyright owner. Keivan.fTalk 23:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation. Not enough information has been provided to show that the uploader is the copyright owner. Keivan.fTalk 23:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Érico at 09:48, 23 August 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 13:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused and low quality personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Also:
This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Privacy violation. I do not understand Chinese and I am not sure. One week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete These photos include subject's name, gender, former name, ethnicity, Student ID, Addr., ....It is a privacy leakage.--Larryasou (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Private enough for a user to suggest speedy deletion here, yet obviously not well-protected. We should document this. At most we should redact the information of students who have not consented (which we assume is all students unless we hear otherwise). Brianjd (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robertoolea (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not selfies. Permission of each photographer needed via COM:OTRS, probably out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Roberto olea Mexican.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea La chilenga.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Mexico.jpg
- File:ROBERTO OLEA COMEDY.jpg
- File:ROBERTO OLEA PREMIO QUEMCHI.jpg
- File:ROBERTO OLEA TEXAS.jpg
- File:ROBERTO OLEA PREMIOS FOX.jpg
- File:Robert Olea.jpg
- File:Super andino hijo del sol.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea h.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Horta.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Horta . ..jpg
- File:Roberto Olea.,.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Disco Lado B.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Lado B,.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea H.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea Lado B.jpg
- File:Roberto Olea.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete F10 - Harsh 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hako9 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, Family tree graph was uploaded by one of the member mentioned here. Nahid Hossain (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, Personal family photo Nahid Hossain (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, Personal family photo Nahid Hossain (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Saayeeh (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, Non notable family to have a family tree image. Nahid Hossain (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom and COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Pi.1415926535. --Minoraxtalk 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom and COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Pi.1415926535. --Minoraxtalk 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Missing permission أمين (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom and COM:CSD#F4, License review NOT passed: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Pi.1415926535. --Minoraxtalk 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Tiny resolution, no Exif data – unlikely to be own work of the uploader. jdx Re: 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fahim Abdoellah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Gedung Madrasah.jpg
- File:KH. Abdullah Yaqin bin Abd. Qidam, pengasuh ke-III Pondok Pesantren..jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Missing EXIF informations, https://www.milenio.com/espectaculos/caloncho-mon-laferte-arman-fiesta-tropical-diana, COM:LL Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
- Within scope. Example of family of that country. Thanks, --Tibet Nation (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
|
|
This media file may not fall within the project scope of Wikimedia Commons. All content on Wikimedia Commons must be realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. For example, personal photos, unless they could possibly be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article for instance, may be considered to be out of scope.
Any content which falls outside the project scope might be nominated for deletion. |
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- also file:Roshanak saberan.jpg
Uploader was warned against uploading copyvios and now I blocked him. These are his last remaining uploads. They are called own work, but metadata is missing and they look like professional promo photos. Probably copyvios. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC) - Delete per Taivo. Saayeeh (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
RF/Copyright ahuR ☘ 20:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Web-sized image uploaded by a sock at fawiki. --4nn1l2 (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
unused, uncategorised, no EXIF-data. Per TinEye search may be copyviolation. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Author request Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Uploaded in 2019; not private. Brianjd (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Requesting for deletion by author-- please delete -- @Brianjd you deleted my request to delete, which is against my copyrights-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Suhanya Gamaarachchi: I deleted your redundant deletion requests. That’s not a copyright issue. As for the file itself, it’s under an irrevocable licence. Brianjd (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|author requested several times, admin cancelled my request}}. Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
{{copyvio|my image}} Surangi Kasturirathne (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded nearly 1 year ago under a free license. Why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Suhanya Gamaarachchi, for context, see "What if I change my mind about using a CC license?"? -- Nick Moreau (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- This file has already been nominated for deletion multiple times (while the existing request was still open). I doubt that any new nominations are legitimate. However, for the sake of completeness: an anonymous user nominated this file as a copyvio (reverted by me). Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete this is pretty messy, but it seems likely (comments in this DR, EXIF data,...) this photograph is not a work by Suhanya Gamaarachchi, but a Surangi Kasturirathne's one. Strakhov (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Support deletion of the version uploaded today. This is nonsense. Why would you upload a new version of a file while you want it to be removed? - Unfortunately I am forced to change my vote to Delete due to some information that came out in another deletion request. The uploader did not reach the age of majority at the time of initial upload. I am sad about this situation, but we cannot keep the image for a long time. Even our regular 120 year rule does not really apply here, if the uploader was as young as 10, we would have to wait about 140 years to have a reasonable expectation that the file will be in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am forced to change my vote to
- Delete per Jmabel at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kotmale mountains range.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete . Against my copyright. Legal action inplace agaist Wiki as requested deletions many times and not deleted.
- Copyright violation 2402:4000:2080:771E:9C82:E308:E016:A960 18:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- requested by owner 116.12.90.53 08:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- please delete
- cleanup --Minoraxtalk 05:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete Image isn't available at the source indicated, though likely from the company indicated. Regardless, there is no license there indicating cc-by-sa 4.0 international, nor any license present that is compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Image isn't available at the source indicated, though likely from the company indicated. Regardless, there is no license there indicating cc-by-sa 4.0 international, nor any license present that is compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Image isn't available at the source indicated, though likely from the company indicated. Regardless, there is no license there indicating cc-by-sa 4.0 international, nor any license present that is compatible with Commons. Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Author request Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. In use; uploaded in 2019; not private. Brianjd (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|author requested several times, admin cancelled my request}}. Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
{{copyvio|my image}} Surangi Kasturirathne (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Image was uploaded nearly 1 year ago. Why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- This file has already been nominated for deletion multiple times (while the existing request was still open). I doubt that any new nominations are legitimate. However, for the sake of completeness: an anonymous user nominated this file as a copyvio (reverted by me). Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete this is pretty messy, but it seems likely (comments in this DR, EXIF data,...) this photograph is not a work by Suhanya Gamaarachchi, but a Surangi Kasturirathne's one. Strakhov (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete Like Strakhov. Xalapeño (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Suhanya Gamaarachchi: The version you originally uploaded 09:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC) had EXIF metadata "User Comment" field "Copyright SRKasturirathne-SuViStudio". Are you also known as SRKasturirathne? Are you associated with SuViStudio? If not, why is that field present? The second version you uploaded today 05:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC) against COM:OVERWRITE is drastically different and has no metadata. Why exactly do you want both deleted? Who is the real copyright holder? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Surangi Kasturirathne: Same questions for you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
please delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk • contribs) 08:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support deleting the version uploaded today. It was probably been uploaded without clear understanding of our policies, I do not think that waning or any action are needed.
- Delete Unfortunately I must agree that if the licence was grated when a photographer was under the age of majority, then most jurisdictions would agree that they are able to terminate that agreement even if the licence says that it cannot be revoked. However, this opens us up to abuse, and perhaps we need some policy to guard ourselves against such a thing in the future, we do not want potential reusers having to wait for 18 years to ensure that the licence really cannot be revoked. Also I find it very upsetting that this DR did not state that they were under age of majority when they have uploaded, and they appear to have been attempting to simply find the combination of phrases that will get us to delete the file; if they were honest from the start this would be resolved a long time ago. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=440439044#Deleting_a_photo, the user may not be legally allowed to grant a license because they are underage. I would suggest we delete these, but also with a request to the user that they not upload anything else until they are sure they can stand by their licenses. @Brianjd: , since you were the strongest advocate of keeping, do you have a problem with that? - Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Jmabel. Pinging @Gone Postal as the regular keep !voter. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has changed name per this log entry. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Temple of the Tooth Relic, Kandy..jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation 2402:4000:2080:771E:9C82:E308:E016:A960 18:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Minorax. --Gbawden (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
requested by owner 116.12.90.53 08:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
please delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhanya Gamaarachchi (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Jmabel. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Minorax. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe copied and modified, but because of the bad quality I have really doubt that it is the work of the uploader, as claimed.
- File:Almarhum Datuk Kelana Putera Mohammad Kassim di Istiadat Pertabalan Almarhum Tuanku Ja'afar pada tahun 1968 2014-06-13 20-03.png
- File:Almarhum Datuk Kelana Putera Mohammad Kassim di Istiadat Pertabalan Almarhum Tuanku Munawir pada tahun 1961 2014-06-13 12-27.png
- File:Preview-1.jpg
- File:Preview-1-1.jpg
Avron (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Facebook images, missing permission.
- File:CNN columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero moderating a DC Dialogue at the University of New York (NYU) in February 2020.jpg
- File:CNN columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero addressing NYU at the Washington DC Campus.jpg
- File:CNN's Geovanny Vicente Romero addressing an audience at the University of New York (NYU) in February 2020.jpg
- File:CNN's Geovanny Vicente Romero moderating a DC Dialogue at the University of New York (NYU) in February 2020.jpg
- File:CNN political strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero addressing the University of New York (NYU) in February 2020.jpg
- File:CNN's Geovanny Vicente Romero addresses an audience at the University of New York (NYU) in February 2020.jpg
_in_February_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_February_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_February_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_February_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_February_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Pictures of the same person shot in New York (Facebook images), in the Dominican Republic (Twitter image), in Mexico (Twitter image), in Washington...ː unlikely to be the same person's work. Needs to be cleared up by discussion. Addentumː If we consider a file uploaded by a sock (File:Dominican Republic' s CPDL-RD-National Consultation with Civil Society and Social Actors in occasion of the VIII Summit of the Americas in Panama.jpg) we can add Panama on the countries visited by the uploader.
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero de forma contemplativa lee la placa del Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020.jpg
- File:Mayor General Ney Aldrin Bautista entrega Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020 a Geovanny Vicente Romero.jpg
- File:Jefe de la Policía Ney Aldrin Bautista entrega Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020 a Geovanny Vicente Romero.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero acompañado de Digna Romero y Víctor Romero durante el Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero acompañado de Jennifer Miel y Digna Romero durante el Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero acompañado de Marino Vicente Rosado y Digna Romero en Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020.jpg
- File:Ministra Robiamny Balcácer posa con Geovanny Vicente Romero luego de entrega de Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020.jpg
- File:Mayor General Ney Aldrin Bautista saluda y entrega Premio Nacional de la Juventud a Geovanny Vicente Romero.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero nombrado Premio Nacional de la Juventud 2020 de la Rep. Dom.- Superación Profesional.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero y su familia, posan con la Ministra Robiamny Balcácer luego de recibir premio.jpg
- File:CNN Political Strategist during his remarks at Save Democracy Conference.jpg
- File:Political analyst Geovanny Vicente Romero delivers remarks at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracia Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:CNN columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero delivers remarks at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracia Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Vicepresidente salvadoreño Felix Ulloa, Jennifer Miel y Geovanny Vicente Romero en Proyecto Democracia, de Save Democracy.jpg
- File:Embajador dominicano en México, Jonny Martinez, el Dr. Dong Nguyen Huu y Geovanny Vicente Romero en Proyecto Democracia.jpg
- File:Columnista CNN Geovanny Vicente Romero y analista político mexicano Roy Campos en Proyecto Democracia.jpg
- File:Conferencista internacional Geovanny Vicente Romero durante Conferencia Proyecto Democracia, de Save Democracy.jpg
- File:Columnista CNN Geovanny Vicente Romero responde a preguntas durante Conferencia Proyecto Democracia.jpg
- File:Political Strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero discussing Latin America's economic growth during conference in Mexico.jpg
- File:CNN Columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero at National Democratic Institute's Save Democracy Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero tratando los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible durante conferencia sobre Democracia.jpg
- File:Political straegist Geovanny Vicente Romero at National Democratic Institute's Save Democracy Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Columnista CNN Geovanny Vicente Romero como conferencista del proyecto Save Democracy.jpg
- File:Analista político Geovanny Vicente Romero explicando los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible durante conferencia sobre Democracia.jpg
- File:Political analyst Geovanny Vicente Romero addressing the audience during Save Democracy's Conference.jpg
- File:Columnista de CNN Geovanny Vicente Romero durante su conferencia en Proyecto Democracia, Durango México.jpg
- File:CNN Columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracia Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Political Strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero discussing the Global Goals during conference in Mexico.jpg
- File:International Consultant Geovanny Vicente Romero delivers remarks at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracia Conference, in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Estratega político Geovanny Vicente Romero recibe reconocimiento entregado por el Estado de Durango, México.jpg
- File:Political strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero delivers remarks at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracia Conference.jpg
- File:Conferencista internacional Geovanny Vicente Romero en Conferencia Proyecto Democracia, Durango, México.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero delivers remarks at National Democratic Institute's Proyecto Democracy Conference.jpg
- File:International Speaker Geovanny Vicente Romero received recognition in Durango, Mexico.jpg
- File:Professor Geovanny Vicente Romero during conference at American University.jpg
- File:Mayor Maria "Mayita" Melendez and Geovanny Vicente Romero at American University.jpg
- File:Mayor Maria Melendez and Geovanny Vicente Romero during conference at American University.jpg
- File:Political strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero speaking at American University's School of Public Affairs.jpg
- File:Estratega político Geovanny Vicente Romero durante discusión en American University.jpg
- File:Mayor Maria "Mayita" Melendez speaks at American University.jpg
- File:Attorney Gregorio J. Igartua and Geovanny Vicente Romero during conference at American University.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero en American University.jpg
- File:Political commentator Geovanny Vicente Romero at American University.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero as moderator at American University.jpg
- File:CNN political strategist moderating a dialogue at American University.jpg
- File:Profesor Geovanny Vicente Romero como moderador de evento en American University.jpg
- File:Estratega político Geovanny Vicente Romero en la Escuela de Asuntos Públicos de American University.jpg
- File:Consultor político Geovanny Vicente Romero hablando en conferencia en American University.jpg
- File:CNN political strategist presents Mayor "Mayita" Melendez at American University.jpg
- File:Political consultant Geovanny Vicente Romero speaking at American University.jpg
- File:Professor Geovanny Vicente Romero, moderating an event at American University.jpg
- File:Political strategist Geovanny Vicente Romero and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during Hispanic Heritage Month celebration.jpg
- File:A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero at NYU in Washington.jpg
- File:A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero in DC.jpg
- File:CNN political analyst Geovanny Vicente Romero and OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro.jpg
- File:NYU- A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero.jpg
- File:OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and CNN political analyst Geovanny Vicente Romero at NYU.jpg
- File:A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero at NYU.jpg
- File:A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero at NYU DC.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero and the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro.jpg
- File:A Conversation with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro.jpg
- File:Secretary General of the Organization of American States Luis Almagro and Geovanny Vicente Romero.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete See here and here. - MiguelAlanCS (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not uploader's workː work by the Dominican Republic.
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero Director Interino de la Dirección de Sistemas Carrera, Ministry of Public Administration (MAP).jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero Director Interino de la Dirección de Sistemas Carrera, Ministerio de Administración Pública (MAP).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HomuPolis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional images. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PolisPic
- File:CNN's political columnist Geovanny Vicente Romero and Directo USA's anchor Juan Carlos López on the set.jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero Director Interino de la Dirección de Sistemas Carrera, Ministry of Public Administration (MAP).jpg
- File:Geovanny Vicente Romero Director Interino de la Dirección de Sistemas Carrera, Ministerio de Administración Pública (MAP).jpg
MiguelAlanCS (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not an own work as declared. Both files from this user are problematic. E4024 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 05:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, low resolution of a non SVG fictional flag, unused file. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 03:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
unused (only in personal gallery), uncategorized, probably out of scope Estopedist1 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It was probably meant to be an abstract version of the Lua logo (File:Lua-Logo.svg), focusing on the geometric device involved... AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Unused for 12 years. Subject is not notable. Out of scope for lucha libre/Mexican wrestling as a whole. This is not a wrestler, it's an unknown actor in a suit. Xalapeño (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope amateur art only used in former user's userpage. E4024 (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope amateur art only used in former user's userpage. E4024 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Description contradicts author field. No evidence provided that the copyright holder, as stated in the description, has given permission to publish the file under a free license. Cold Season (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
no explanation given. Blurry. Unused. Uncategorised (recycling??). Attention user:Malcolma Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not private media repository. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by AxelHH as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Das Bild ist Unsinn. Es hat nichts mit dem Brelinger Berg zu tun. --AxelHH (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) This is not a reason for speedy deletion, so I create a regular deletion request. Educational value is unclear, maybe the image is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused screenshot, no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
thumbnail, no description, unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographie d'une personne privée, n'amène rien pour le thème "La Grande-Motte" FHd (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this basically the same discussion about replication of people's appearances that was just closed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin? - Featous (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the same with the above DR. First, the banner is not a permanent object in the public area, COM:FOP cannot be applied. Even we applied FOP, it doesn't include 2D works in the United States. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this basically the same discussion about replication of people's appearances that was just closed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin? - Featous (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the same with the above DR. First, the banner is not a permanent object in the public area, COM:FOP cannot be applied. Even we applied FOP, it doesn't include 2D works in the United States. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
bad quality, unused and uncategorised file, no location (Sigipedia??). Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
unused (only as personal file), uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Cover art belongs to Ektoras Lygizos. Is the uploader the producer of this film? FredWalsh (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Becauseiamhot (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these photos are small, with no metadata, attributed to a "JA", but no proof they have ever been placed in Copyleft.
- File:Scott Nails 11.jpg
- File:Scott Nails 5.jpg
- File:Scott Nails10.jpg
- File:Scott Nails 20.jpg
- File:Scott Nails 24.jpg
FredWalsh (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Small, low res, unlikely to be own work. --Minoraxtalk 11:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Conflicting copyright claimsː © FRIKKO • Plexiz Media Todos los derechos reservados, FILM NATION, S.A. de C.V. Unfree on YouTube tooː https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkoVaSXtcdA Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
promotional material. no educational value. Quakewoody (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
_in_year_2018.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_year_2018.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
RF/Copyright/Photo of instagram ahuR ☘ 12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
_in_year_2018.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per Persia. Saayeeh (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
_in_year_2018.jpg){kind=link}
FBMD at MD; which means taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No, don't be deleted. no source. for "taken from Facebook". Omergedik (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The image is a free PD-textlogo, but it has been repeatedly overwritten (see image history, p.e. here and here) with no free versions of it and subsecquently reverted. Therefore, this DR is only for the "handshaking logo" to be deleted. Fma12 (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: non-free revisions hidden. --ƏXPLICIT 12:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Image spam. Created by an indefinitely blocked sock puppet and used solely for a repeatedly speedily deleted promotional article (CallMeKevin on the English Wikipedia). J. M. (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 12:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D artwork in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thumbnail, unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
unidentified language in description. Unused, uncategorized, probably out of scope. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
fictionnal coat of arms with no possible educational use 80.215.103.149 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope Saayeeh (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This logo will be used on the Forests Ontario page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Forests_Ontario) -Asolomon2019
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope, probably useless Xalapeño (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
{{Vector version available}}, unused file. Lcawte (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Too many non-free trademarks. Please remove the non-free trademarks to avoid the copyrights problem. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 03:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Author: "no estoy seguro"... Risky. E4024 (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I am a little unsure whether this logo is indeed uncopyrightable under Danish law, seeing as COM:TOO#Denmark has no clear precedent on the matter and the logo belongs to a Danish firm Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is copyrightable under Danish law. Originality is required and this is just text with a really simple image of a Lifebuoy. Tholme (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no consesnsus for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Does someone know whether this logo is complex enough to qualify as copyrightable by Norway law? COM:TOO#Norway cites another Norway logo as copyrightable but it looks a wee bit more complex Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this logo really simple enough to not meet the COM:TOO#Norway criteria? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think nominating such files for deletion is the best course of action if the nominator does not take any position themselves. If you are unsure, just leave it please. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this logo simple enough to not meet the COM:TOO#Norway rules? Note to self that en:File:Color Line logo.svg will need some updating if this is kept or deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think nominating such files for deletion is the best course of action if the nominator does not take any position themselves. If you are unsure, just leave it please. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The juxtaposition, colorization and varying lengths of the wave patterns are clearly a result of creative choices. Asav | Talk 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Norwegian IP-register have a registered trademark here covering the grapical parts, and for the words "Color Line" as wordmark here. If there was no originality in the marks it would not be anything for IP-protection. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this logo is simple enough to meet both COM:TOO#Norway and TOO in USA. The fact that there is a registered trademark does not mean that the file is copyrightable, and it does not mean that we can not have it on commons. I have added the {{Trademark}} template to this file. Tholme (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that this is a registered trademark in Norway does imply that the graphical pattern is complex enough to be copyrighed. Same applies to the words. If generic, simple or not defended, there would be a risk of beeing unable to register or loose registration. The Commons file is a mix of two copyrighted trademarks. It is in that respect not _a_ trademark. Andrez1 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is wrong, copyright and trademarks are two different concepts. The fact that something is trademarked does not imply anything about its copyright status or vica versa. For example the Ruter# logo is trademarked,[1] but clearly not copyrightable. Copyright does also expire, while trademarks can last forever as long as they are still in use. Tholme (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on that "copyright and trademarks are two different concepts." The two trademark shown above can not be generic words or images. One can not claim a right to be the only one abel to sell potatoes by the brand and image of potatoes. If someone come with a name of a product or brand for selling; not previousely taken (= not like potatoes, already taken); it can be registered as a trademark. "Potetgull" can be registered. Was registered. And not protected in the marked, so the word enters the language as a generic word, and the trademark is now lost.
- The basic premise, a level of originality, was there in the first place. Otherwise it could never have been registered. That originality was - "clearly a result of creative choices" - as is also the case with the two trademarks mentioned above. Andrez1 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Does Norwegian IP law require creative choices for trademark protection? If yes, could you please cite the statute? —holly {chat} 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The "Patentstyret", the norwegian Intellectual Property register, ask for "særpreg", that is originality versus a generic mark which would lack originality. Patentstyret on "særpreg" here
- The law governing this would be the norwegian "Lov om beskyttelse av varemerker (varemerkeloven)" (The law on protection of trademarks (the trademarklaw)) it is here. The § 2 goes against use of generic signsː
- "§ 2.Tegn som kan være varemerke
- Et varemerke kan bestå av alle slags tegn som er egnet til å skille en virksomhets varer eller tjenester fra andres, for eksempel ord og ordforbindelser, herunder slagord, navn, bokstaver, tall, figurer, avbildninger, farger og lyder, eller en vares form, utstyr eller emballasje.
- Det kan ikke oppnås varemerkerett til tegn som utelukkende består av en form eller en annen egenskap som følger av varens art, er nødvendig for å oppnå et teknisk resultat eller tilfører varen en betydelig verdi."
- The -
- § 14.Alminnelige registreringsvilkår
- Et varemerke som skal registreres, må bestå av et tegn som kan beskyttes etter § 2, og som kan gjengis i varemerkeregisteret på en slik måte at myndighetene og allmennheten klart og tydelig kan avgjøre gjenstanden for den beskyttelse merkehaveren gis. Det må ha særpreg som kjennetegn for slike varer eller tjenester som det gjelder.
- - brings in the demand for "særpreg".
- I hope this is what you ask for. To translate the two sites given, in norwegian, Google translate may be helpful. Andrez1 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I was looking for. In English, there is a difference between distinctiveness and originality, and I don't know if it's the same in Norwegian. In my reading of the law (with Google Translate) that a trademark must be distinctive -- i.e., it is clearly different from other trademarks, but there is no requirement for originality. Unfortunately, COM:TOO Norway is not very detailed. The design of this logo is clearly simpler than that of Jul i Blåfjell and it easily qualifies under US rules, but is the element that looks like a rainbow flag above or below the line for Norway? That's the big question. —holly {chat} 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know either. The "difference between distinctiveness and originality" is interesting. The Norwegian "særpreg", and demand for it, is close to how I understand the English "distinctiveness". It could be that where copyright demands originality, trademarks demand (for new marks) distinctiveness. And the two trademarks in this discussion stand out with a distinctive "særpreg". If that implies the originality asked for (Category: Threshold of originality related deletion requests/pending) will be the assessment that needs to be made. (Also, as with copyright and its limited geographical and timewise validity; is the rights limited to the markeds where the mark is registered? Will a nonpayment of the 10-year fee make the mark free of copyright?)
- I agree with that the "wave patterns are clearly a result of creative choices". That the "særpreg", "distinctiveness" it displays implies a sufficient degree of originality. Andrez1 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I was looking for. In English, there is a difference between distinctiveness and originality, and I don't know if it's the same in Norwegian. In my reading of the law (with Google Translate) that a trademark must be distinctive -- i.e., it is clearly different from other trademarks, but there is no requirement for originality. Unfortunately, COM:TOO Norway is not very detailed. The design of this logo is clearly simpler than that of Jul i Blåfjell and it easily qualifies under US rules, but is the element that looks like a rainbow flag above or below the line for Norway? That's the big question. —holly {chat} 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Does Norwegian IP law require creative choices for trademark protection? If yes, could you please cite the statute? —holly {chat} 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is wrong, copyright and trademarks are two different concepts. The fact that something is trademarked does not imply anything about its copyright status or vica versa. For example the Ruter# logo is trademarked,[1] but clearly not copyrightable. Copyright does also expire, while trademarks can last forever as long as they are still in use. Tholme (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that this is a registered trademark in Norway does imply that the graphical pattern is complex enough to be copyrighed. Same applies to the words. If generic, simple or not defended, there would be a risk of beeing unable to register or loose registration. The Commons file is a mix of two copyrighted trademarks. It is in that respect not _a_ trademark. Andrez1 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion, COM:PCP. --Krd 06:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Les logos ne doivent pas figurer sur Commons Pierrette13 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:TOO UK. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
French still of the French film. Please explain why public domain in source country. Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This film was distributed in the United States by World Pictures Corporation. As written in the file description, the promotional still was published in the U.S. in the October 1938 issue of National Board of Review Magazine. As written below the license, "Statement of copyright appears on page two: 'Copyright 1938, The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures.' A search has found no copyright renewal for the National Board of Review in 1966 and 1967 and 1968." — WFinch (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It perhaps makes the photo free in the U.S. but in the U.S. only, not in source country (France) so unsuitable for Commons and reserved to a local Wikipedia under fair use. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep If promotional stills can be considered different works under copyright law, then they can also have different source countries. This is a US promotional still so it is a US work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:King of Hearts. --4nn1l2 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation, artist born in 1965, no freedom of panorama Martin Sg. (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
WTO/OMC works (https://www.facebook.com/worldtradeorganization/photos/a.385421524833992/3093185917390859/ and https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/dgsel_mex_08jun20_e.htm). Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- There are other versions of this file that should be deleted as well if this one is: File:JESUS SEADE 277X185.jpg and File:BASE FB SRE JESUS.jpg --Titlutin (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
https://nuage1962.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/le-saviez-vous-%E2%96%BA-janvier-1967-lamricain-james-bedford-se-fait-congeler-en-attendant-dtre-soign-pour-son-cancer/, Not old enough to be public domain in the U.S.A. Patrick Rogel (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This photo is not the work of the uploader. It was copied from Eli Cross's MySpace page. FredWalsh (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Paszlo is Eli Cross. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: some evidence please? There is no such assertion on that Paszlo's userpage here or on Wikipedia. FredWalsh (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see the COI warning about the account.[2] His contribution history[3] screams he is an SPA regarding Eli Cross, inserting things about new projects only Eli would know. Further, the username Paszlo is a play on Laszlo Kovacs, the cinematographer for The Stuntman. Cross's adopted pseudonym, Eli Cross, is a character from the The Stuntman. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying there but copyright and licensing should not involve ciphers and enigmas like this. This issue should be clarified through either a public declaration or through OTRS. FredWalsh (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see the COI warning about the account.[2] His contribution history[3] screams he is an SPA regarding Eli Cross, inserting things about new projects only Eli would know. Further, the username Paszlo is a play on Laszlo Kovacs, the cinematographer for The Stuntman. Cross's adopted pseudonym, Eli Cross, is a character from the The Stuntman. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: some evidence please? There is no such assertion on that Paszlo's userpage here or on Wikipedia. FredWalsh (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence it has been first published more than 50 years ago. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Was this photo uploaded by Rob Rotten himself? Is the uploader actually Rob Rottrn? FredWalsh (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- As stated in the uploading information it was a transfer from en.wikipedia.org. So why don't you ask there before you try to delete it. --Gripweed (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- COM:EVIDENCE states that the onus is on those who want to keep a file on Commons. By transferring a file from Wikipedia, you take on the responsibility for the original's assertions of copyright ownership i.e. you are saying that Rob Rotten is the uploader. This attitude of "why not go ask them" does not wash. Since Wikipedia accounts can be created by anyone, there is no certainty that the uploader is Rob Rotten. If that user account belongs to Rob Rotten, he needs to demonstrate that through COM:OTRS. FredWalsh (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It was an upload from 2010 in en:. The user is inactive since 2014. I don't read your intepretation from the stated site. --Gripweed (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- From COM:EVIDENCE:
- From COM:EVIDENCE:
- It was an upload from 2010 in en:. The user is inactive since 2014. I don't read your intepretation from the stated site. --Gripweed (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- COM:EVIDENCE states that the onus is on those who want to keep a file on Commons. By transferring a file from Wikipedia, you take on the responsibility for the original's assertions of copyright ownership i.e. you are saying that Rob Rotten is the uploader. This attitude of "why not go ask them" does not wash. Since Wikipedia accounts can be created by anyone, there is no certainty that the uploader is Rob Rotten. If that user account belongs to Rob Rotten, he needs to demonstrate that through COM:OTRS. FredWalsh (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
| “ | In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence.... If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. | ” |
- You are the uploader to Commons. This DR is questioning whether the copyright owner has released the file under a license. It does not say "ask the original uploader on Wikipedia”. The file upload rules there are very different from the rules here. What evidence is there that the copyright holder has released this file under the claimed license? Did you check this before uploading it here or did you assume it was correct because someone had uploaded it there? FredWalsh (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I took it form en:. The file upload rules there aren't very different from the rules here, it had the exact same license there. I won't ask the user because he wasn't active since 2014. I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further, so I remove this from my watchlist. If somebody deletes it, it's okay with me. --Gripweed (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gripweed: whether or not you reply to this, you should review the file rules at both ENWP (WP:IUP) and Commons. Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with Commons requirements and I would suggest you look at all files you have transferred to ensure there is no similar problem. FredWalsh (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the time I only uploaded pictures taken by me. As stated above, I'm not interested in discussing that case any further. I won't waste any time here anymore. --Gripweed (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gripweed: whether or not you reply to this, you should review the file rules at both ENWP (WP:IUP) and Commons. Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with Commons requirements and I would suggest you look at all files you have transferred to ensure there is no similar problem. FredWalsh (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I took it form en:. The file upload rules there aren't very different from the rules here, it had the exact same license there. I won't ask the user because he wasn't active since 2014. I'm not interested in discussing this issue any further, so I remove this from my watchlist. If somebody deletes it, it's okay with me. --Gripweed (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are the uploader to Commons. This DR is questioning whether the copyright owner has released the file under a license. It does not say "ask the original uploader on Wikipedia”. The file upload rules there are very different from the rules here. What evidence is there that the copyright holder has released this file under the claimed license? Did you check this before uploading it here or did you assume it was correct because someone had uploaded it there? FredWalsh (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: published in lots of other sites, need OTRS permission anyway. --rubin16 (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Y. Lemelle. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Not found at URL. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this file really the work of the uploader? Why does the metadata credit Matt Sanchez and not the uploader? FredWalsh (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
_in_2018.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I used TinEye and google, She/He seems to be the main photographer. Saayeeh (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Please provide the link to the Instagram page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Please provide the link to the Instagram page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Please provide the link to the Instagram page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I used TinEye and google, She or He seems to be the main photographer. Saayeeh (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Link to the Instagram page, please. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_22_July_17.jpg){kind=link}
_22_July_17.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
_22_July_17.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I used TinEye and google. Where is it? Saayeeh (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Please provide the link to the Instagram page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_22_July_17.jpg){kind=link}
_2017_July_23.jpg){kind=link}
_2017_July_23.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
RF/Copyright/Photo in instagram ahuR ☘ 12:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
_2017_July_23.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I used TinEye and google, She/He seems to be the main photographer. But these people have personal rights. If they are not professional models, It may be better to delete the photo. I am not sure. Saayeeh (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Persia: Please provide the link to the Instagram page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
_2017_July_23.jpg){kind=link}
Historical drawing. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded wrongly Jaishink (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Support Saayeeh (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Oppose, the image can be reverted C1MM (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Flamerecca (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial symbols. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough publication to be PD (earliest publication I am aware of is Yevstigneev, Vladimir; Sinitsyn, Andrey (1965). Люди бессмертного подвига (in Russian). Volume 1. Moscow: Politizdat. p. 372. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Kozak was drafted into the Red Army in 1924, but the photograph shows him as a major general. So it must be considerably younger than 1925. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter when the photo was taken, but when it was published. And we have no evidence it was published less than 70 years ago (as required to be PD in country of origin, Russia).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, but it cannot have been published before 1925 for the reasons I stated above. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- [4] (It was taken no earlier than 1945)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, but it cannot have been published before 1925 for the reasons I stated above. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter when the photo was taken, but when it was published. And we have no evidence it was published less than 70 years ago (as required to be PD in country of origin, Russia).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
small file from photostock with watermarks. We already have big and clear file:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Herkules und Atlas (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum).jpg Shakko (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- other "Twelve Labours":
- File:Hercules stealing the apples from the Hesperides.webp should be subst. -- file:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Herkules raubt die Äpfel der Hesperiden (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum).jpg
- File:The Choice of Heracles.webp --> file:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Herkules am Scheideweg (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum).jpg
- File:Hercules and the Cattle of Geryones.webp --> file:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Herkules und die Rinder des Geryones (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum).jpg
- File:Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra.webp --> file:Lucas Cranach d.Ä. - Herkules und die lernäische Schlange (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hercules capturing the Ceryneian Hind.webp --Shakko (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The traffic sign will not be repeated with the svg file and the traffic sign is a png. File or a gif file, which is not the clearest image, so I have to delete the traffic sign that is wrong from that country's standard. Please allow everyone with respect.Svg file 
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! มองโกเลีย๔๔ 17:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unused redundant per nom.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unused, low resolution, vector version available — Nikolaev_ec06ffa5 (talk)
- Delete Leonel Sohns 18:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: outdated and unused. --rubin16 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No FoP in China for indoor artwork: COM:FOP China. Wcam (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unknown publication time or country; unable to determine its public domain status. Wcam (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Category:Commemorative 2 euro coins of the Netherlands
[edit]- File:2-Euro-Gedenkmünze 2014 Niederlande Thronwechsel.jpg
- File:2E Drapeau Pays-Bas.png
- File:2€ commemorative coin NL Erasmus.jpg
In all three cases, the uploader in question is claiming they are the copyright owner of the work, which they clearly are not as these are photographic reproductions of the original national sides of these coins. National sides of euro coins of Netherlands are copyrighted, and not available under a license compatible with Commons licensing requirements, per COM:CUR Netherlands. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Photos taken 1945 in Moscow are protected by Russian copyright at least untill 2015 sугсго 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
KEEP - not, photo taken in CCCP, becausue are under Soviet copyright. PD-Ukraine cover soviet work too! --77.48.153.172 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This photo is NOT under PD-RU-exempt. PD-RU-exempt does not cover government-agency owned photos (like this one). Labeling this PD-RU-exempt goes against all Commons precedents. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-02#File:Parad_pobedy_1945.jpg. --rubin16 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD. 1996 book is too late! PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
no evidence of PD status (early enough publication date, author information, etc) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
doubtful to be truely own work given low quality, age of photo, and external source PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Official photo made by Academy od Sciences USSR in 1930th - changed to {Pd-old} --Ivan Vtorov (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean it's PD either. Official photos of the Soviet government are NOT PD by default. In order for it to be PD, it must meet the requirements of PD-Russia (ie, be published early enough AND author unknown). You have failed to provide evidence of early enough publication. PD-old is not a country specific license tag and cannot be used alone on Commons.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD under russian law (regardless of how old photo is) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- You can also delete all the files in this category and this one, because nobody's date of publication is indicated, regardless of the year in which the photographs were taken. This is especially true when considering revolutionaries before 1917.--Carmela Angela (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Carmela Angela, что участница и делает. Уже тысячи файлов на удалении. Lesless (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Lesless я знаю. Это было насмешкою. Это были мои десятки файлов.--Carmela Angela (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The volume of files I nominate for deletion is proportional to the volume of files that do not meet Commons standards.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 you can update the commons license instead of proposing the cancellation. We need to help, because commons licenses are changed.--Carmela Angela (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- There is no way to "update" the Commons licence when there is no evidence that a photo is under ANY licence compatible with Commons. Sadly lots of photos uploaded here are not permitted under Commons licencing rules. We cannot expect Commons to change their licencing policy and allow for fair-use of certain kinds of images just because we can't find publication information. If a photo does not meet the requirements for being on Commons, I will nominate it for deletion. Changing from one incorrect licence to another does absolutely nothing about the underlying problem.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320 you can update the commons license instead of proposing the cancellation. We need to help, because commons licenses are changed.--Carmela Angela (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The volume of files I nominate for deletion is proportional to the volume of files that do not meet Commons standards.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. In my opinion the image is free from copyright due to age. Point 1 of the license PD-Russia applies. 70 years from publication is required only for the images, where the author was repressed. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Nope. Like I have tried to tell you many times before, the 70-years-after-the-death-of-author rule only applies to works with KNOWN authors (and published during the lifetime of the author). Works with unknown authors, such as this, are under a completely different set of rules under Russian law, and must be 70 years after publication - no matter how old they are or how likely it is the author is already dead for 70 years. Rules for works by known authors cannot be applied to works by unknown authors, and in turn, works by known authors can't invoke clauses related to copyright about anonomous works to falsely claim a PD status.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 of the license applies, other rules (including publication date) are not needed. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is a work with an unknown author. Point 1 CANNOT be applied to works with unknown authors, which fall under separate rules entirely (based on publication date). The template should specify more clearly that point 1 is for works by known authors only, but unfortunatly it doesn't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. If any of the points in license applies, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 is for known authors whose works were published during their lifetime, which unfortunatly is not specified as clearly as it should be in the licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. If any of the points in license applies, that's enough. Taivo (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. This is a work with an unknown author. Point 1 CANNOT be applied to works with unknown authors, which fall under separate rules entirely (based on publication date). The template should specify more clearly that point 1 is for works by known authors only, but unfortunatly it doesn't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Point 1 of the license applies, other rules (including publication date) are not needed. Taivo (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Taivo: Nope. Like I have tried to tell you many times before, the 70-years-after-the-death-of-author rule only applies to works with KNOWN authors (and published during the lifetime of the author). Works with unknown authors, such as this, are under a completely different set of rules under Russian law, and must be 70 years after publication - no matter how old they are or how likely it is the author is already dead for 70 years. Rules for works by known authors cannot be applied to works by unknown authors, and in turn, works by known authors can't invoke clauses related to copyright about anonomous works to falsely claim a PD status.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unfortunately, Planespotter used correct arguments regarding PD in Russia. --rubin16 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD (regardless of how old the photo is) PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. In my opinion the image is free from copyright due to age. Point 1 of the license PD-Russia applies. 70 years from publication is required only for the images, where the author was repressed. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 only applies for works by KNOWN authors, regardless of how old. 70 years from publication applies for ALL photos by unknown authors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong. Point 1 is for known authors whose works were published during their lifetime, which unfortunatly is not specified as clearly as it should be in the licence.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 applies for works of all authors, for known and unknown authors both. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. Point 1 only applies for works by KNOWN authors, regardless of how old. 70 years from publication applies for ALL photos by unknown authors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unfortunately, Planespotter used correct arguments regarding PD in Russia. --rubin16 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
suspicious, see File talk:Poster 2013-08-14 08-45.jpg. The only uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by El Sombrerero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Bad Flickr account. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caloncho en vivo.jpg.
- File:Cupula de Parroquia de Santa Inés, Zacatelco.jpg
- File:Enjambre en vivo.jpg
- File:Little Jesus.jpg
- File:Feria Zacatelco 2020.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by El Sombrerero (talk · contribs)
[edit]Bad Flickr account. Per File:Gastronomia Tlaxcalteca.jpg and Facebook metadata.
- File:Canto del bosque.jpg
- File:Huamantla, tlx.jpg
- File:Terrenate,Tlxcl.jpg
- File:Peña Del Rosario.jpg
- File:Terrenate.jpg
- File:Tepeyanco.jpg
- File:Xochitecatl, tlx.jpg
- File:Españita, Tlx.jpg
- File:Peña del Rosario.jpg
- File:Cascadas de Atlihuetzia.jpg
- File:Ixtacuixtla.jpg
- File:Tlaxcala, Tlax.jpg
- File:Tlaxco Tlx.jpg
- File:Basílica de Apizaco 02.jpg
- File:Basílica de Apizaco 01.jpg
- File:Tecoaque, Tlaxcala 02.jpg
- File:Tecoaque, Tlaxcala 03.jpg
- File:Tecoaque, Tlaxcala 01.jpg
- File:Monte Albán Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by El Sombrerero Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Redundant (see File:BSicon uhKRZW.svg Numberguy6 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: already redirected. --rubin16 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muhammedashariff (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, different EXIFs, one shows that taken from Facebook. --rubin16 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Eisenstein died in 1948. The film was first shown in 1925. I therefore don't see why {{PD-Russia-2008}} should be applicable. Per footnote 2 in that template, "Cinema films first shown before January 1, 1929 are subjects of points 1 and 2 of this template" which require that either
- The author of this work died before January 1, 1942
or
- The author of this work died between January 1, 1942 and January 1, 1946, did not work during the Great Patriotic War (Eastern Front of World War II) and did not participate in it
would be true. But both don't apply to Eisenstein. The infobox in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia seems to suggest a standard duration of the copyright term of Life + 70 years which, however, doesn't seem to be supported by the text (does the infobox need correction?). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Russian copyright is Life + 70 (for those who did not work during the Great Patriotic War) or Life + 74 (for those who did). It appears the templates are wrong. Since it looks like Eisenstein did work during the war, undelete on 1 January 2023 (74 years plus 1949, as years are counted from January 1 of the year following the year of death). The work will become PD-US-Expired on 1 January 2021. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Since we're talking about deleting this file due to not fitting this two conditions, Shouldn't this nomination apply to the majority, if not all, of Eisenstein's films uploaded here at Commons?. Mayimbú (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep because the Battleship Potemkin entered in the public domain in 1995/1996 or even in 1935. I am not a lawyer but I found the following (most of laws are on Wikisource):
- Постановление ЦИК и СНК СССР от 30.01.1925 «Об основах авторского права»
6. Авторское право за изъятиями, установленными в нижеследующих (7, 8 и 9) статьях, принадлежит автору в течение 25 лет со времени появления его произведения в свет (ст. 10). As far as I understand it means all works of co-authors (natural persons) of the film entered in the public domain in 1950 (or +15 years) if this law is applicable.
8. Срок пользования авторским правом на произведения хореографические, пантомимы, кинематографические сценарии и кино-ленты устанавливается в десять лет. As far as I understand it means the film as a whole entered in the public domain in 1935 if this law is applicable.
10. Всякое произведение считается появившимся в свет первого января того года, в течение которого оно было впервые правомерно издано соответствующим техническим способом. It means publication date by the law is 1 January 1925. - The film was released on 21 December 1925 in the Russian SFSR (Moscow) by the 1st studio of Goskino (первая фабрика Госкино). Publication date by the law: 1 January 1925. Legislation of the Russian SFSR is applicable law.
- Декрет (Постановление?) ВЦИК и СНК РСФСР от 11.10.1926
1. Авторское право, согласно постановлению Центрального Исполнительного Комитета и Совета Народных Комисаров Союза ССР от 30 января 1925 года об основах авторского права, признается за всеми авторами в отношении произведений, на которые не истекли сроки, указанные в упомянутом постановлении.
2. К судебным и иным спорам, основанным на правоотношениях между автором и другими лицами, возникших до введения в действие настоящего постановления, имеют применение ранее действовавшие законы.
3. Поскольку правоотношения, допускавшиеся действовавшими в момент возникновения их законами, недостаточно полно регулировались этими законами, то к ним применяются правила постановления Центрального Исполнительного Комитета и Совета Народных Комиссаров Союза ССР от 30 января 1925 года и настоящего постановления. It means this law is applied retroactively.
5. Авторское право на коллективные произведения, составляющие одно нераздельное целое, принадлежит всем авторам; взаимные отношения их регулируются соглашениями между ними. - Дополнительное Постановление ВЦИК и СНК РСФСР от 23 января 1928 года (Собр. Узак., 1928, N 14, ст. 112)
- Постановление ЦИК и СНК СССР от 16.05.1928 основы авторского права
10. Авторское право, за изъятиями, установленными в ст. ст. 11, 12 и 13, принадлежит автору пожизненно, а наследникам его — в пределах сроков, предусмотренных ст. 15.
11. Срок пользования авторским правом на произведения хореографические, пантомимы, кинематографические сценарии и киноленты устанавливается в десять лет.
14. Всякое произведение считается появившимся в свет 1 января того года, в течение которого оно было впервые правомерно издано соответствующим техническим способом.
15. После смерти автора авторское право переходит к его наследникам на пятнадцать лет, считая с 1 января года смерти автора, за исключением случаев, предусмотренных в ст. ст. 11, 12 и 13, когда авторское право переходит к наследникам лишь на не истекший ко дню смерти автора остаток установленного в законе срока. - Постановление ВЦИК и СНК РСФСР от 8.10.1928 об авторском праве
1. Все взаимоотношения по авторскому праву, в частности, отношения, вытекающие из издательского и постановочного договоров, регулируются настоящим Постановлением с 1 января 1929 года. 2. Вопросы об авторском гонораре, а равно все другие правоотношения и споры, возникшие из авторского права до введения в действие настоящего Постановления, разрешаются на основе ранее изданных законов. As far as I understand It means this law is NOT applied retroactively. Примечание. К издательским и постановочным договорам, заключенным после 17 июля 1928 года, применяются Постановление Центрального Исполнительного Комитета и Совета Народных Комиссаров Союза С. С. Р. от 16 мая 1928 года об Основах авторского права и настоящее Постановление. 3. Авторское право на кино-ленты признается за выпускающим их в свет кино-производственным предприятием. За автором сценария сохраняется право на получение вознаграждения за публичную демонстрацию кино-ленты. 7. Указанный в статье 14 Основ авторского права от 16 мая 1928 года срок авторского права на кинематографический сценарий исчисляется со дня первой публичной демонстрации изготовленной по такому сценарию кино-ленты. Появлением в свет кино-сценария и кино-ленты, в смысле статьи 14 Основ авторского права от 16 мая 1928 года, считается день первого публичного демонстрирования кино-ленты, в случае же, если кино-сценарий был до того опубликован в печати, то появлением его в свет считается день опубликования в упомянутом порядке. Публичной демонстрацией кино-ленты не считается так называемый общественный просмотр кино-ленты, при условии невзимания платы со зрителей. - закон «Об утверждении основ гражданского законодательства Союза ССР и союзных республик», вступивший в силу 1 мая 1962 года
Статья 482. Соавторство. Авторское право на произведение, созданное совместным трудом двух или более лиц (коллективное произведение), принадлежит соавторам совместно независимо от того, образует ли такое произведение одно неразрывное целое или состоит из частей, каждая из которых имеет также и самостоятельное значение. Каждый из соавторов сохраняет свое авторское право на созданную им часть коллективного произведения, имеющую самостоятельное значение. Часть коллективного произведения признается имеющей самостоятельное значение, если она может быть использована независимо от других частей этого произведения. Отношения между соавторами могут быть определены их соглашением. При отсутствии такого соглашения авторское право на коллективное произведение осуществляется всеми соавторами совместно, а вознаграждение распределяется между ними в порядке, предусмотренном законодательством Союза ССР и постановлениями Совета министров РСФСР.
Статья 486. Авторское право на кинофильмы, телевизионные фильмы, радио- и телевизионные передачи. Авторское право на кинофильм или телевизионный фильм принадлежит предприятию, осуществившему его съемку. Авторское право на любительский кинофильм или телевизионный фильм принадлежит его автору или соавторам. Автору сценария, композитору, режиссеру-постановщику, главному оператору, художнику-постановщику и авторам других произведений, вошедших составной частью в кинофильм или в телевизионный фильм, принадлежит авторское право каждому на свое произведение. Авторское право на радио- и телевизионные передачи принадлежит передающим их радио- и телевизионным организациям, а на произведения, включенные в эти передачи, - их авторам. It means professional film as a whole is always owned by legal entity. This legal entity is initial copyrightholder. Co-authors (natural persons) are not copyrighholders of a film as a whole.
Статья 496. Срок действия авторского права. Авторское право принадлежит автору пожизненно. После смерти автора авторское право на его произведения в пределах, установленных законодательством Союза ССР и настоящим Кодексом, переходит по наследству и действует в течение пятнадцати лет, считая с первого января года смерти автора. Пределы выплаты наследникам автора авторского вознаграждения в зависимости от суммы этого вознаграждения определяются постановлением Совета министров РСФСР. Авторское вознаграждение, выплачиваемое наследникам автора, во всяком случае не может превышать 50 процентов вознаграждения, которое причиталось бы самому автору. It means copyright term for co-authors (natural persons) of a film is life + 15 years.
Статья 497. Срок действия авторского права на коллективное произведение. Авторское право на коллективное произведение принадлежит каждому из авторов пожизненно и переходит к его наследникам. Наследники каждого соавтора пользуются авторским правом в течение пятнадцати лет, считая с первого января года его смерти. После этого принадлежавшее умершему соавтору и перешедшее к наследникам право на долю вознаграждения за использование коллективного произведения прекращается.
Статья 498. Срок действия авторского права, принадлежащего организациям. Авторское право организации действует бессрочно. В случае ее реорганизации принадлежавшее ей авторское право переходит к ее правопреемнику, а в случае ликвидации – к государству. It means all legal entities hold perpetual copyright. - Гражданский кодекс РСФСР, вступил в силу 11 июня 1964 года
Статья 486. Авторское право на кинофильмы, телевизионные фильмы, радио- и телевизионные передачи. Авторское право на кинофильм или телевизионный фильм принадлежит предприятию, осуществившему его съемку. Авторское право на любительский кинофильм или телевизионный фильм принадлежит его автору или соавторам. Автору сценария, композитору, режиссеру - постановщику, главному оператору, художнику - постановщику и авторам других произведений, вошедших составной частью в кинофильм или телевизионный фильм, принадлежит авторское право каждому на свое произведение. Авторское право на радио- и телевизионные передачи принадлежат передающим их радио- и телевизионным организациями, а на произведения, включенные в эти передачи, - их авторам. - 1973 copyright term extention from 15 to 25.
- 1992 copyright term extention from 25 to 50.
- Федеральный закон от 18.12.2006 N 231-ФЗ (ред. от 30.12.2015) "О введении в действие части четвертой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации"
Статья 6. Сроки охраны прав, предусмотренные статьями 1281, 1318, 1327 и 1331 Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации, применяются в случаях, когда пятидесятилетний срок действия авторского права или смежных прав не истек к 1 января 1993 года.
Авторское право юридических лиц, возникшее до 3 августа 1993 года, то есть до вступления в силу "Закона" Российской Федерации от 9 июля 1993 года N 5351-1 "Об авторском праве и смежных правах", прекращается по истечении семидесяти лет со дня правомерного обнародования произведения, а если оно не было обнародовано, - со дня создания произведения. К соответствующим правоотношениям по аналогии применяются правила части четвертой Кодекса. Для целей их применения такие юридические лица считаются авторами произведений. Perpetual copyright of legal entities was replaced by 70 years after publication or creation. - ПЛЕНУМ ВЕРХОВНОГО СУДА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ N 5 ПЛЕНУМ ВЫСШЕГО АРБИТРАЖНОГО СУДА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ N 29 ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ от 26 марта 2009 года О НЕКОТОРЫХ ВОПРОСАХ, ВОЗНИКШИХ В СВЯЗИ С ВВЕДЕНИЕМ В ДЕЙСТВИЕ ЧАСТИ ЧЕТВЕРТОЙ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО КОДЕКСА РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
4. На основании абзаца второго статьи 6 Вводного закона авторское право юридических лиц, возникшее до 03.08.1993, то есть до вступления в силу Закона об авторском праве, прекращается по истечении семидесяти лет со дня правомерного обнародования произведения, а если оно не было обнародовано - со дня создания произведения. К соответствующим правоотношениям по аналогии применяются правила части четвертой ГК РФ. Для целей их применения такие юридические лица считаются авторами произведений.
Руководствуясь данными законоположениями, судам следует учитывать: указание на то, что для целей применения правил части четвертой Кодекса юридические лица считаются авторами произведений, не означает признания соответствующих юридических лиц авторами, обладающими всем комплексом интеллектуальных прав на произведение, которые могут принадлежать авторам - физическим лицам, - а именно личными неимущественными правами.
Вследствие этого к юридическим лицам, приобретшим авторские права до 03.08.1993, применяются положения части четвертой ГК РФ, регулирующие осуществление, прекращение исключительного права и распоряжение им. Личные неимущественные права на соответствующие произведения принадлежат физическим лицам. Natural persons hold only moral rights. Legal entity is the only copyrightholder and it holds copyright during 70 after publication or creation. All other rules for public domain issues are NOT applicable. This is final decision and it is obligatory for all courts in future. TarzanASG +1 16:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Раз уж я подобрал эти отрывки из законов, напишу то, что я думаю о статусе фильма за все годы. Чтобы были выполнены правила статьи 6 и пленума ВС и ВАС, надо, чтобы у юрлиц был тот самый вечный копирайт. Именно вечный копирайт юрлиц был заменён на 70 лет после публикации. Я так понимаю, что он возник в 1962 году ретроактивно. Кинолента в целом перешла в общественное достояние в 1935 году, а потом её вернули и сразу под вечный копирайт. На киноленту исключительных прав у физлиц не было никогда - ни в 1925, ни потом.
Мне кажется, что тексты "Авторское право за изъятиями, установленными в нижеследующих (7, 8 и 9) статьях" и "Авторское право, за изъятиями, установленными в ст. ст. 11, 12 и 13" в постановлениях 25 и 28 годов подразумевают "Автору сценария, композитору, режиссеру-постановщику, главному оператору, художнику-постановщику и авторам других произведений, вошедших составной частью в кинофильм или в телевизионный фильм, принадлежит авторское право каждому на свое произведение" в более поздних законах, а также говорят о том, что с самого начала есть отдельные права на весь фильм, и есть права каждого автора на свою часть. Права юрлиц и права физлиц возникают отдельно и на разные сроки, и потом идут отдельно все эти десятилетия каждое по своим правилам. Сейчас же не так. Физлицо создало произведение и продало исключительные права юрлицу, но отсчёт всё равно по правилам для физлица.
Те права, которые по остаточному принципу принадлежали лично Эйзенштейну, истекли в 1950 году. По закону 1962 года права Эйзенштейна истекли в 1962 году. Поправки 73 года не касались общественного достояния. Дальше смотрим на совеременные законы и более-менее современные сроки и правила охраны АП. Современные законы говорят, что каждому принадлежат права на свою часть произведения. У Эйзенштейна вообще никогда не было исключительных прав на весь фильм. Есть фильм, есть предприятие/юрлицо и исключительные права на фильм как единое целое только у юрлица. Может ошибся в мелочах или по-крупному, но надеюсь это всех подтолкнёт к решению вопроса, чтобы годами не обсуждать одно и то же. Я так понимаю, что самое важное - это ГК 62-64 годов, а по законам 20-х, как я показал, уже всё истекло, а потом они сами были отменены в 62 году и новые законы имели обратную силу. TarzanASG +1 01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Раз уж я подобрал эти отрывки из законов, напишу то, что я думаю о статусе фильма за все годы. Чтобы были выполнены правила статьи 6 и пленума ВС и ВАС, надо, чтобы у юрлиц был тот самый вечный копирайт. Именно вечный копирайт юрлиц был заменён на 70 лет после публикации. Я так понимаю, что он возник в 1962 году ретроактивно. Кинолента в целом перешла в общественное достояние в 1935 году, а потом её вернули и сразу под вечный копирайт. На киноленту исключительных прав у физлиц не было никогда - ни в 1925, ни потом.
- Keep per TarzanASG, also see the memo by Russian Ministry of Culture [5] which says that all films made before 1946 (at time of writing) are in PD. --M5 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Kept: according to the court decision provided by TarzanASG and his arguments. --rubin16 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and unused version of lesser quality of File:Fermana FC (logo).svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and unused version of lesser quality of File:Logo of US Fiumana.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong licence. Still under copyrights by its rightful owner. As a matter of fact, the image has been redesigned by me, just using a third element (the wolf) coming from a freely-licensed image, which I have credited. The other elements are simple text & geometry, both under threshold of originality, so IMHO the supposed copyvio allegation is not well-founded. Vale93b (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Is this going to take much longer? --Vale93b (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong licence. Still under copyrights by its rightful owner. The threshold of originality in Italy is quite high, so I believe that this logo can be considered PD. Vale93b (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Is this going to take much longer? --Vale93b (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: don't think it is trivial enough. --rubin16 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and unused version of lesser quality of File:Logo of US Adriese.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary and unused version of lesser quality of File:Logo of ASD Acireale.svg. Glorious 93 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the original uploader. I tried to upload a new version of this file but nothing worked. All I can think of now is to Be aware that https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang links to this file and I will rebuild the link if needed. Michael D. Gunther (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kept: as I see, new version was uploaded. Probably, you had some cache issues if the old one was shown to you. --rubin16 (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Photo déjà publiée sur d'autres sites dont https://www.homeandshowroom.com/property/showroom-0319/ et http://www.backslashgallery.com/charlotte-charbonnel-achron (4e photo de la 2e collection) Habertix (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There is freedom of panorama in Spain only for permanently installed things. In my opinion these posters are not permanent and the photo violates poster authors' copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- In that case we can crop the file to keep just the hardware.--El Pantera (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- cropped and revdel'd. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Neither a government's work, nor a simple logo. See CopyrightPolicy Larryasou (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: As {{PD-ROC-exempt}} notes, works of state-owned enterprises are not automatically PD. The logo icon is likely above TOO in the US. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Temporarily undeleted to allow for discussion. Brianjd (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment What is it? It’s categorised as an ad, but it’s not a very good ad. All that looping is almost enough to give you a headache, and it apparently has no sound. (But File:(Marie Claire Korea) -마리25주년 스타들의 축하 릴레이 - 블랙핑크.webm also has no sound. Other videos on Commons do have sound. Am I going crazy?) Brianjd (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't care about the uploader's motivation. But using this video objectively make a free publicity for sprite. From another point of view, this video shows a copyrighted sprite logo most of the time. Is it still acceptable? Larryasou (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to be an promotional ad made by a notable band for Sprite. It wasn't uploaded for advertising purposes. It could be used as a source to grab stills of the individual band members, it can demonstrate what the band chose to advertise (ads are part of culture), and so on. Editors on wikipedias can decide whether or not to use it on the wikipedia page, if it's too much advertising, but I don't think its presence on Commons is a problem. We don't disallow product photos either. Lack of sound may be necessary if they used a copyrighted song (which they most likely did -- probably one of their own). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep it's the ONLY video ad of sprite we have. it could be overwritten to reduce the looping to only one cycle though.--Roy17 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with the commenters questioning what this is, or if it's even an ad. I do know that it is a derivative work of non-free product packaging though. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The uploader links to a New York Times overview <https://web.archive.org/web/20160313150644/http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/8094/Captain-January/overview> of the film that states “Thanks to a legal loophole, the film has lapsed into public domain” but that does not state the nature of the supposed loophole. The copyright notice in the opening credits is correctly formed, and the copyright was renewed 25 March 1964 and assigned renewal number R334811 <https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015084451122?urlappend=%3Bseq=408>. (The uploader refers to this as a “tentative renewal,” but I am not aware such a thing exists.) It seems The New York Times was in error, and even if not, the colorized version would not be in the public domain. Elyaqim (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The New York Times is a reliable source, and I don't see why it should not be trusted. Yann (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: I've also never heard of any sort of "tentative renewal", and can't find anything about it in the Compendium either. If it got published in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, we would need very strong evidence indeed to show that it in fact wasn't renewed. No such evidence is at hand, accordingly, deleted per COM:PCP. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The uploader links to a New York Times overview <https://web.archive.org/web/20160313150644/http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/8094/Captain-January/overview> of the film that states “Thanks to a legal loophole, the film has lapsed into public domain” but that does not state the nature of the supposed loophole. The copyright notice in the opening credits is correctly formed, and the copyright was renewed 25 March 1964 and assigned renewal number R334811 <https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015084451122?urlappend=%3Bseq=408>. (The uploader refers to this as a “tentative renewal,” but I am not aware such a thing exists.) It seems The New York Times was in error. Elyaqim (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The New York Times is a reliable source, and I don't see why it should not be trusted. Yann (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: I've also never heard of any sort of "tentative renewal", and can't find anything about it in the Compendium either. If it got published in the Catalog of Copyright Entries, we would need very strong evidence indeed to show that it in fact wasn't renewed. No such evidence is at hand, accordingly, deleted per COM:PCP. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong licence. Still under copyrights by its rightful owner. The threshold of originality in Italy is quite high, so I believe that this logo can be considered PD. Vale93b (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Is this going to take much longer? --Vale93b (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: No comment regarting Italian TOO, but this is likely above COM:TOO US. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to have been published before 1994 as required by the license, as her diary was first published in 2006. Buidhe (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is an identity photo made by or for the government. No author--FLLL (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming this is actually a government photograph, {{PD-PolishGov}} does not apply to photographs. Buidhe (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Added undeletion date based on en:Publication right and File:PD-US table.png. Buidhe (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- {{PD-PolishGov}} applies to any official Polish documents, including photos inside. Moreover, the photo is PD in Poland as (i) such documentary photos are considered below ToO and (ii) it was made before 1994 and there is no copyright notice on it. However, as we do not know whether it was indeed used in any Polish official document, the URAA status is unclear. As it was uploaded before 2012, I would suggest Keep per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/URAA_Statement#Guidance . Ankry (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming this is actually a government photograph, {{PD-PolishGov}} does not apply to photographs. Buidhe (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted, image description page says that the source is "identity photo" but there is no verifiable source to substantiate this. It is a normal portrait photo than may have been done by a professional photo studio, or by friend or family or by a government employee. There is no information if this photo was taken in Poland or in any other country. Thuresson (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
1) False dateː picture dated 1925-28 when Varenne was Governor of French Indochina. 2) Manhhai is not the copyright holder 3) Content of http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/files/pix_cambodia2.html is not free. Please modify erroneous items and add a valid license. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SovanDara: Thanks for the changes but I still don't see which of the 7 options of {{PD-Cambodia}} is fulfilled. And forget {{PD-France}} which is irrelevant. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, we can assume, that the photographer was dead 50 years after the photo was taken, that means in 1978. Cambodia demands 50 years from death, so I mark the photo for undeletion in 2029 – then point 1 of license is fulfilled (author is 50 years dead). Taivo (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sisowath Monivong et Alexandre Varenne.jpg. Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, we can assume, that the photographer was dead 50 years after the photo was taken, that means in 1978. Cambodia demands 50 years from death, so I mark the photo for undeletion in 2029 – then point 1 of license is fulfilled (author is 50 years dead). Taivo (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CakalangSantan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Vintage images from recent blogs. No evidence they have been first published more than 50 years ago.
- File:Sumual, Somba, and Suharto (1957).jpg
- File:Sumual speech (1957).jpg
- File:Somba and Nasution (1961).jpg
- File:Soemitro meeting (1957).jpg
- File:Signing of Permesta Charter (1957).jpgː This one has been published
- File:Permesta troops (1961).jpgː Photoː Koleksi Kel. Tumbelaka
- File:Nasution and Kawilarang (1961).jpg
- File:Hidayat, Kawilarang, Somba, and Worang.jpg
- File:Infobox collage for Permesta.jpg
- File:P-51 Mustang AUREV.jpg
- File:Permesta soliders in Tincep (1960).jpg
- File:Sumual declaring state of emergency (1957).jpg
- File:Marie Thomas (1896-1966).jpg
File:Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Hanoi.jpgFile:Visit by Haile Selassie to the Indonesian Embassy in Addis Ababa (1968).jpgFile:Construction of the Indonesian Embassy in Addis Ababa.jpgFile:Indonesian Ambassador's residence in Addis Ababa (1965).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
For No. 14–17, the license is PD-IDGov and not PD-IDOld-Art30. CakalangSantan (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
For No. 1–10 and 12, these are all national events that took place between 1957 through 1961. It is reasonable that they were first published around the time of the event rather than wait until at least 1970 to publish them. For No. 11, the source is a scan of a photograph that includes the year "1960" written on the photo. If something being published includes being printed as a photograph, then it would be reasonable for the photograph to be produced around the time that it was taken rather than 10 years later in 1970. For No. 13, this photograph is framed at STOVIA school where Thomas graduated from. The photograph is from when Thomas was younger (circa 1920). Printing this for the first time in 1970 would be quite far from when it was originally taken. CakalangSantan (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @CakalangSantan: As you say they are historical moments pictured so it's very likely that media has sent accredited known journalists for the occasion then the authors are not anonym and the copyright lasts 70 years after their death. so not out of copyright. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on the statement "media has sent accredited known journalists for the occasion"? I'd like to understand as much as possible the conditions for the determination that a copyright ends on the author's death (+ 70 years). CakalangSantan (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- You are rightː the 70 years after death are only for works of fine arts. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on the statement "media has sent accredited known journalists for the occasion"? I'd like to understand as much as possible the conditions for the determination that a copyright ends on the author's death (+ 70 years). CakalangSantan (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, no author data, no publication data, no evidence of work of Indonesian government (this includes photo 14). Photo 15 is kept, because work of Indonesian government is almost sure. Photos 16 and 17 are deleted, because there is no freedom of panorama in Ethiopia, architect and his/her death year are unknown. Taivo (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Selfie. Not a work by NoticieroDigitalcom. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. License laundering YouTube channel. SCP-2000 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
