This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded the same image with same caption as .png the day before. I uploaded this file today as .pdf hoping resolution was higher, but I see now that PDF is not a good image type to use; as thumbnail has poor resolution. Wave propagation 1 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think I've now fixed the license, which was likely technically incorrect anyway. I hit a button thinking I was about to challenge a speedy request and now I've created one instead. Please bring back a working Geograph2commons as doing a manual is a nightmare! Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Judgement Error. The file is copyrighted in Pakistan despite being government work. I know the author but I guess his permission doesn't matter. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That would depend on the contract between the designer and the post office. In some countries the designer or engraver is the copyright holder and in others it is the post office. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Judgement Error. I thought Pakistani stamps are public domain. I thought wrong. I know the author that snapped this image and could possibly get their blessing for use with wikimedia, but I guess that wouldn't matter here. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This 2011 stamps does not meet the 50 years criteria of the licence tag. The photographer is certainly not the copyright holder of the stamp. Their permission is only for the photo but being a derivative work it requires the permission of the copyright holder as well. That would be either the designer or the post office. Ww2censor (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The respective attributions have not been specified. In addition, this image was posted in March, but this page has images of those Awards since January 2020.Bradford (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradford: You have not answered my question. The file has an attribution: it is attributed to the uploader. The date it was posted is irrelevant if it has not been published elsewhere. It does not seem to be posted on the page you linked to. Brianjd (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposer of the deletion request wants to give me an email I can send him a screeshot of my hard drive with the raw of this picture (an also the other 4.000 files I took that night), the picture of the Press Pass I was holding with me, a picture of the camera I used (wich can be perfectly checked with the EXIF data in the picture) and even a copy of the emails where Spanish Academy grants to Wikimedia España and me the oportunity of taking this picture. Unluckily I can´t sent or probe the pain I felt in my back during three days after holding a heavy camera during three and a half hours for red carpet session and four hours more for Winners Session. I can understand the proposer of the deletion can not trust in a picture who can be seen (from different angules, not only mine, even some of them absolutely similar, because we were there more than 30 photographers), but I promise I was there. I could take the same picture a selfie of myself in front of the line of shooting, but this would ruin the purpose of Commmons and the value of the picture. I sincerely thank the work of the proposer, and I invite him to do the same with the rest of the 192 pictures of the same night, where he can check that the day of uploading of the pictures are distributed from the weekend of the Ceremony to the last one (but I have more to upload, with his kind permission, of course). I really do thank the work of check the legal situation of the pictures (trust me, I really do) but I don´t understand this situation. Than you. Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see the respective licenses that accredit the author, but it is something that they will not understand. Uploading an image like this just by uploading it without placing the respective licenses is not correct.Bradford (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The license is clearly placed "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." just after "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license" . in addiction to this, tell me clearly what it needs more than to grant a non Comercial Creative Commons license to my own work to share it in the Commons using the official uploader of this wiki as I already did with 2,438 files in Commons (I know, not too much, there are better contributors than me). Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So please send me the link to "an image like this" who request more information about license than "an image not like this". Thank you very much in advance Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most curious thing is that with this type of licenses, many are accredited as [1], [2] and [3]. This says a lot, since currently with photographs like this it is difficult to verify the veracity of the permits or who actually took the photo.Bradford (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a retorical question but if this file has the same metadata (camera and serial number as others hundreds of photos of this awards taken in 2019 e 2020) and you have doubts about this files, why there cant be doubts about one file of yours without metadata like File:User Bradford.jpg? Why, using your standards, we must believe that this file is yours and that the hundreds of files with the same metadata, camera serial number, author and license clearly marked, are copyright violations? Thanks. Tm (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are talking about a photograph about some awards, not a selfie of a user. Is that related to you? In addition, the one who appears in the photograph is a recognized singer. Furthermore, I highly doubt that I can find my photo on websites other than Wikipedia or social media.Bradford (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I´am might be making some confusion about what you mean in you first phrase but File:User Bradford.jpg was uploaded by you, categorized by you in Category:Wikipedians and it has the name "User Bradford" not "User Tm" so i dont see how this is related with me. But this is secondary as you did not answer my question on why should we should trust that you are the author and the depicted person, given that it has no metadata and, using the same standards that you use on the image of Pablo Alborán , your image "does not have attributions regarding its author or where it was extracted from" (no metadata and "The respective attributions have not been specified"). Also you havent shown any link that shows this image outside of Wikimedia projects (or any of the other 192 images on Category:Premios Goya 2020). And no, similar images do not count, as this important spanish event has dozens of photojournalists and thousands of similar images. Tm (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradford: I still don´t know what "a picture like this" means. I think you want to make a point here about something, but the deletion of this picture will not make this point works, as long as there is no doubt of I am the author of the picture but there is a lot of doubts that you can probe the opposite. Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stay on topic here? @Bradford: This file says it is the own work of the uploader. Many other files also say they are the own work of the uploader, and we keep them if there is no reasonable doubt. If you have reasonable doubt here, you need to explain why; otherwise I intend to close this DR early.
As I said above, this file has an attribution. It has a valid licence notice. It has metadata. As far as we know, it has not been published anywhere else. So, as far as we can tell, there is no reasonable doubt here. Brianjd (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way and just in case this deletion successes , I just uploaded a second picture of the same singer in the same Red Carpet of the same Award Ceremony. I would thank, now we now each other, that if you again have doubts of the legal property of the picture, go to my discussion page and I kindly will send you all the things I offered before Pablo Alborán - Cantante EspañolPedro J Pacheco (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was it decided that users who are not administrators can close cases like this? The image does not have the respective attributions, and I do not see a clear reason to close. I have already given my point of view, they must wait for more users to participate.Bradford (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there, please, any possibility that you listen to my arguments? Please, make the effort, I will really thank you (I repeat because you are not answering to anything I tell you, and you are not answering to anything the other people is telling you. And I think it is, sorry, a really big lack of respect) Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted: per nomination, medium to low quality image, without categories, no coordinates, the uploader left the project in 2013, unlikely to be located: not useful. --Strakhov (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Metadata says Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011. w:Spreadtrum redirects to w:Unisoc and seems to be a company producing parts of mobile phones. I note that the camera model indicated in the metadata seems to be a mobile phone. I'm guessing that Spreadtrum claims copyright to some software in the mobile phone, possibly to Software Version v1.1.0 which is listed as Software used in the metadata. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Luitenant-ter-zee 2e klasse Michiel Smits (1852-1882) (Ridder Militaire Willems-Orde 1875) verdronk bij de scheepsramp met de Zr.Ms. Adder. De 29 jarige Smits was bij zijn overlijden ongehuwd. Akte BS . Dit portret is opgenomen in het boek van P.H.K. van Schendel, De Nederlandsche Ridderorden. P. H. K. van Schendel. De Militaire Willemsorde (Verzameling portretten van ridders). Edam 1891. Door de leeftijd van foto zit deze binnen het publieke domein.
Abigaïl47, u noemt de ongehuwd overleden Michiel Smits naaste familie. Verre familie is hier een betere term. Mvg, Lidewij (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dat een foto public domain is, moet je niet opvatten als "de afgebeelde persoon was publiek bezit". Het betekent enkel dat er op de afbeelding geen rechten meer zitten. Dat is-en-blijft zo, en de afbeelding hoeft daarom ook niet verwijderd te worden. Edoderoo (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michiel Smits is de broer van mijn overgrootvader. Wij hebben een kleine familie. Voor de foto in het boek over de MWO is toestemming gevraagd, die hebben ze gegeven, maar dat ging niet van harte. Mijn betovergrootouders dachten dat het boek op een dag verouderd zou zijn en in de vergetelheid zou raken, dus dat het van tijdelijke aard zou zijn en slechts voor de liefhebber. Ook koste het boek geld. Hij zou dan tussen andere staan die ook een MWO hebben. Niemand wist toen dat er ooit een internet zou komen. Als hij gewoon oud was geworden met een gezin dan was het misschien geen probleem geweest. Maar omdat hij bij een ramp is omgekomen ligt dit allemaal veel gevoeliger. Denk je eens in dat er een galerij met foto `s van de overledenen van de MH17 ramp zou zijn. Iedereen begrijpt dat dat niet kan voor de nabestaanden ook niet over 100 jaar. Dat is bij de ramp met de Adder niet anders. Hierbij vraag ik om mijn gevoelens en die van mijn familie te respecteren en de file te verwijderen van commonswiki.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Beste Abigaïl47, om in herhaling te vallen heeft geen enkele zin.
Om de Adder te gedenken is een andere foto van deze M. Smits gebruikt. In literatuur over de Titanic staan ook foto's. Ik zou niet weten waarom er op een moment geen gedenkboek over de MH17 met foto's zou kunnen verschijnen. De privacywet gaat over levende personen. Groet, Lidewij (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er is geen ander foto van Michiel Smits gebruikt in het artikel over de ramp met de Adder. Controleer dit gerust op de wikipedia pagina hierover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigaïl47 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er zijn genoeg zwaarwegende redenen te bedenken om geen foto`s te publiceren van geliefde personen na hun overlijden in het publieke domein. Volgens mij kan Lidewij dat zelf ook wel bedenken. Misschien kent ze zelf wel een geliefd overleden persoon waarvan ze geen foto`s op het internet heeft gepubliceerd en ook niet wil gaan doen om de juiste redenen. Anders kent ze misschien mensen in haar omgeving die haar dit kunnen uitleggen.
Mensen hebben het recht om vergeten te worden, ook op het internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigaïl47 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Gelukkig zijn er weinig mensen geïnteresseerd in een gesprek over mijn overleden familielid.[reply]
Abigaïl47, mijn hobby is genealogie en geschiedenis. Ik ben hier actief omdat ik voor vrije kennis en documentatie ben. Als genealoog ben ik juist actief, zodat mensen niet vergeten zullen worden. Binnen onze familie worden oa. oude foto's aan het archief gegeven. Het artikel over de Adder staat op mijn volglijst, alle wijzigingen komen bij mij langs. De foto van Michiel Smits (1852-1882) is hier opgenomen omdat hij op 22 jarige leeftijd de Ridder Militaire Willems-Orde kreeg en daarom was opgenomen in het boek van P.H.K. van Schendel, De Nederlandsche Ridderorden. 1891. Mvg, Lidewij (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abigaïl47, na het uploaden (het vrijgeven) behoord de foto aan de gemeenschap van Commons. De moderatoren beheren hier. Abigaïl47, ik kan het me juist niet voorstellen. Het gaat over een ver familielid. Wanneer het om directe familie, zoals een kind of ouder, zou gaan kan ik me er nog iets bij voorstellen. De foto zit en blijft in het publieke domein, of hij nu in Commens staat op niet. Mvg, Lidewij (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unused and uncategorised file. Looks like not notable organization/company. Advertisement? Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image appears to be an advertisement for Hotel Loma Real. Author and license could not be verified because the source image was not found at the source web link. Possible copyright violation. GeoWriter (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No indication this image is in the Creative Commons. From the source's website's copyright page: " All images and text copyright to their owners and used under the fair use copyright law, section 107. All images and text are thought to be public domain and found through various free sources on the internet and publications". So it's public domain, but also copyrighted? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These images should be evaluated; costumes and cosplay can be unclear as far as copyright goes but actual models or statues of fictional characters or actual persons are likely to be copyrighted.
Question. "but actual models or statues of fictional characters or actual persons are likely to be copyrighted". What is the status of the Madame Tussaud figures, then? There are a lot of photos on Commons that people took in the museums of the wax figures. I think the same should apply for the Bruce Lee wax figure at Comic Con. Otherwise all wax figures should be nominated for deletion as well. Teemeah (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. The Mandame Tussaud figures are allowed because the photos were taken in the United Kingdom, where it is allowed to publish photos of copyrighted 3-dimensional artwork in any public place, see Commons:FOP #United Kingdom. But Comic Con International is in the United States, where the rules are more restrictive, see Commons:FOP #United States. -- Olaf Studt (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I believe that the previous DR was closed incorrectly. All of the images listed above and four that I have added show copyrighted characters or creations that have copyrights as sculpture. None of them are utilitarian and therefore they must be treated exactly as if they were sculptures of humans, animals, or abstract objects.
To say that the robot "Geoff Peterson" is the actual robot does not change the fact that it is itself a copyrighted sculpture.
I would delete any image that shows a copyrighted sculpture or other creation. That includes most masks, but not humans wearing costumes that do not include masks. Note also that it does not matter whether the sculpture is original or a copy of a cartoon or movie character -- either way it has a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making any sweeping generalizations about Jim's intentions to images not on this list, I worked only with the nominated images. The following are my votes:
DeleteFile:Al_FUll_Metal.jpg Description: English: Description reads: "A statue of Al from Full Metal Alchemist on the exhibit floor at the 2010 Comic Con in San Diego."
KeepFile:Brian Pulido at SDCC 2010.jpg is a photo of a man and woman. The woman is in cosplay costume. I can tell this is a human not a statue because she has a slight double chin and you can see her own hair under the edge of the wig. No RP fan would create a statue with black hair wearing a white wig, or permit the double chin, nor slight overlap of the breasts to occur. Image is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinguino/4929529983/ where it has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license.
KeepFile:Brian Pulido at SDCC 2010 2.jpg photo of same man, same woman. Here you can see her eyes to the side, no more double chin. So she is obviously alive although wearing those cat-eye contact lenses. image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinguino/4929529751/, where it has Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. Notice user picture at flickr is of same person but without the white hair and contact lenses.
KeepFile:Comic-Con 2010 - Stan Smith of American Dad (4878075505).jpg The person depicted is a living individual, not a statue. Notice the bad fit of the fake chin and the movement on the flag as well as the strange objects in his right hand. In my opinion, the stuff around him is de minimus to the fan wearing a costume.
KeepFile:Comic-Con 2010 - Superman and the Tusken Raiders (4878683964).jpg The wierdly garbed figures are humans; observe their convention badges which are clearly visible in this picture. Statues do not wear convention badges; being non-living they are not required to pay to get in. Source is correct, license at source is 2.0 Generic.
DeleteFile:FunKo booth (4840256154).jpg, Bobble head statue (as above) at left, storm trooper statue at right. Notice both on slight pedestals.
DeleteFile:Geoff Peterson.jpg Obviously a statue, no room for a human neck in there. No convention badge. Also notice CBS logo directly over his crest.
I'll go with you on those I struck out above -- I simply assumed the woman was wax. I might argue about whether the fake chin actually has its own copyright, but I'll pass it for now.
There's no reason why the Bruce Lee figure does not have a copyright -- the license you quote covers only the image, not the sculpture. The Tusken masks are not utilitarian and therefore have a copyright -- perhaps belonging to Star Wars, but also perhaps belonging to the creator of these -- either way they are covered. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you on the Bruce Lee statue, merely noting how it was licensed at flickr. The "Tusken" raiders outfits are homemade, there are videos online showing how to do it. Even so, those three in the outfits are human as you can see from the badges. The question was (as I understood it), which of these are statues and which are cosplay. The Tuskens are cosplay because they are real people inside the outfits which they most likely made. 50.45.171.19415:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't understand the rules. Cosplay is not exempt from any copyright rule which might apply. Any mask, whether it is cosplay or not, has a copyright. This is true whether or not it is copied from a copyrighted mask. We know that these are Star Wars' Tuskens, but even if they were created out of the imagination of the three humans inside them, they would have a copyright. Without permission from the copyright holder, we cannot keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's the case. Clothing as being worn by people is almost always "utilitarian" or "functional" under United States copyright law. A copyrighted design (a Picasso painting or whatever) might be printed on the clothing, which is a different thing, but clothing items insofar as they serve their purpose of covering the body are not generally copyrightable. AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the linked items from this:
"The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances (or at least certain features of the costume might be copyrightable), subject to a complicated legal analysis to determine whether the aesthetic aspects of the costume are "separable" from the costume's role as an article of clothing (the utilitarian aspects). Some information on the separability test can be found at [4]." [from Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay]
While a mask that protects one from the sun or the cold would certainly be utilitarian, the Tusken masks are far from useful -- in fact, with their narrow range of vision, they are just the opposite. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Geoff Peterson -- Unfortunately, the "delete Geoff Peterson" arguments seem to turn on subtle points of metaphysics or philosophy, rather than what is most directly relevant to United States copyright law... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not a robot, as it is entirely manually controlled, but even it were, so what? Since it is not utilitarian, and, in particular, the skull is not utilitarian, the skull has a copyright just like any other sculpture. Robots are not exempt from copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Gallery for a couple of not notable firefighters? Probably I am missing something again. Maybe I should change my eye-glasses... E4024 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Speedy Keep First why are hundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text instead of a single one? Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they have been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth at the time i write this there is an flickr account with around 3200 images and with Creative Commons license compatible with Commons, seventh i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, eighth files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Author request, image was taken at a professional sporting event where the ticket terms and conditions allow personal use only. It was an error to originally be on Flickr as a Creative Commons image. Litigation from the NFL is possible if this is not removed. Keithallisonphoto (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep First why, six months after the fact that thehundreds of open deletion requests of images of the same subject, photographer, license and deletion request text were all kept, again the opening of this deletion request. And, if we believe on this ticket story, the ticket terms are not laws or an contract and they cannot enforce an copyright agreement or copyright restriction. This is called copyfraud and theft as only the copyright holder can license his work and not be forcefully expropriated by anyone else.
Second Creative Commons are irrevocable, third this files are in scope, fourth they have zero personality rights problems, fifth they were been available on flickr for years and so there are in Commons, sixth i suspect many of this images are in use, files are here for years, seventh files were with free licenses for years (here and in flickr) and so there is not a single reason to this author request. Tm (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm: Your message is so long that it’s hard to find the part that matters. The only new part is:
if we believe on this ticket story, the ticket terms are not laws or an contract and they cannot enforce an copyright agreement or copyright restriction. This is called copyfraud and theft as only the copyright holder can license his work and not be forcefully expropriated by anyone else.
All my rationale matters, as nothing has changed since the first deletion request. When i spoke of that terms are not contracts and that terms cannot steal any copyright, i was talking of the United States, where this image was taken so the possible situation in Germany is irrelevant to this case. Tm (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tm: I think it is reasonable to assume that people will read the previous nomination, including the comments you made there. In that context, only the part I quoted matters.
The metadata of this image seems to indicate strongly that it was taken at a Panthers vs. Redskins game on 10/14/18. I'm not sure what tickets to a game would have such a clause. SecretName101 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Violation of ticket rules has nothing to do with the licensing. Unless the ticket terms require the attendee to assign copyright on photos taken to the NFL, this file is properly licensed by the sole copyright holder. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image appears on MGMC social media sites, their website, and in at least one Newspaper article predating it's appearance here. If the uploader verifies their account, so we know that they have permission to freely license the image, we should keep it. Until then, there is no way to be sure that the uploader had the right to release it. BigrTex (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Even though I think this is a really valuable contribution for Commons, I must assume that this file cannot be published under a free Creative Commons license. The GDR does not exist anymore but this does not mean that anything produced by state-run companies is in the public domain or whatsoever. Maybe the photographs in this image can be removed so that we can use {{PD-text}} instead. By now this file has severe copyright issues. Mosbatho (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Even though I think this is a really valuable contribution for Commons, I must assume that this file cannot be published under a free Creative Commons license. The GDR does not exist anymore but this does not mean that anything produced by state-run companies is in the public domain or whatsoever. Maybe the photographs in this image can be removed so that we can use {{PD-text}} instead. By now this file has severe copyright issues. Mosbatho (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Even though I think this is a really valuable contribution for Commons, I must assume that this file cannot be published under a free Creative Commons license as it is done. The GDR does not exist anymore but this does not mean that anything produced by state-run companies from there, is in the public domain or whatsoever. Maybe the photographs in this image can be removed so that we can use {{PD-text}} instead. By now this file has severe copyright issues but is there any overlap with Commons:Deutsche Fotothek? Maybe the photograph used in this file has already been uploaded during this FOTOTHEK cooperation? Mosbatho (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This looks to be a glamour photo. The description refers to the "Bruno" shots, which possibly refers to Bruno Oliviero, a photographer who did a lot of these kinds of photos. We need the license to come from the photographer, not the model. FredWalsh (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file is obsolete. I have already upload by mistake the exact same image with a different tile. Please check out "File:The ruins of the Odeon of Pericles on March 12, 2020.jpg" and compare. George E. Koronaios (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The theater company does not own the rights to these headshots. The Sutton Foster photo, for example, is credited to Laura Marie Duncan. I think the production stills from the same Flickr account are fine.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Adding these production stills to the request, since some of the EXIF data shows they're taken by 3rd party photographers and there's no evidence that the theater owns the rights.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@AFBorchert: points out that Sous le Second Empire une stèle fut érigée dans l’enceinte du fortin abritant l’administrateur du Cercle du Rio Nunez, à Boké, pour rappeler à tous cet exploit.
As the Second Empire ended in 1870, this is in the public domain.
I have undeleted and re-created this DR to consider this argument - but in my view FOP for Guinea is pretty clear
Keep This is a f'up to this discussion. FOP does not matter when the depicted work is no longer protected by copyright. These plaques belong to a monument which was erected during the Second French Empire, i.e. at some time between 1852 and 1870. Quote from [5]:
Sous le Second Empire une stèle fut érigée dans l’enceinte du fortin abritant l’administrateur du Cercle du Rio Nunez, à Boké, pour rappeler à tous cet exploit.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KEEP - The nominator- User:A1Cafel states, "supports the public domain" on their user page.
This work IS public domain. Sign is made by the Baltimore City Health Department (a public agency). See "coronavirus.baltimorecity.gov" on this sign. This is public artwork in the public domain. FoP for the United States relates to copyrighted works, not public domain works.
This is not the first time that this user has nominated a file for deletion that was not supported by the facts. User should read the "Pubic Domain" pages to get a better understanding of PD in the United States, which may be different than in Hong Kong.
@Tibet Nation: Instead of pointing us to “‘Pubic Domain’ pages”, how about you explain why the sign is in the public domain? Remember that only federal government works are automatically in the public domain; works by other levels of government need some other reason, like being too old or too simple. I saw no indication on the website that the sign is public domain, or even under a free licence. Brianjd (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Even though I think this is a really valuable contribution for Commons, I must assume that this file cannot be published under a free Creative Commons license. The GDR does not exist anymore but this does not mean that anything produced by state-run companies is in the public domain or whatsoever. Maybe the photographs in this image can be removed so that we can use {{PD-text}} instead. By now this file has severe copyright issues. Mosbatho (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Likely a copyright violation since this is a corporate logo. Generally these are not owned by the uploader, and are unlikely to be their own work Timtrent (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the person who has the copyrights to upload the logo herself. Perhaps you could direct me somewhere where I can have her confirm she has the copyrights? Ladrodibiciclette (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not PD-US because of URAA; 1945 + 70 year rule meant it was still copyright on the URAA date and is copyrighted in the US until 2040 at least. Buidhe (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image in the Public Domain in the Netherlands, as Rudolf Breslauer died in 1945. A general discussion was held in 2014, with the conclusion: "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" (link). The matter was also discussed in the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, and the chair of the Board of WMF also issued a statement on the issue, here. Vysotsky (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to COM:PD, "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." I looked at the Netherlands law and it appears that it had a 70 year term in 1996, so the work is unlikely to be free in the US. Buidhe (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This work is perfect public domain. It's more than 70 years ago created and the creator was murdered more than 70 years ago. Sad to argue that you believe there is still a rightholder that could apply for unclear URAA rules. He was murdered, with his wife and his two little sons Stefan en Mischa more than 70 years ago. The URAA was a trade deal, this is documentation about the Holocaust and has nothing to do with movie companies or publishers that could argue they still have rights due to URAA. If you really believe that images of the Holocaust are still copyrighted in the US and should be deleted I would like to see a legal argument from the Wikimedia Foundation as those images are not just images, but proof and world heritage document about a genocide that took place 70 years ago. I strongly believe we shouldn't delete material unless there is a real legal issue here. --Hannolans (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that neither of these !votes address the real issue according to COM:Licensing, whether the work is free in the US. I suspect that the photographer probably had relatives who survived and inherited his copyright. Whether they intend to enforce it is another question, but COM:PRP states clearly that "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work." and "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." are not valid reasons for keeping an image. If there was a release from the copyright owner stating that they wished to renounce their rights to US copyright, I would withdraw this deletion request. Buidhe (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
DR started to verify claimed 'own work': rather small-sized format, and missing EXIF data, but also potentially personality right issues, hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No camera data on Exif. Maximum resolutions is only 1280px. Maybe a copyright violation of the original photographer. This user uploaded only one file. This person is a leader of BJP in Kerala and it is not difficult to get another good picture of this person with all exif data. In the previous discussion it is Kept and say with concent and no otrs or any email proof etc. A copyright violation will create serious issues there. So better to delete to avoid a copyright violation. Ranjithsiji (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation Timtrent (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the user in question is no longer active, but no prior uses of this image have been found on other websites, so it is very unlikely to be a copyvio. --RaviC (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no longer active users may commit copyright violations, but the Wayback Machine only records this page as having been first archived in 2020, four years after the upload here. The OneIndia site also seems to have copied images of other politicians from websites without authorisation, as a few cursory reverse image searches [11][12] on Google seem to indicate. --RaviC (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, the photo was uploaded in 2016 and has since then been slightly cropped. The most likely explanation is that oneidia.com simply lifted the cropped version from subject's Wikipedia article. Thuresson (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The author is given as "D. Hausner" but the license was issued by User:Norum, whose Wikipedia userpage does not indicate they are D. Hausner. The user also appears to have a history of copyright violations on Wikipedia and is now banned. Unless there is something I’ve missed, this appears to be a copyright violation. FredWalsh (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright Infringement. Image is owned by S.R.Keig Ltd (Isle of Man) and no permission authorized from the owner for use of the photograph. Agljones (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Agljones: Do you know who the photographer was? And when (s)he died? Owning a photograph does not automatically men that you hold the copyright. The ship sank in 1940 so the photo must be taken in 1940 or earlier. The photo is licensed with {{PD-UK-unknown}} and according to that a photo is PD if published more than 70 years ago. --MGA73 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer may have been from the Keig family as S.R. Keig was a family photographic firm. This image is from a postcard which has printed on the reverse "Photo S.R. Keig Ltd" and also states that the postcard is Designed and Printed by Motor-in-Man Publications Ltd. The incorporation day for Motor-in-Man Publications Ltd is the 4th July 1973 and the postcard published sometime after this date. This image may have been scanned directly from a publication titled "Life and Times of the Steam Packet" which was published in 1988. Images from S.R. Keig Ltd are now owned by a publishing company. The licence may not apply as it has been published after 1st January 1950 and is a copyright infringement. Agljones (Agljones17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The photograph must have been taken before 1940. The photographer is unknown. The photo was first published at the earliest in 1973. Therefore it will not enter public domain until 2043. The onus is on the someone to establish is any of these facts are incorrect otherwise we should delete. My only reservation is that this is based on UK law but photograph was clearly taken in the Isle of Man which is not part of the UK. I have no idea of Isle of Man copyright law. Is it a fair assumption that it is in line with the UK?--Headlock0225 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Timtrent These Files are my own and not in violation of any Copyrights, i designed the logos and Websites Hamis Kiggundu and his group of companies and i am still working on many projects of his and other Organizations and individuals, whose pages i also intend to create and use the same pictures here. I believe i just need better guidance to become a better contributor here. I look forward to your guidance.
Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not mine. I have no jurisdiction here. I just nominated them. If you can assert and verify your ownership of the copyright in a manner suitable for the folk on Commons then they will remain, or, if deleted, may be re-uploaded. Timtrent (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for you edits and guidance on my Articles. How best can i prove Full ownership and undisputed copyright over them them please? Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). THsi is a vanity picture of the uploader.Nice beach, nice setting, and out of scope anyway
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I initially tagged this as {{Npd}} because Piqsels is an unreliable source that takes Unsplash and Pixabay, including newer images that have custom licenses that don’t allow distribution on other stock photo sources.
@Speravir: I've seen enough Piqsels images to conclude that:
Piqsels does not publish its own images, but rather, skims photographs from other royalty free sites
Its bot doesn't distinguish between CC-Zero and proprietary licenses. It essentially acts as a license laundering site.
Since Piqsels doesn't provide any useful source information on the photographs posted there, specifically photographer and prior publishing, the license status isn't verifiable. I think the reasonable thing to do would be to blacklist Piqsels. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen enough from Piqsels to conclude that they are an unreliable source. However, since the photo is from 2014, it's old enough to predate both Pixabay and Unsplash's move to proprietary licenses. I haven't been able to find this image on any of the common royalty-free sites or Flickr, though. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Declined draft in English WP. Previous DR was futile, because, IMHO of course, had to be opened on "scope" basis. BTW she is not a Wikipedian. See her cat and global contributions... E4024 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this photo she is advertising fr:Nuxe cosmetics. Can we keep it for illustrating the article about the brand or in this case this picture would be treated as a copyright violation? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The claims by 2005biggar that these photos are their own work do not appear to be trustworthy. Several images were directly lifted from [ http://www.andes.org.uk/] (see File:El Ermitaño summit.jpg, File:El-toro.jpg, File:Bolivar-from-colon.jpg, and File:Cerro Olivares from the north.jpg). This DR collects all uploads by 2005biggar which I did not find immediately on the web. The EXIF data vary widely. The cameras named in the EXIF data include Panasonic DMC-TZ70, Canon PowerShot A1300, and FinePix S9600. Some have no EXIF data.
Based on their edit history on enwiki, it seems like 2005biggar is John Biggar, apparently the owner of [ http://www.andes.org.uk/]. The EXIF thing is worrisome. I've asked them on their enwiki talk page to comment on where their files come from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have said on enwiki that they have used several cameras over the years, but also that some of the photos were made by others with their camera(s). I've asked for a list of all these third-party photos, as their licencing is questionable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty frustrated with this issue. I got an email from Valeria Domínguez requesting "original" versions of photos but I am not entirely sure what that means, especially, since as I've said a couple of times, some of these photos are old enough to have been taken on a film camera (e.g. in this thread Solo, Ramada, Mesa, Bonete, Sierra Nevada were all taken on non-digital cameras between 1997 and 2004). In any case when I tried to reply to the email from Valeria Domínguez with photos attached it just got bounced back to me. If you need confirmation that I own and run www.andes.org.uk I can put a message on any page on that website for yourselves. If you don't want experts (in their field) to contribute to Wikipedia I can go elsewhere, I've certainly given up for now.2005biggar (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)2005biggar[reply]
@2005biggar: It doesn't sound like that email from Valeria Domínguez has anything to do with Wikimedia. That said, it looks like most of the problem here is resolved (apart from the identification of the photos that were made by someone else). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That sounds a bit more positive. I reviewed all the photos I've uploaded in the last few days and all were taken by me on my cameras with one exception, a photo of Yayamari from the east that was taken by me on my wifes camera (I'd borrowed it, an Olympus Mu, for that expedition in 2006 when I only had a heavy film SLR myself). I have checked as many older uploads as I can remember, but basically I'm fully aware of copyright issues.2005biggar (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a shame that AFBorchert has removed some of my work from the last few days and stated that I have "a history of uploading copyvios" just because I have used 4 different cameras in the last 20 years. The file he refers to in that history Pucahuirca from Alpamayo is also one of my photos. That statement about copyvios is basically slanderous and he should apologise and re-instate my work. In the meantime he has put me off contributing or donating any more to Wikipedia for the time being.2005biggar (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 2005biggar, I did not remove any of your work – I just filed deletion requests. I understand your frustration but please understand that we have to delete thousands of copyvios per day. At the beginning I noticed your upload of File:El-toro.jpg because a file under this name was uploaded and deleted before at Commons. This popped up on my watchlist and I moved on to a routine check and I found that photo immediately at [16] where it is not released under a free license. Hence, I filed it for speedy deletion and went through your other uploads which come from different cameras – which is very suspicious. Next I checked your contributions at en:wp and noticed that multiple of your uploads were deleted before you started at Commons. There is a simple rule at Commons: Whenever you upload something which has been published before, you need to process it through our support team (you are doing it right now) or you should release the photos at the original site under a free license. We do this to protect the copyright of the photographers and to protect reusers of our media archive. This approach hits occasionally users who are actually uploading their own works. On base of the informations provided by you to us and thanks to the photo of the slide I believe you. Please take my apologies that I characterized your claims as not trustworthy. I have no doubt that all photos will be restored as soon as this is resolved. I recommend to reply to the support team with a pointer to your recent upload of the slide. Thanks for your patience and we appreciate your contributions. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2005biggar: OTRS always request the original file to check EXIF if there are some doubts about authorship. Of course, that's not possible in case of old cameras, but to know that you must tell it before. I have no clue how old the files were or any of the problems here since you write saying "the photos are mine" and not include a link to this discussion, to the discussion in enWP or even the name of the files. Commons it's an independent project. We've received dozens (at least) of emails daily. With over 60 millions of files in Commons, it's impossible to guess or to assist you in the right manner without a calm and proper explanation of the problems. I understand you feel frustrated, but please understand we can't guess. We do the best we can with the little information we have. Sorry about the inconvenience. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the reason to use OTRS it's to preserve the identity and the privacy of all the person involved. It's not right to name someone from OTRS, especially by name and surname.
The ticket doesn't include the deleted files, so I can't proceed in that way, but I can accept the listed in the ticket, as I mention in my previous comments. So I will. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This copper relief shows a German activist for blind people who died in 1945. It was apparently made for an association for blind people which he founded, is kept indoors and was most likely made after the end of World War II. There is no artist given, just a "Kupfer Gilde Hamburg", which might be a group of artists.
To be able to keep the photograph of this work, we need to be sure that the work is free, either because it is under a free license or because the artist died at least 70 years ago. Currently I don't see any assurance that the relief is under a free license, and there is no artist named. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle, unless it can be shown in a satisfactory manner that the work is indeed free. Rosenzweigτ17:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Der Blinden- und Sehbehindertenverband Württemberg e.V. ist Eigentümer des Kupferreliefs mit dem Portrait von Rudolf Kraemer. Die Firma Kupfer Gilde aus Hamburg ließ in den 70er/80er Jahre die Kupferreliefs fertigen. Auf der Rückseite des Reliefs befindet sich eine Urkunde. Es hing mehrere Jahrzehnte im Rudolf-Kraemer-Haus des Blinden- und Sehbehindertenverband Württemberg e.V. in Bad Liebenzell. Nach dessen Schließung kam es in die Verbandsgeschäftsstelle des Blinden- und Sehbehindertenverband Württemberg e.V. nach Stuttgart. Seitdem hängt es in den Räumen der Geschäftsstelle. --BSV Württemberg e.V. (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is a big mistake, the Flag of the Federation is the Flag of Arab Revolt led by the Hashemites againt the Ottomans. There is here references about the 7th article of the Union that precises the adoption of the arab revolt flag[1][2].
Keep: This file is widely used, from af:Vlag van Irak to zh:冷戰時期事件發生時間表. Commons' policy, expressed in COM:NPOV is that we leave individual Wikipedias to decide whether a file is sufficiently accurate for their purposes, or in this case which size of triangle they prefer. If they all stop using this file, then we can consider deleting it from Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just realised that the flags also differ in the order of the stripes. Still a matter for individual projects, but it's at least obvious that there is a correct answer. --bjh21 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this one should be name "Flag of the Arab Federation". The Other is just an exact copy of the flag of Palestine. I believe it should be merged or called flag of palestine-2 or so--باسم (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@باسم: @علاء: Since I am the one who brought up the issue, I will make clear here that I have no ill intention or anything with Ashoola's references. I think he (let's assume Ashoola is male) has a good point as it is really indeed the proposed federation intended to use the Flag of the Arab Revolt (and also the early Flag of the Kingdom of Hejaz). However, like bjh21 pointed out before, the Pan-Arab flags derived from the Revolt flag have a lot of variants whether in the order of the stripes, flag ratio or size of red triangle. The Flag of Palestine, for example, has two different versions, one with larger triangle like the Flag of Jordan while the other is shorter, and both versions are still used by the Palestinians since there is no any regulation to define what constitute as "official design". Same with the Flag of the Arab Federation, there is no any reference so far that said whether the flag was exactly like the Flag of the Arab Revolt in ratio or size of red triangle, only the order of the stripes was known. It is safe to assume that the Federation flag was the Revolt flag, but as long as Ashoola and other users can not provide specific details of the flag used in 1956, the matter should not be concluded on Wikimedia, but rather on Wikipedia first. As long as there is no adequate or sufficient references about the details, I think we should keep the file as it is. However, I personally believe if there are sufficient references provided in the future that the two flags were indeed actually a same flag, I will vote for the deletion of the Federation flag in favor of the existing Revolt flag. --Yong-in (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yong-in, the difference between the two flags is the location of the white stripe. In the Arab revolt flag the white stripe is at the bottom, as indicated by previous comments. It looks like this flag was first used as a flag for Transjordan between 1921 and 1928. So, maybe a name along these lines could be accepted. Cheers, Amr ibnu Kulthoum عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: I am aware of the different locations of the white stripe. That is why I said before that "only the order of the stripes was known." We must also take account of the red triangle and flag ratio which never detailed in the case of the Federation flag. --Yong-in (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: I'm fine with that as long as others also agreed with that. The errors in Wikipedia page of "Flag of the Arab Federation" have been neglected too long, since there is no specific flag rather than the flag of the Arab Revolt which already has its own page, so we all need to be decisive right now. Shukran. --Yong-in (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is obvious that the current file is not correct and has no sources. The first user who uploaded it took it from another Wikipedia project years ago without checking accuracy of the information. But I still don't understand why Yong-in persists on reverting as it is clear that the current version is not the good one. Even if we are not sure of the ratio and size, it is better than putting a wrongful information --Ashoola (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashoola: Yes, I understand. But even though any of us is right in regard of certain information, we are not entitled to change something that has impact across the wiki communities by our own decision. I am aware you are having a dispute with other users too in Wikipedia page of Flag of the Arab Federation and look, they reverted your edits too. That's not because your information is wrong, but how you single-handedly changed the existing information without discussions with others. Others may have different information than us. We are familiar with this concept, right? We call it "shura" in Arabic or "musyawarah" in Indonesian. So, even if you are right, we must agreeing first in collective manner. That's the way of our online community whether in Wikipedia or Wikimedia, or other Wiki sister projects. Salam. --Yong-in (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
, Wunsch der Person, die sie hochgeladen hat Plutowiki (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: That would depend on the contract between the designer and the post office. In some countries the designer or engraver is the copyright holder and in others it is the post office. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete: This 2011 stamps does not meet the 50 years criteria of the licence tag. The photographer is certainly not the copyright holder of the stamp. Their permission is only for the photo but being a derivative work it requires the permission of the copyright holder as well. That would be either the designer or the post office. Ww2censor (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep Sloppy nomination, as this was not "extracted from" somewhere, but was taken by a Canon EOS 5D Mark III from Wikimedia Spain photo pool with serial number 153024000343, the same camera that is used by several other users that are supported by Wikimedia Spain, the uploader (@Pedro J Pacheco: is marked clearly as the author, the files were created with the support of Wikimedia España, as were [[the 2019 Premios Goya 2019 made with the support of Wikimedia España, by the same user, Pedro J Pacheco, and with the same Canon EOS 5D Mark III. Tm (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete Uploader request on day of upload; not in use. Brianjd (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Per Commons:Fan art. The illustration of the character has educational merit to illustrate a political symbol used by members of a particular movement. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
There is an OTRS email received for “File:Lokman_Yeung.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2020071710004324. --廣九直通車 (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Question @Agljones: Do you know who the photographer was? And when (s)he died? Owning a photograph does not automatically men that you hold the copyright. The ship sank in 1940 so the photo must be taken in 1940 or earlier. The photo is licensed with {{PD-UK-unknown}} and according to that a photo is PD if published more than 70 years ago. --MGA73 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-08-13_03-27.jpg){kind=link}
_2º_Congresso_Nacional_da_CSP-Conlutas_Dia1_002_Romerito_Pontes_(18711626682).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dibujo_en_proceso.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pop_art_Manuel_Turizo_Colombia.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TomHolland_VAsPhoto_31Mar2010.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-08-13_03-27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-08-13_03-27.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2013-08-13_03-27.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-08-13_03-27.jpg){kind=link}
_2%C2%BA_Congresso_Nacional_da_CSP-Conlutas_Dia1_002_Romerito_Pontes_(18711626682).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2%C2%BA_Congresso_Nacional_da_CSP-Conlutas_Dia1_002_Romerito_Pontes_(18711626682).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&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}
![[10]](https://www.oneindia.com/politicians/image/302x100x402x1/k-surendran-3628.jpg){kind=link}
_Ltd.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_January_23#File:Pucajirca_form_Alpamayo.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005biggar#NowCommons:_File:Bonete.jpg){kind=link}
