Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/09/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in the UAE, Burj Al Arab is a recent, non-trivail building & is protected by copyright AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete per AntiCompositeNumber, not comply 2ith commons policy. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 04:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- Delete Subject of photo is protected under no FoP rules in the UAE.
Acagastya (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MGA73 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ウィメンズパークで暴走なう (talk · contribs)
[edit]I'm not exactly sure what these are, but I'm pretty sure they're out of scope.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a sysop on JAWP. I have blocked User:ウィメンズパークで暴走なう indefinitely on JAWP. These files are retrived from a Japanese web site[1] to make a display of its vandalism on that site.--Kurihaya (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete vandalism by an LTA from jawiki. JavaHurricane (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Vandalism, see COM:CSD#G3. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to remove this photo because i uploaded the wrong image Emirateslitfest (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious "own work" . E4024 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Duplicate}} I would like to request the old versions of this figure to be deleted. The current version is the one intented for sharing. Thanks Dan Piña-Fuentes (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Used in a self-pro draft. E4024 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The text of that draft for the curious:"Muntadher Saleh He was born in 1999/02/13 A Pharmacist And A Designer Worked At Many Websites As A Designer But He Didn’t Get Lucky He Started Making Some New Idea To Come A Life By Merging The Most Powerful Words The Character Had Ever Said At His Life Like The Portrait Of Van Gogh Which Is Made From His Last Letter To His Brother Theo And The Starry Night Which Is One Of The Most Known Artwork That Van Made And Muntadher Created A Work For A Great Men Died At Their Revolution At 25th Of October 2019 As Attribute For Them With Their Faces And Words he had made the poster for a movie called Outbreak in Iraq and also he is a Goodreads Author he wrote poems and quotes about love, revolution,and self steaming he made his book that collect his artwork from two years and it is on Goodreads" Do you see any chances of it becoming a WP article? --E4024 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian --Alaa :)..! 08:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- He removed the DR tag. :) --E4024 (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- E4024 Deleted now! --Alaa :)..! 16:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete Image source is this image from this website. No evidence provided that the image is the work of the uploader. Site is clearly copyrighted. Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded as own work, but per this convo, that isn't the case. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The conversation is telling. COM:VRT must be used to show that the uploader has the right to upload it here, otherwise it must go. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The only known usage of the file is vandalism, later reverted. The creator was indefinitely blocked in Russian Wikipedia, where he vandalised an article with the image 178.71.63.90 16:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily per nomination & F10. --Achim (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded the file without a permission MetroValli (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ich habe diese Datei aus Versehen ohne eine Genehmigung veröffentlicht und bin selbst nicht der Urheber dieser Datei. MetroValli (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G7. --CptViraj (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
{{speedy|Error de carga}}. Ianparodi (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promotion Ismael Olea (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Vandalism content. Rastrojo (D•ES) 09:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on wikidata Minoraxtalk 08:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 04:54, 16 September 2020 UTC: CSD F10 (personal photos out of COM:SCOPE --Krdbot 14:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files were initially tagged by Yilku1 as Copyvio (copyvio).
Speedy deletion challenged at COM:UDR. Opening a discussion as a result.
- File:LUIS FERNANDO CAMACHO.jpg
- File:MARIA DE LA CRUZ.jpg
- File:LUIS ARCE.jpg
- File:JORGE QUIROGA.jpg
- File:JEANINE AÑEZ.jpg
- File:CHI HYUN CHUNG.jpg
- File:FELICIANO MAMANI.jpg
- File:CARLOS MESA.jpg
Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Yilku1: File:LUIS FERNANDO CAMACHO.jpg ([2]); File:MARIA DE LA CRUZ.jpg ([3]); File:LUIS ARCE.jpg ([4]); File:JORGE QUIROGA.jpg ([5]; File:JEANINE AÑEZ.jpg ([6]); File:CHI HYUN CHUNG.jpg ([7]); File:FELICIANO MAMANI.jpg ([8]); File:CARLOS MESA.jpg ([9]) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep per P Cesar Maldonadoː The images would not be copyright infringement, since the images are of political candidates who usually know how to use their photographs everywhere, either digitally or in print. I accompany links to the pages where the same images are used freely and varied, where their use is national (Bolivia), international, and also through social networks where the content is free, in addition to the images previously they have been edited by meː[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] [23][24]--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- @P Cesar Maldonado: Widely used does not mean "under a free licence". Editing the photos does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the person who took the photo, unless transferred by operation of law or by contract (in writing and signed). Please advise who is the photographer of the images in question and by which reason you are the copyright holder. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: I explain, the basis of the photographs are taken from an image from the social network Facebook [25]. Although the social network recognizes the property of a person, but somebody when uploading images Facebook allows free distribution to third parties freely creating a license "free of copyright" [26] unless it is the same page that uploaded it, says otherwise or proceeds with a process of restitution of authorship or eliminate the corresponding content [27][28]--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @P Cesar Maldonado: Facebook's terms of service is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy and uploading an image to Facebook does not extinguish one's copyright -- the position that content uploaded to Facebook is "free of copyright" is flat out incorrect. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
![[25]](https://scontent.fcbb1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/118931352_10157756118406747_8348484800313420424_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=d0RudYpTgb8AX9OO1-F&_nc_ht=scontent.fcbb1-1.fna&oh=ef7b3929a6c489dd7fa1a59b969fd19f&oe=5F817BA9){kind=link}
- @Nat: You can please cite in text where Wikipedia explains that its policies are not compatible with Facebook's policies, and on the other that it is incorrect for Facebook to extend a free license, just as textually, because Facebook says the opposite: "Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is protected by intellectual property rights in or in relation to our Products, you grant us an international, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, and non-exclusive license to host, use, distribute, modify, publish, copy, display or publicly display and translate your content, as well as to create derivative works of it (in accordance with your privacy and app settings). In other words, if you share a photo on Facebook, you grant us permission to store, copy and share it with others (of course, according to your settings), such as service providers who use our services or other Facebook Products you use. This license expires when your content is removed from our systems."Because it is not fair that I defend my position with fundamentals and links, and the other party does not base that I am making a mistake.
- @P Cesar Maldonado: The text quoted there grants Facebook a licence, but does not grant anyone else a licence. As such, it is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: Ok, but you didn't answer my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P Cesar Maldonado (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- @P Cesar Maldonado: I did answer your question. But it seems that you have chosen not to understand. And it is Facebook's terms that are not compatible with that of Wikimedia Commons. For clarification: This is not Wikipedia. This is Commons. And Commons is not Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: Let's avoid hints and avoid falling into disrespect. Okay. This is Commons. I repeat my question that you clearly did not answer. Can you please quote me verbatim as Commons says their policies are not compatible with Facebook? obviously your reasons or terms.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @P Cesar Maldonado: Again it is Facebook's terms of service that are not compatible with Commons policy, not the other way around. I will reiterate: The text quoted there grants Facebook a licence, but does not grant anyone else a licence. COM:L: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: They are individual and personal perceptions that I read, so far there is no where it is written. So far I have received an interpretation from you about Facebook and Commons, but so far I have not seen textual, things must be in physical and be clear, because if clear instructions are not given like this from Facebook in Commons or vice versa, it should to be clearly written in the regulation. But especially, in this discussion, it has not been shown to me verbatim, I have only seen your interpretation, and obviously that is not enough. I'm sorry, and it's not necessary for you to repeat things to me that I clearly understood the first time and say in a derogatory tone, please.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask you please too, avoid using bold in your answers, since you express in another way what you want to say as it says in COM:TALK--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @P Cesar Maldonado: Policy is clear. The images are not under a free licence per COM:L. Facebook's terms of service is not compatible with the criteria set by COM:L. The licence that a user grants to Facebook does not licence anyone else to use that content. This is not my interpretation. This is policy. Your failure to understand -- after being told, now, multiple times -- and clear failure to read COM:L is astounding. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: These are unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIOs per the uploader's admission above and thus are (and should have been) speedied per CSD#F1; the uploader's apparent deep confusion, and w:WP:IDHT, related to COM:DWs, libre vs. gratis, and our licensing requirements does not make them other. --Эlcobbola talk 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]derivative of political party logos. While uploader may have placed them in the coloured round squares, they are neither {{Own}} (own work) nor {{Self}} (the copyright holder) as claimed. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licensing tag is incorrect. Correct information (e.g. author, year of creation/publication, etc.) should be supplied to determine copyright status and the licensing tags should be corrected.
- File:ALIANZA SOLIDARIA POPULAR.jpg
- File:ALIANZA SOLIDARIA POPULAR.png
- File:TARIJA PARA TODOS.jpg
- File:UNIDOS POR LA LLAJTA.jpg
- File:PARTICIPACION POPULAR.jpg
- File:NACIONALIDADES AUTONOMAS POR EL CAMBIO Y EL EMPODERAMIENTO REVOLUCIONARIO.jpg
- File:COLUMNA DE INTEGRACION.jpg
- File:VAMOS COCHABAMBA.jpg
- File:UNIDOS PARA RENOVAR.jpg
- File:SEGURIDAD ORDEN Y LIBERTAD.jpg
- File:PRIMERO LA GENTE.jpg
- File:LIBERTAD Y DEMOCRACIA RENOVADORA.jpg
- File:CONSTRUYENDO FUTURO.jpg
- File:JESUS LARA.jpg
- File:BOLIVIA SOMOS TODOS.jpg
- File:CAMINO DEMOCRATICO PARA EL CAMBIO.jpg
- File:CHUQUISACA SOMOS TODOS.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO POR LA SOBERANIA.jpg
- File:UNIDAD CIVICA SOLIDARIDAD.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO DE ORGANIZACION POPULAR.jpg
- File:UNIDAD NACIONAL.jpg
- File:SOBERANIA Y LIBERTAD PARA BOLIVIA.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO DEMOCRATA SOCIAL.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO NACIONALISTA REVOLUCIONARIO.jpg
- File:FRENTE REVOLUCIONARIO DE IZQUIERDA.jpg
- File:PARTIDO DEMOCRATA CRISTIANO.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO TERCER SISTEMA.jpg
- File:PARTIDO DE ACCION NACIONAL BOLIVIANO.jpg
- File:MOVIMIENTO AL SOCIALISMO - INSTRUMENTO POLITICO POR LA SOBERANIA DE LOS PUEBLOS.jpg
- File:ALIANZA JUNTOS.jpg
- File:FRENTE PARA LA VICTORIA (BOLIVIA).jpg
- File:ALIANZA LIBRE 21.jpg
- File:ALIANZA COMUNIDAD CIUDADANA.jpg
- File:ACCION DEMOCRATICA NACIONALISTA.jpg
- File:ALIANZA CREEMOS.jpg
- File:Soberanía y Libertad para Bolivia (SOL.bo).jpg
- File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all. We should not be creating our own derivative logos for parties but using the parties' logos. If the parties' logo is non-free, then it's up to the individual wiki to figure out. Better to delete these and upload the actual logos and work out the licensing rather than allow this which even isn't right anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep On the following: File:PARTIDO DEMOCRATA CRISTIANO.jpg, File:CONSTRUYENDO FUTURO.jpg, File:BOLIVIA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:CHUQUISACA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:UNIDAD CIVICA SOLIDARIDAD.jpg, File:SOBERANIA Y LIBERTAD PARA BOLIVIA.jpg (but File:Soberanía y Libertad para Bolivia (SOL.bo).jpg is redundant?), File:PARTIDO DE ACCION NACIONAL BOLIVIANO.jpg (but File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg is redundant), File:MOVIMIENTO AL SOCIALISMO - INSTRUMENTO POLITICO POR LA SOBERANIA DE LOS PUEBLOS.jpg, File:ALIANZA LIBRE 21.jpg, File:ALIANZA COMUNIDAD CIUDADANA.jpg.
Neutral (but hope that closing admin will take a look at them) File:SEGURIDAD ORDEN Y LIBERTAD.jpg, File:VAMOS COCHABAMBA.jpg, File:UNIDAD NACIONAL.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO DE ORGANIZACION POPULAR.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO DEMOCRATA SOCIAL.jpg. Delete The rest as complicated enough to warrant copyright protection. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Los logotipos de empresas y organizaciones no son ninguna excepción, y poseen también derechos de autor. Sólo los logotipos con licencia libre o en dominio público son aceptables en Wikipedia. La excepción son aquellos logotipos que consisten sólo en formas geométricas simples y en texto. Este tipo de logotipos no alcanza el umbral de originalidad necesario para que esté protegido por copyright y están, por lo tanto, en dominio público. [29] --P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Eliminese estosː File:Soberanía y Libertad para Bolivia (SOL.bo).jpg y File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg por redundancia, no me opongo.--P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per Ricky81682, derivative logos aren't official. Taichi (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Per original authors explanation translated here: "Company and organization logos are no exception, and are also copyrighted. Only freely licensed or public domain logos are acceptable on Wikipedia. The exception are those logos that consist only of simple geometric shapes and text. These types of logos do not reach the threshold of originality necessary to be protected by copyright and are therefore in the public domain." All of these logos seem simple enough to be in the public domain. Furthermore, these images are all different enough from the original party logos that they could qualify as the author's own work and are thus public domain. But at the same time, that fact puts into question whether they should be used as articles since none of these parties use these exact logos in their campaigns. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep (File:Partido de Acción Nacional Boliviano (PAN-BOL).jpg) We are talking about a circle surrounded by squares and letters. Simple geometric images and text. It clearly DOES NOT meet the minimum criteria for originality, making it ineligible for copyright--FelipeRev (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted most per nomination and several other arguments and myself having significant doubts about the licensing and free use according to Precautionary principle. Kept two because these are simple text logo's beyond any doubt: File:CHUQUISACA SOMOS TODOS.jpg, File:MOVIMIENTO AL SOCIALISMO - INSTRUMENTO POLITICO POR LA SOBERANIA DE LOS PUEBLOS.jpg Elly (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be a screen capture from a television program. IRINN is an Iranian news channel. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Published on the IRINN website before upload here.[30] Google Translate shows that the webpage is dated July 3, 2017. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Iranian TV screenshot. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
it was not correct. Jay Banik (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per G7 & F10. --Minoraxtalk 11:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Album covers need OTRS-permission from artist. Taivo (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Taivo: OTRS permission has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 17 September 2020.
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 15:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adan Cesar Cossio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most files have numerous hits on TinEye. Permission needed.
- File:Cadillac CTS-V Coupe Race Car.jpg
- File:Bugatti 16.4 Grand Sport Vitesse.jpg
- File:Cadillac 16 Concept.jpg
- File:BXR Bailey Blade GT1.jpg
- File:Ferrari FXX Evoluzione.jpg
- File:Ferrari F60 America.jpg
- File:Ferrari 812 Super fast.jpg
- File:Audi RS 3 Sportback.jpg
- File:Audi R8 LMS Ultra.jpg
- File:Audi R8 e-tron.jpg
- File:Audi R8 e-tron Special Edition.jpg
- File:Aston Martin Vantage 2018.jpg
- File:Aston Martin DB9 Coupe.jpg
- File:Ariel Atom V8.jpg
- File:Apollo N.jpg
- File:Arash AF10.jpg
- File:Acura NSX GT3 Evo.jpg
- File:Apollo Intensa Emozione.jpg
- File:Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2016 Veloce.jpg
- File:Ford Mustang 2015.jpg
- File:2015 GTA Spano.jpg
- File:Acura NSX 2005.jpg
- File:Aston Martin Vulcan.jpg
- File:Arrinera Hussarya.jpg
- File:Bentley Continental GT 3.jpg
- File:BMW i8 Coupe.jpg
- File:Bentley Continental Supersports.jpg
Minoraxtalk 07:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adan Cesar Cossio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same as previous noms. Many hits on TinEye. Some with EXIF clearly states their copyright holder.
- File:Maserati Levante AXTR Edition.jpg
- File:Lynx Raider.jpg
- File:MAN TGX D38.jpg
- File:Volkswagen Type 2 (T1).jpg
- File:Suzuki SX4 S-Cross.jpg
- File:Subaru WRX STI GRC.jpg
- File:RAM 1500 Rebel.jpg
- File:SMG Buggy Dakar.jpg
- File:Land Rover Range Rover Evoque.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Minoraxtalk 04:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Tasnim}} 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 06:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Mehr}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 06:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Mehr}} 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 06:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Mehr}} 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 06:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Mehr}} 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 07:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaya govinda (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission/out of scope.
- File:Nikhil kumar govinda. nikhil kumar jagos.jpg
- File:Nikhil kumar govinda, nikhil kumar jagos.jpg
- File:Nikhil kumar jagos, nikhil kumar govinda.jpg
- File:Nikhil kumar govinda.jpg
- File:Nikhil kumar jagos.jpg
- File:Quote by nikhil kumar jagos.jpg
- File:Nikhil kumar jagos in microbiology lab.jpg
- File:Med notes 00.png
- File:FMGE performance in KYRGYZSTAN colleges.jpg
Minoraxtalk 04:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Josefamejia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal image. Out of scope. 1 unused for self promo on en.wp
- File:Josefamejiamacea.jpg
- File:JosefayBandera.jpg
- File:Josefamejiamace20px.jpg
- File:JOSEFAPERFIL.jpg
- File:Josefamejiamace20px.png
- File:Josefa Mejia Macea Trabajando por mi país RD.png
- File:JosefamejiamaceaFotomarco.png
- File:Josefa Mejía Macea.jpg
- File:JosefayBandera1Wikiwb.jpg
- User:Josefamejia
Minoraxtalk 04:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Blatant self-promotion by a Diputada por San Jose de Ocoa, RD, out of project scope. After having been reverted on es:wp continuing using another account User:William baez maceo. --Achim (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mankiratsinghofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possibly used for self promo on en.wp. Some files have copyright holder stated in EXIF. Uploader is depicted in the files and as such not an own work.
- File:Mankirat Singh School Band.jpg
- File:Still from Mankirat Singh's Ek Ajnabee Musafir.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Band.jpg
- File:Ek Ajnabee Musafir - Mankirat Singh Still.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Ek Ajnabee Musafir.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh Artist.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Musical Artist.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh Wikipedia.pdf
- File:Mankirat Singh logo.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh live concert.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh live show.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Singer.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Punjabi Singer.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh.png
- File:Mankirat Singh live concerts.jpg
- File:Mankirat Singh - Singer Song writer.jpg
Minoraxtalk 08:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not own work. Photos of people are taken from various sources without original source and permission, and also there is no permission for coat of arms. Previous uploads of same user are deleted as copyvios.
- File:Džudžar.jpg
- File:Djura.jpg
- File:Dode.png
- File:Biskup predložak.png
- File:Večerin.png
- File:PENZES.jpg
- File:Janjic1.jpg
- File:9023767 orig.jpg
- File:8301427 orig.jpg
- File:Rrok.jpg
- File:Archbishop-rrok-gjonlleshaj-coat-of-arms.jpg
- File:Kiro-stojanov.jpg
- File:Mons. uro gaparovi.jpg
- File:Ćiril-kos-grb.png
- File:RADOŠ.jpg
- File:ĆURIĆ.jpg
- File:SRAKIĆ.jpg
- File:POZAIĆ.jpg
- File:JEZERINAC1.png
- File:ROGIĆ.jpg
- File:ŠKVORČEVIĆ.jpg
- File:KEKIĆ.jpg
- File:HUZJAK.jpg
- File:HRANIĆ.jpg
- File:GORSKI.jpg
- File:KRIŽIĆ.jpg
- File:BOGDAN.jpg
- File:ŽUPAN.jpg
- File:BOGOVIĆ1.gif
- File:ŠTAMBUK.jpg
- File:ŠTAMBUK1.gif
- File:MILOVAN1.gif
- File:IVAS1.gif
- File:Kos-grb.png
- File:Grb-web.jpg
- File:Grb prizren-pristina.png
- File:Gašparović.png
- File:Grb Srijemske biskupije.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pablogarlib (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. Most of files can be found on-line. No EXIF data, and in some EXIF data copyright tag and original source is visible.
- File:Data=CW TXtcAUH2MGByI56PC0-PbuXlhbQD0NK7TwjAxYZpgwcEz2V1UCss28Yk3-y32lWbmTQuLTxZ1LCr1pFm3SkXUkrI8bhTZFzMIoZjVRRz54jh-4fPD8rj97wVd XdCm-P3i0hKwBPVm2Bn0wdLX6aOTSedf8y0vBFlat11flIuXAzP0P9KSMX1 VFdOWbklg3hL03.png
- File:Capilla Sagrada Familia conocida como Capilla Clara Jackson.jpg
- File:Residencia presidencial de Uruguay.jpg
- File:Quinta de Berro sede del Grupo Moon Uruguay.jpg
- File:Castillo Soneira, El Prado .jpg
- File:Nº 9 Atilio Pelossi.jpg
- File:1004449675b41657dc9d57f32d2384c1 XL.jpg
- File:Cerr1 (1).jpg
- File:Cerr1 (2).jpg
- File:ANP VA POR AMPLIACIÓN DEL PUERTO DE MONTEVIDEO.jpg
- File:Sede de los Scouts Atilio Pelossi.jpg
- File:Pelossi2.jpg
- File:Pelossi1.gif
- File:Jefmon1.jpg
- File:Jefmon2.jpg
- File:W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzLzc1ZmM1YTJjZGYwNTc5MjNjZF9XaGVhdG9uX2VzY2FsYXRvcl9mcm9tX2JvdHRvbV9yaWdodC5qcGciXSxbInAiLCJjb252ZXJ0IiwiIl0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDgxIC1hdXRvLW9yaWVudCJdLFsi.jpg
- File:Door of the Plaza de Armas of Montevideo, 1740.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Smooth O (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hajaminvoj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. No original sources. Photos can be found on-line.
Smooth O (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Sheraton Hotel Ali Aref&Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mariage de Ali Aref &Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mariage Ali Aref &Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mariage Ali Aref&Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Fiançaille avec Filsane Mohamed historique.jpg
- File:Fiançaille Ali Aref&Filsane Mohamed au Sheraton.jpg
- File:Mariage de Ali Aref&Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mariage Ali Aref& Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mariage Ali Aref & Filsane Mohamed.jpg
- File:Ali Aref avec sa jeune épouse Filsane Mohamed.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files on User:BevinKacon/Logospam
[edit]Unused logos with a description suggesting self-promotion (spam) or account only shows self-promotion edits globally. Likely out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Blueally logo.jpg
- File:Butler Dispatch Logo.png
- File:Butler Dispatch Logo Small.jpg
- File:Chiptronics-Logo.jpg
- File:Chiptronics logo-03-100x100.png
- File:Ck2020.png
- File:Eslee.jpg
- File:Final lofo.jpg
- File:Fmafia Logo fb compressed.jpg
- File:Humanity theater.jpg
- File:Isoftbet-logo.jpg
- File:Jazaa Beverages Pvt Ltd Logo.png
- File:Keny Premium.jpg
- File:Keny Stationery.jpg
- File:Logo humanity theatre.jpg
- File:Mountica logo.jpg
- File:Our logo dccs.jpg
- File:SB-new-logo.jpg
- File:Untitled-HT.jpg
- File:Valiram logo.jpg
- File:Vrr chits india pvt. ltd. logo.jpg
- File:Yelle-zon-final-05.jpg
BevinKacon (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Tasnim}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 09:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Tasnim}} 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 09:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not an orignal work by {{Tasnim}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not original works by {{Tasnim}}.
- File:Aliyleh vilage 2.jpg
- File:Aliyleh vilage 4.jpg
- File:Aliyleh vilage 5.jpg
- File:Aliyleh vilage 3.jpg
- File:Aliyleh vilage 1.jpg
4nn1l2 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 09:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
FBMD at MD. PD? E4024 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; doubtful claim of own work. --Gbawden (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF but with transmission code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and it's available here on Twitter. --Ahmadtalk 10:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
User page of indefblocked user. /Leonel Sohns 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 09:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian Faisal talk 23:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 09:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files of Anastazia Bern
[edit]Here all contributions of Anastazia Bern (talk · contribs) :
- File:Rufat Aliyev.jpg
- File:Rufet Aliyev.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern17.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern16.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern14.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern15.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern13.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern12.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern10.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern11.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern9.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern8.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern7.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern6.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern5.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern4.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern3.jpg
- File:Anastasia Bern Model.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern2.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern1.jpg
- File:AnastasiaBern.jpg
- File:Anastasia Bern.jpg
Photos without metadata, some can be find on 1 ou here 2. Suspect not own work and copyright violation --AwkwardChester (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Originally posted on the DR log page and I've moved DR to the correct page. Bidgee (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hanooz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image from icana.ir
- farsnews.ir license photos under {{Fars}}, so license review should be done if free. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: free licence with {{Fars}} template. --Emha (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Fars}}. The previous closure did not heed the fact that not all photos on Fars News website are their own. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran Parliament 13990214000487637241079686126440.jpg for more details. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Fars says its from icana.ir, and Icana does not release its content under a free license. --Ahmadtalk 11:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hanooz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image from icana.ir
- farsnews.ir license photos under {{Fars}}, so license review should be done if free. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: free licence with {{Fars}} template. --Emha (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Fars}}. The previous closure did not consider the fact that not all photos found on the FarsNews website are their own works. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran Parliament 13990214000487637241079686126440.jpg for more details. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Fars says its from icana.ir, and Icana does not release its content under a free license. --Ahmadtalk 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF but with tr code; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. Scope? E4024 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. Scope? E4024 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo in user space. E4024 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a video screenshot Ytoyoda (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused low quality photo Ytoyoda (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://gdmsport.com/coaches/vladimir-vujovic/ Ytoyoda (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:DrOwl19
[edit]- File:MayorChrisFriel.jpg
- File:MayorKevinDavis.jpg
- File:JohnSless.jpg
- File:MarkLittell.jpg
- File:ChrisFriel 2010.jpg
- File:DavidBailey 2.jpg
- File:DonCardy.jpg
- File:MayorDavidBailey (edited).png
- File:MayorDavidBailey.png
- File:RonEddy (cropped).jpg
- File:DavidBailey (cropped).jpg
- File:Brant County Council Wards.png
- File:Brant Council Chambers.jpg
- File:Portrait of Paula Jean Swearengin.png
- File:DavidBailey2.jpg
- File:DavidBailey.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files are mostly professional portraits in small sizes, lacking Exif data. Highly unlikely to be uploader's own work – Google Images reverse search finds many online. Conifer (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kristenliven (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal logo. Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 05:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Didarkhansinger (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 07:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 08:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
photo of a painting by America Meredith, we need Meredith's permission. No FOP in the US unfortunately Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright holder Steve Hall@ Hedrich Blessing hb@hedrichblessing.com - needs permission Gbawden (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Low-res images that appear to be screenshots rather than original photographs
- File:Martin smolenski.jpg
- File:Vasil panayotov 2020.jpg
- File:Georgi yomov.jpg
- File:Dimitar pantev.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erik Christ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
{{Delete|...}} Vontixy (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
es:Mi Argentina was deleted due to unencyclopedic content. In my opinion its logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Self promo on en.wp Minoraxtalk 08:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused selfie, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Jonteemil (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Danger of copyright violation. Google Translate translates the description as "Persian: Photo made by Iran Telecommunication Company". The uploader has made other questionable uploads. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In addition, the copyright status of the images used in this file is not clear. --Ahmadtalk 22:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't wanted to upload this picture JohnyPeso (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't wanted to upload this picture JohnyPeso (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- You did upload it more than 3 years ago and it is in use on 4 wiki pages. --Achim (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes but I didnt know that other people would be allowed to use them commercially. JohnyPeso (talk)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
not my own work Bibhuti Bhusan Champati (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Useless too blurry photo. Solomon203 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE, keep until replaced with a better one. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This image is a capture of https://www.windy.com/?27.771,-88.022,6 This website is copyrighted. The CC BY-SA 2.0 given as free of use justification only apply to the geographical map displayed, not the data. Pierre cb (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Even though uploader attributed image to Windy, image is copyrighted and not to be distributed without permission.Destroyeraa (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Doomdorm64 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: user request. Does not qualify for COM:CSD#G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Exceeds COM:TOO. Gikü (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A reverse image search for this image casts doubt on whether this is the "own work" of the uploader. ජපස (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Lacks a valid license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Test page. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Lacks a valid license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Irrelevant and promotional image !! Out of scope of wiki education - IndrajitDas 17:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Advocate24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]probable not notable organisation. No Wikidata entry
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
probably copyvio from video clip Já tě znám Patriccck (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality image - Better images at cat (ie example), Thanks –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
_290S_van_(2015-07-03)_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The copyright would belong to the painter not the photographer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Family snap of two nice kids, but out of scope Pugilist (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Source: Mind Your Language. Acceptable? E4024 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo. Picture of document with no indication of importance. Possible copyvio. Malcolma (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 12:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like a DW (photo of a screen?)... E4024 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF, dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
A letter from an artist who died in 1966 is claimed, over 60 years after it was written, to be the "own work" of, and copyright of, a Wikipedia user. Implausible. Hoary (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Source is "Youtube", but unspecified. The original film could have been by anybody. Hoary (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per PCP. --Sealle (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
No proof that the given licence is true, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Unauthorized collage. E4024 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Small size, headshot format, unusual file type, and lack of Exif mean this is unlikely to be uploader's own work. Conifer (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUjLIUxfbOs see 0:35 mark Encik Tekateki (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation. https://people.com/style/the-weeknd-channels-sammy-davis-jr-in-retro-photo-shoot/ and a dozen other sources in February of this year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
And also: File:Raony Phillips 001.jpg
Non relevant person trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. See pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Raony Phillips Stegop (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
And also: File:Raony Phillips 001.jpg
Non relevant person trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. See pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Raony Phillips Stegop (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
We have no information regarding A. Rohwer's death, so the licence is not valid. I've uploaded the picture to en.wikipedia. Ras67 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gildberg74 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope. 3 untagged files may be OOS as well. Kindly check.
- File:Her er Thomas kommet ned fra dyssen. Tom fumler stadig med selfie og tænker, at han ville ønske at det var ham, der havde opdaget dyssen og var gået op på den,.jpg
- File:Thomas har igen fundet en dysse. Han skal lige vise at han er ret god til at gå op på en dysse. Tom skal vise at han kan tage et selfie. De klarer det rigtig fint begge to.jpg
- File:Sådan ser dyssen ud, når Thomas ikke står på den. Dyssen ser lidt gladere ud efter Thomas er holdt op med at trampe på den.jpg
- File:Efter at have løbet rundt om langdyssen for at finde den, løb vi op på den. Thomas kan næsten ikke forstå hvordan nogen kan finde på at efterlade en så lang bunke jord uden at rydde op efter sig selv.jpg
- File:Thomas er meget flot og stolt over at fundet en vaskeægte dysse eller Jættestue, eller hvad det er.jpg
- File:Tom har været dygtig og flot og klatret adræt op på dyssen. Både dyssen og Tom er meget imponerende!.jpg
- File:Thomas og Tom har fundet dyssen.jpg
Minoraxtalk 04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Недостоверные сведения об авторстве и лицензии -- Tomasina (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: promotional content, OOS. --Sealle (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Professional photo, no exif, same series as https://research.umn.edu/inquiry/post/meet-christopher-j-cramer-new-vice-president-research Gbawden (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
No exif info and the file is the first upload by a new user, might not be own work. Person in the image is not notable and possibly underage (article was deleted) so the image is also out of scope. kyykaarme (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative + OOS. --Sealle (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
un-authorised content from artist JohnDoyle.2 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Sealle (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Un-Authorised content of wrong subject. (Own Work) JohnDoyle.2 (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative, no permission. --Sealle (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from the artist's heirs. Identified as a self-portrait, and Harry V.R. Anderson died in 1972.[31] Valid permission should be sent to COM:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Verbcatcher (talk) You can go ahead and delete this image. We have decided not to use it. Thanks! Morykwas (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Коллеги обратили внимание, что данная фотография не является общественным достоянием. Перезалью файл на условиях добросовестного использования Ермолаев (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of multiple photos with unknown copyright status. In addition, main photo itself can be copyright violation as well: small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
photo of 1999, scanned without source provided, not an own work possibly Ezarateesteban 13:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Skazi as no permission (No permission since). It is a high-resolution image, doesn't seem to be anywhere else on the Internet, and the uploader claims it as "own work" and has granted a cc-by-sa-4.0 license. What is the basis to doubt that? Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This person did not take this photo and writes an article in the Russian Wikipedia by order of the outside. I don't know where he got this picture. The author can say anything, but this is not his photo. Let him send permission. Skazi (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment I added File:ECO00775-1.jpg, which appears very similar. Both seem professional, but with most metadata stripped. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- Comment Please pay attention to these photos on VKontakte and Instagram. Skazi (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete OK, so this does look like a probable copyvio (at least needing OTRS), given a known source on the web. But the "No permission since" is no way to say that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as probable copyvios, given Skazi's links. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Коллега Sealle, восстановите? Пришло разрешение и с сайта Ивлева и от фотографа. Исходник в RAW фотограф прислал. (Ticket#2020100110004428) --NoFrost (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. Sealle (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Спасибо. --NoFrost (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
уже не нужен MaxProXamapx (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyvio. --Sealle (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The source says "Copyright reserved" (google translation) GeorgHH • talk 16:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect 3D model of salt depicted as covalent compound instead of a crystal structure. Wostr (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uploaded new image--Hoa112008 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Hoa112008
- Which is still incorrect. I see many H2O/H3O+ molecules which indicates that this may be a structure for hydrate. What is the source of the new structure? Wostr (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hydrated Calcium nitrate, source : I draw in molview.org
- Based on data from? Wostr (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it's a hydrate, why are there no OH to balance the H3O+? DMacks (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hydrated Calcium nitrate, source : I draw in molview.org
- Which is still incorrect. I see many H2O/H3O+ molecules which indicates that this may be a structure for hydrate. What is the source of the new structure? Wostr (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Too many factually-dubious details to have COM:EDUSE. DMacks (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per DMacks. The file redirect File:Calcium nitrate-3D.png should then be deleted as well. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; self-promotion. Ahmadtalk 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Minorax at 05:36, 6 Oktober 2020 UTC: CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) --Krdbot 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, no EXIF data. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted per nomination. Problematic uploader. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
拡張子をミスした Tzr250r (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Doomdorm64 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: user request. Does not qualify for COM:CSD#G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: author request of unused file. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
image taken from corp website w/o evidence of authorship or permission Bri (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This template was created in 2014 and added to hundreds of images. I question its usefulness, wording and unnecessary specificity; the title it misleading, as it suggests that the file may be deleted, while in the text it just says vaguely that the taxonomy may be wrong and that the file should be renamed. This template should be replaced with either a delete request (if image quality is too bad for its identification); or with a rename request (if the correct name is known); or with {{Disputed taxonomy}} (for all other cases). —capmo (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
wrong image file format uploaded Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"22155587@N02"
[edit]From a blacklisted account. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Milton Jung's flickr
- File:Estação lotada (14778106883).jpg
- File:ACMazzeo.jpg
- File:Rosana jatoba.jpg
- File:Barcos flickr.jpg
- File:Leagueoflegend flickr.jpg
- File:Arena Corinthians Panorama 01.jpg
- File:Corredor do Colégio Rosário em Porto Alegre - se este piso falasse!?.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
QTHCCAN (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Also File:Barcos jung flickr.jpg --QTHCCAN (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, didn't know that the account was blacklisted. Sorry. Thanks, @QTHCCAN: . --Jcornelius (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Don't worry @Jcornelius: , this account wasn't yet blacklisted when you uploaded the picture.--QTHCCAN (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Just because an account is added to list of "bad" accounts does not mean it is forbidden to upload photos from that account. It depends on why the account is added to the "bad list". In this case the user also upload photos taken by other and mention their names. But we have no proof that photographer agreed to the license. If we are pretty sure uploader is photographer we can keep the photos. I checked the photos and some seems to be taken by other persons (for example the one where the uploader is on the photo) but File:Estação lotada (14778106883).jpg could be own work. Sadly it is not clear when it is own work and when it is photos taken by other persons. So I would delete these photos except perhaps the first one. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The declared license is definitely fake, but IMO this is a legal act, do {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies. Ankry (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: What kind of fake are you writing about? Gnosandes (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: it should be ok now. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. Author added {{PD-old}} later, but the lifespan of the unknown author of this image made at an unknown date is unknown too. Wee cannot know that he/she died before 1950 as the license requires. JuTa 21:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license.Author added {{PD-old}} later, but the lifespan of the unknown author of this image made at an unknown date is unknown too. Wee cannot know that he/she died before 1950 as the license requires. JuTa 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. Author added {{PD-old}} later, but the lifespan of the unknown author of this image made at an unknown date is unknown too. Wee cannot know that he/she died before 1950 as the license requires. JuTa 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license.Author added {{PD-old}} later, but the lifespan of the unknown author of this image made at an unknown date is unknown too. Wee cannot know that he/she died before 1950 as the license requires. JuTa 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license, Author added {{PD-old}} later, but the lifespan of the unknown author of this image made at an unknown date is unknown too. We cannot know that he/she died before 1950 as the license requires. JuTa 22:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of a copyrighted work. This float is not permanently situated. So, FoP in Hong Kong does not apply. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The declared PD-USGov licence is unsafe. The man pictured is classified by the US Government as a terrorist and is subject their Reward for Justice program. It is unlikely that a US Government employee took this photograph. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Not an original work by {{Tasnim}}. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: On the bottom left corner, there is something like the old Mehr watermark, but I couldn't find it on Mehr (I found one here, which is interesting because Mehr should normally use the watermarked version if they are the copyright holder). Delete. Ahmadtalk 07:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (com:PCP). --Hanooz 14:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Author Wojciech WOJCIK per exif, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Ticket:2020092410013066 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: still no OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 04:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I'm licensing the image I made. 120.22.54.237 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
i do not consent for my image to be publicly available and will pursue people or entities that use it. 120.22.153.232 07:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not used and IMHO out of scope. --E4024 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Please delete this image. It's trademarked. 120.22.239.106 08:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious "own work". E4024 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense licensing tag. The origin country is most probbaly Iran (Pakistani prime minister has visited Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, Iran). 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Logo is not available under a free license. It clearly states on the bottom of the source website that all rights are reserved by the Rwanda Social Democratic Party. The copyright is held by this party. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina A1Cafel (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina A1Cafel (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina A1Cafel (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina A1Cafel (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a NASA work but from Benjamin G. Sullivan, a Smithsonian photographer. The museum's "Terms of Use" are not compatible with Commons' licensing rules. Ras67 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful on own work claim, low resolution, no Exif. This picture was already uploaded to Malayalam Wikipedia under fair use in 2011 indicating that the source is from one of the main newspapers. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 06:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poor quality image - Better quality in cat (ie here), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Betti Boof (talk · contribs)
[edit]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) 07:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The uploader suggests with his user name that he is the person in the photo but the metadata contains copyright information by another person. Need that person's permission to upload a copyrighted photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, © Jessica Rivas. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deliciousent (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seem to be various screenshots, promotional shots, and social media pictures of the subject with no evidence of copyright ownership. Deliciousent if these are images owned by you (typically that means your took them with your camera or contractually took formal ownership of the copyright), Commons would need you to go through COM:OTRS.
- File:Padma in pink 2.jpg
- File:Padma in pink.jpg
- File:Padma in green.jpg
- File:Taste the Nation 3.png
- File:Taste the Nation 1.png
- File:Taste the Nation 2.png
- File:Padma bbq.jpg
- File:Padma as a child.jpg
- File:Padma Top Chef Kentucky.jpg
- File:Red dress.jpg
— Rhododendrites talk | 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Padma's Digital Coordinator with her company Delicious Entertainment. We have ownership of all of these images, and many were taken by me. I'd like them to remain up.
Thanks, Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deliciousent (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Deliciousent: Please see COM:OTRS. Otherwise they're likely to be deleted in the next couple of days.
- Also re "many were taken by me", that implies that some weren't taken by you. They'd definitely need OTRS permissions, for as they are, the descriptions and licensing are wrong. It's no big deal, but Commons is peculiarly hot on some aspects. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No clarification or evidence of permission provided. Please email COM:OTRS if you wish to have these images restored. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Old, not an own work. Wrong license. E4024 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Invalid copyright tag as this is a photo, not a government edict. Works of the Montana State Government do not appear to be in the public domain. Conifer (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Woko Sapien (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. Brand new teddy bears are not considered to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment File description "A large teddy bear knitted by my mom, Betty Saunders, aged 89, who lives in Retreat, Cape Town, South Africa." So the person's mum will be suing them? Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: likely PD-heirs. --JuTa 05:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
how is this file so small in size if this pic was actually taken by the author? 2405:201:6007:4014:A08E:9B60:9E96:70CD 09:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Closing admin, if you cannot find a copyvio please do not delete this lovely pic! Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per AGF and other uploads of the user. --JuTa 05:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
unused JPEG version of the diagram — Draceane talkcontrib. 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 05:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Nexo20 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because it is Nonsense (I mean the DR. :) --E4024 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a svg file of this map. TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why that would make it a reason to delete this image. Is there a policy against having multiple versions of the same map? Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates just says to discuss it here. According to Commons:File_types#JPEG, it suggests converting to PNG but that's more for photographs. Commons:File_types#SVG suggests it for maps but I don't think that means all other versions should be deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: but this one is likely a copyright violation. --JuTa 05:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a svg file of this map. TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: likely a copyright violation. --JuTa 05:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I made a svg file of this map. TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. --JuTa 05:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Works by Willem van der Does
[edit]- File:Zeilen Door De Grote Storm.jpg
- File:Rotsachtige kust van Zuid-Java met de grotten van Karang Bolong, Willem van der Does.jpg
- File:Maanlicht over de Javaanse rijstvelden.jpg
- File:Uitzicht Op De Bergen In Java.jpg
File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Potloodtekening door Willem van der Does voorstellend een ossenkar TMnr 6141-4.jpg- File:Willem van der Does, Riding an Ox.png
- File:Willem jan Pieter van der Does, Sea battle of Trafalgar.jpg
- File:Willem van der Does'es "Rules of third" proportion.jpg
- File:ZEILEN DOOR DE GROTE STORM.jpg
These images were all, I think, uploaded by User:Hendricolucky. They are of works by the somewhat obscure Dutch artist Willem van der Does, who is said to have died in 1966. (See en:Willem Jan Pieter van der Does.) I believe that these works will be copyright till seventy years after van der Does' death, i.e. 2036. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oopsie. I belatedly noticed that the file with the longest name was uploaded differently. (The filename should have been a giveaway. I plead caffeine deficiency.) It says:
- This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the National Museum of World Cultures as part of a cooperation project. The museum brings together the collections of the Tropenmuseum, Afrika Museum and the Museum of Ethnology. It exclusively provides images that are either made by its own staff, or that are otherwise free of copyright.
- The photo was very likely made by its own staff, but what's photographed was not. Yet if the result is somehow "free of copyright", then presumably the others are too. (Unless these museums are somehow permitted first to claim copyright of what they possess, and then to dispose of the copyright as they see fit.) I confess that I'm quite baffled by this. ¶ There's also File:Storm, Ijs, en Walvisschen.jpg, which I think could be hosted by Wikipedia for "fair use" within any article that eventually derives from what's currently en:Draft:Storm, Ijs, en Walvisschen, but shouldn't be hosted here (unless, of course, van der Does's works are somehow PD). -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I should have pointed out earlier that User:Hendricolucky claims that the files are his/her "Own work". If this is so, then (a) Hendricolucky is the ghost of Van der Does, posthumously uploading his own work, or (b) Hendricolucky has taken "Own work" to mean "Yes it was me who scanned/photographed/rephotographed this", or (c) Hendricolucky opted for "Own work" as any alternative threatened to present him/her with further tiresome questions, or (d) some shortcoming in the "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org" process is to blame. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, including the file with the long name, as this is a derivative work of his own work or work of another maker according the text on the file. All to be undeleted in 2037. Elly (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
very poor quality and resolution, at least three better: File:Verrocchio e lorenzo di credi, madonna di piazza 03.jpg File:Andrea del verrocchio e lorenzo di credi, madonna di piazza, 1475-86 ca. (pistoria, duomo) 02.jpg File:Verrocchio Madonna with Saint John the Baptist and Donatus 1475 1483.jpg Oursana (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted per nomination and Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant/bad_quality, Elly (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: promo image. Converting to DR due to age and because the image is in use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept because it is highly probable that the uploader has made the photo themselves. The exif data show the same name, User:Labsolutions. Elly (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded the png version of this. There's already a much better svg version which I've uploaded. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination and per Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions, albeit a bit late. Image not in use. Elly (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Wrong use/disregarding of licence (source), bad quality, simple copy, wrong categorization. A duplicate in lower resolution is not necessary. XRay talk 07:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- FYI: The original image: File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3153-9.jpg --XRay talk 07:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate image Mysterymanblue 20:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, Elly (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Swaggaofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]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) 07:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted early because of missing permission, Elly (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Aspects as no permission (No permission since) My-wiki-photos (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- No specific permission is needed as the source/brochure does not indicate that the logo is copyrighted. My-wiki-photos (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The file itself has a "TM" symbol on it and the file does qualify for speedy deletion despite what the My-wiki-photos stated in an edit summary. The source provided does not have an explicit release under a free license nor there was no email to confirm copyright ownership that declared consent, which is why I tagged it with a no permission template. Aspects (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Trademark and Copyright are two different things. There are many examples of the logos in Public domain that are trademarked. The links of some of the best known examples are given below. As I said earlier, the brochure does not state that any of the material in it is copyrighted, including the logo.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McDonald%27s_Golden_Arches.svg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_NIKE.svg My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Copyright has been automatic in the US since 1989, with no need to indicate its existence on publication. So the logo is in copyright unless it was published before 1989 without a copyright notice. See Commons:Hirtle chart for all the possibilities. The Nike and McDonald's logos above are out of copyright due to being very simple, but i don't think we can claim that for a drawing of a steam engine. --bjh21 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per bjh21. Mysterymanblue 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. The examples of PD-logos given by @My-wiki-photos: are below threshold of originality as can be seen on the respective file pages. Elly (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Unused plot. Looks like some sort of hoax. There is no such thing as the Irish squirrel monkey and Google has never heard of the Meyer-boinski conjecture. Malcolma (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, Elly (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The file have been uploaded in a bad format with no license Udaysm (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination, and per Commons:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_deletions, as nominated by uploader. Elly (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Charles Yrondi died in 1960. No freedom of panorama in France. 90.43.170.216 10:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France#Freedom_of_panorama. Elly (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The depicted monument is from 1975 and thereby still in copyright. Regrettably, Ukraine has no freedom-of-panorama exception from copyright. So, a permission from the architects is needed or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: Buildings built in the Soviet Union are public property, which means that the image cannot be deleted. Gnosandes (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
delete per nomination, the freedom-of-panorama in Ukraine, as worded on the article on Commons, makes no provision for buildings built in the Soviet era. Elly (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This image is a capture of https://www.windy.com/ This website is copyrighted. The CC BY-SA 2.0 given as free of use justification only apply to the geographical map displayed, not the data. Pierre cb (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
deleted per nomination, the Terms of use of Windy are permitting fair use, but prohibit modification (see section 9.4.1), so not in accordance with the CC-BY-SA licence we use on Commons. Elly (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Small file without camera EXIF uploaded by a one-time visitor; dubious own work. E4024 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
deleted per nomination, according to article on DE:WP the photo was made by Fotograf Emanuela Danielewicz, which is not the name of the user on Commons. Elly (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Flatsum / Flatsum drin is deleted as a hoax on NL wiki https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20200828#Flatsum Unclear what this picture from same author is. Agora (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
deleted per nomination, Elly (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
nothing recorded; I left a message on the talk page 2 weeks ago and the uploader hasn't responded Ultimateria (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
deleted per nomination, virtually no sound is heard in this recording. Elly (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
It has no sources whatsoever, I opened a discussion a month ago and the author never replied, and on top of that, according to the description he used "data" from the year 2000, that's 16 years ago and quite outdated. El bart089 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The map is widely used, so it cannot be deleted except for copyright violation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This map has NO SOURCES, I opened a discussion and no one ever replied, the author was notified and he didn't reply either. Further more the map has inaccurate "data" from over 16 years ago, which even if it was correct (which is not) it would be extremely outdated.
I already nominated it for deletion but the person who saw it refused to delete it simply because "it was used in many articles", which is an absurd reason to keep it considering that they all copied it in the first place.
Keeping this erroneous map would be spreading wrong information and promoting Wikipedia inaccuracy. Supaman89 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept, it does not matter, how bad, erroneous and misleading the map is. It is widely used and therefore in our project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, if I create an image that says that half the population of the United States is of Asian descent and then make a bunch of copies of it in different Wikpedias and then add that image to a bunch of articles promoting missinformation should we also keep that because it is "widely used"? Supaman89 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: :Lo lamento, no he estado muy activo últimamente en la wikipedia, de manera que no me entero pronto de estas cuestiones. El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv. Procederé a colocar la referencia en estos mapas. En el tiempo en que fue subida la imagen esto no era estrictamente necesario. Yavidaxiu (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fæ as no permission (No permission since). I restored the file due to the discusion on my talk page. JuTa 10:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund erkennbar, ich zitiere die obige Stellungnahme des Hochladers: "El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv." Als Urheber ist folglich Benutzer @Yavidaxiu einzutragen (Own Work), was aber jetzt ohnehin schon der Fall ist. Based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @JuTa: . I do not understand the restoration. Could you explain that here for the record, rather than referring to talk page discussions?
- Where exactly is the verifiable source of the underpinning map, i.e. not the overlaid user created synthesis of data?
- If the data is a derived work from a map in Mesoamerican indian languages, then the original map is sufficiently creative to be copyrighted (there's simply no "hard" data that makes this a pure data driven chart) and consequently the overlaid map fails COM:PRP.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The numerical data is from CDI-Conapo, as told in the file (CDI, now INPI, is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Conapo is the Mexican Census Authority Consejo Nacional de Población). The geographical data is based on Suárez' map (1983) which does not constitute any problem, neither (only hard data without creative activity). The graphical representation is from the uploader. There is nothing doubtful about it, at all. All based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, this does not make the map verifiable as far as I can see.
- It is not credible that the detailed coloured regions on the overlay map are a "graphical representation" "from the uploader", these zones must be from somewhere. This is not "numerical data" as literally there is no "numerical data" displayed.
- Neither has any source been given that can be verified for the under-pinning map. Again this is not "from the uploader" as it is not credible that the uploader drew a detailed map of a country from their imagination. If it is a public domain map, exactly where is the source, and can we verify its copyright please, per COM:PRP and COM:L?
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing we have to verify. The uploader made a map based on governmental data, that's all. It is his responsibility that the data provided is correct, has nothing to do with copyright or permission. If the information provided by uploader is not correct, this wouldn't be a reason to delete his work. You just have to trust him.
- The numerical data the uploader relies on and takes his information from (for the whole series of maps he uploaded) is the number of speakers for each language in the year 2000. This information is from governmental sources, as he tells us in his file (CDI-Conapo). It is free data and he is free to make a map about it and upload it to Wikimedia Commons.
- The geographical data the uploader relies on is provided by a map in a book by Jorge A. Suárez from 1983 (as stated in the file description). You can see the original map in the book using the link I provided above (it is named: "Map 1. Present day distribution of Mesoamerican Indian languages"). This data refers to the geographical delimitations to limit the region where each language is spoken. This is hard data taken from a scholarly publication and the uploader is free to take it for the purpose of making a map he wants to upload to Wikimedia Commons.
- There is nothing wrong with it, no copyright violation can be alleged and no permission is missing. Your action of pointing out a "no permission since" was simply a mistake or misunderstanding, your fault not his. The author of this file is just the uploader himself (own work) as stated in the file description. There is no reason at all which justifies deletion.--Jordi (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not how COM:PRP works. The copyright of this map has been called into question, and should be considered a copyright violation unless a source for the map can be produced. In this case the underpinning map, for which zero evidence has been produced that it meets COM:L, and the detailed map of areas that has been overlaid, again for which there is no verifiable source or explanation of how it was produced, apart from vaguely waiving at a copyrighted book that it does not match.
- No, this is not what COM:PRP is about. The copyright owner is the uploader who made the map, there is no assumable violation of copyright here. COM:PRP deals with cases where the uploader published a file whose copyright belongs to a third party, which is not the case here. Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission for a usage where such permission is required. In this case, there is no permission required because the protected work was entirely made by the uploader himself. The data he used for it is not protected by copyright, so he needs no permission by a third party.
- On the other hand, if by "underpinning map" you mean the general map of Mexico and its States (light grey parts of the image), this isn't protected, neither. Such a general map of Mexican States is widely used on Commons in all files which are based on a blank map of Mexico. Of course, using one of the blank maps of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name is not a reason for requesting Deletion of a file.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- The link you provided to "Map 1" in The Mesoamerican Indian Languages, it does not appear to match. If it matches a different map in that copyrighted work, then it is a derived work. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Read carefully what I wrote, pls. The Suárez map is used as data source, it is visible in Google Books to me and others, but the pages available on Google Books may differ from country to country.--Jordi (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously, there are more data sources the uploader has been using to compile the statistics for his maps. As he tells us the data is from governmental institutions like CDI-Conapo. We do not know exactely if and to what extent the reported results are accurate. They seemingly are, if you compare his maps with similar maps and sheets based on the data provided by INEGI, CDI or other Mexican Government Agencies, but we don't know. However, this has nothing to do with the copyright status of the file. Even if the uploader has invented or misrepresented the public data he claims to use, this would affect only the reliability of the file, but not the copyright, which belongs unquestionably to the uploader, since he has drawn the map. So there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to call it "into question", as you say. Precautionary principle thus does not apply in the way you want to trigger it.--Jordi (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is not how COM:PRP works. The copyright of this map has been called into question, and should be considered a copyright violation unless a source for the map can be produced. In this case the underpinning map, for which zero evidence has been produced that it meets COM:L, and the detailed map of areas that has been overlaid, again for which there is no verifiable source or explanation of how it was produced, apart from vaguely waiving at a copyrighted book that it does not match.
- The numerical data is from CDI-Conapo, as told in the file (CDI, now INPI, is the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Conapo is the Mexican Census Authority Consejo Nacional de Población). The geographical data is based on Suárez' map (1983) which does not constitute any problem, neither (only hard data without creative activity). The graphical representation is from the uploader. There is nothing doubtful about it, at all. All based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @JuTa: . I do not understand the restoration. Could you explain that here for the record, rather than referring to talk page discussions?
- Using many words, you agree with the facts about copyright:
- The underpinning map has not been identified. It is not File:Mexico_Map.svg as there are many detail differences. Copyright has not been verified, nor even claimed as being public domain or something else. This is grounds for deletion per COM:PRP.
- The overlay of very detailed areas has no verifiable source, it is extremely detailed and is not a simple user "imagining" of what these zones would look like, nor can it be created from a simple table of data. Vaguely waiving at an increasingly large number of possible sources, is not verification. Copyright has not been verified, and this may be an unstated derived work and is grounds for deletion, per COM:DW and COM:PRP.
- --Fæ (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Many words or few words do not matter, what is important is the content of the arguments.
- 1. The underpinning map is just a blank map of Mexico, it is identical with the map shown above from our Category "Blank maps of Mexico", further details (different tone of grey and missing emphasis of the City of Mexico, I cannot see any more) do not matter and are not protectable. Blank maps of Mexico are widely used on Commons for all purposes imaginable and obviously do not constitute a valid reason for requesting deletion of a derived file.
- 2. The data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright. Also, there is no increasingly large number of possible sources, it is just that you didn't understand the remark "Fuente: CDI-Conapo" which has been shown in the file ever since.
- 3. The data sources are only important in order to verify if the map is reliable (for example, if you want to use it for an article in Wikipedia). Has nothing to do with copyright. The freedom from copyright is sufficiently shown by the fact that the data is free and that the uploader has drawn the map by himself, no matter where he took the data from.--Jordi (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Some facts:
- If two maps are different, they are not "identical". Your claim that File:Mexico_Map.svg was the underpinning map was factually and demonstrably incorrect.
- "data for the detailed areas is not protectable by copyright" is literally a correct statement, however the fact is that the artistic creations represented by the areas drawn on this map are sufficiently creative to have copyright. They are not tables of data, nor are they simple polygons generated by a table of data. These drawn areas have no verifiable source but are so detailed, they appear to have been copied or traced from a published source which has not been declared. COM:PRP applies.
- The underpinning map does visually match File:Mexico_states_blank.png, a source which was not declared. However this map has no source and the statement of own work is not credible. That map has been marked as no source and may itself be subject to deletion if a source remains undeclared. It is also the case that the png map is lower resolution than the file this deletion request is about, it remains unlikely that that specific png file was used as the underpinning map, there may be yet another source for the original, higher resolution, underpinning map.
- Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- The maps #1 ("Mexico Map.svg") and #2 (underpinning map of our file) are identical in respect to copyright aspects, there is no protectable difference between them in terms of copyright protection.
- There is no artistic creation in a map using alphanumerical and graphical data from elsewhere in order to show the geographical extension of the use of different languages. If there were any creative credits in drawing such a map these would be the uploader's credits only, because he has drawn the map by himself. The geographical delimitation of cities or urban hinterlands or other areas are not protectable and the uploader is free to represent these zones as detailed as ever he likes to do it, using any source he can reach to.
- For copyright purposes the free source has not to be declared, it is sufficient that the source is factually free.
- It is not necessary that a specific png file was used for creating that underpinning map. The copyright does not protect any specific file, but only the content, which is identical in all three (and many other) files. There is no acceptable reason for requesting deletion of a file only because it is based on a blank map of Mexico widely used in the Wikimedia universe.
- Thanks! --Jordi (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- These are rather peculiar statements, and they are untrue in the following respects:
- Nobody is debating the copyright of "alphanumerical ond graphical data", not least of which is the fact that no such verifiable source has actually been provided. Vaguely waiving to a shelf of books or websites, is not the same as a verifiable statement that provides real data that can be checked through point by point on the map.
- Different images that are "identical in respect to copyright aspects", is meaningless. You may mean a rationale about derived works, but the fact is that we have not in reality even confirmed that the underpinning map is copyright free, because it has no verifiable source.
- "is sufficient that the source is factually free", this is bizarre. Facts are not facts if they cannot be verifiable. "God exists" may be believed by many people, but it is not a fact.
- Vaguely pointing to lots of other maps, is not proof that the underpinning map is copyright free. No source file has yet been provided that can be verified as copyright free, so no presumption can yet be made that the underpinning map, or the overlaying map of areas, are copyright free. COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.
- Please stick to facts rather than a form of "proof by exultation" which would be meaningless in a copyright case. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have already told you that the precautionary principle does not apply in the way you want to trigger it, simply because there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file and no reasonable cause to demand a "verifiable statement", as you call it. There is no doubt about copyright issues in this case, it is clearly an "own work" copyright, you can cite "COM:PRP" as often as you want, this changes nothing about the facts I explained to you.--Jordi (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have also explained to you that the maps shown above are identical in all relevant aspects for copyright questions. This is not "meaningless", but a true statement whether you understand it or not.--Jordi (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have also told you that the alphanumerical and graphical data this map is based on is free and hard data which cannot be subject to copyright, because there is no creative activity involved. Alphanumerical data are names of languages, cities or regions and numbers of speakers for each language, graphical data refers to delimitation and location of the cities, subunits or urban hinterlands or other areas the uploader has drawn into his map, i.e. all the data the uploader took from CDI or Conapo sources or from the bookpage he cites (or elsewhere, it doesn't matter from where). None of these informations can be protected by copyright, so your constant hinting to "COM:PRP" (which refers to copyright protection only and needs a third party copyright owner involved who simply does not exist in this case) is meaningless, to say it with your own words, i.e. not relevant for the question we are talking about.--Jordi (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- These are rather peculiar statements, and they are untrue in the following respects:
- Some facts:
- Using many words, you agree with the facts about copyright:
- What you have not provided is:
- a verifiably copyright free file that matches the underpinning map
- the source of the overlaid ranges, which you appear to believe has been automatically generated from something unspecified
- Provide them please.
- Until there are verifiable facts, there is significant doubt per COM:PRP. --Fæ (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the author of this file. I cannot tell you more than what I already did:
- The underpinning blank map of Mexico is widely used by many, many files on Commons, so it belongs to the project scope and there is no reasonable basis for requesting deletion of an individual file only because it is based on such a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category "Blank maps of Mexico".
- The source for the overlaid ranges is given by the author himself ("Fuente: CDI-Conapo", and he cites Jorge A. Suárez' standard work, page xiv-xv). There is no reasonable doubt that the uploader has drawn the map, so he is the copyright owner. The data he used is free by its nature and cannot be subject to copyright, whereever he took it from. So, we do not need any more information in order to state that the terms of copyright are fulfilled.
- I never said that I believe the file has been automatically generated. I always told you that the uploader has drawn the map and was free to do so without any permission whatsoever. This is because the overlaid ranges are not protectable by copyright since there is no creative activity involved in compiling them.
- It is important that you understand that the "verifiable statement" you demand is not necessary to judge if a copyright was infringed by this map or not, because by nature and definition there cannot be any copyright protection for the kind of things this map shows. Verifying the sources can be important in order to be able to judge if the map is reliable and can be used lets say for an article. But this has nothing to do with copyright. If the map is reliable or not is not our concern in this debate, since the file cannot be deleted except for copyright violation.--Jordi (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the author of this file. I cannot tell you more than what I already did:
- What you have not provided is:
- It is also important that you understand that your claim that the ranges are so detailed that they "appear to have been copied or traced from a published source"
- firstly, is a mere suspicion without sufficient grounds which cannot trigger COM:PRP, simply because there is no significant (= serious) doubt about the freedom of the file, and
- secondly, there would be nothing wrong with tracing or copying locations, limits or positions from a published source like for instance an atlas to make a map, as long as the map in the atlas is not absolutely identical (like, for instance, a photocopy) with the one you are drawing and the data you are compiling is free. No copyright infringement can be done in this way, and therefore your suspicion is even more exaggerated and completely irrelevant for the copyright status of the file.--Jordi (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you write: COM:PRP applies because it is fundamentally true that either copyright can be verified, or nobody knows what the copyright is.
- This is not true either. Of course we know who the copyright owner is (the person who has drawn the map, i.e. the uploader). There is no significant doubt that the map (like all the oher maps of this series) is his own work. As shown on the right, the series contains eight maps (including the present file, basically three types in different languages), all listed in our Category:Linguistic maps of Indigenous languages of North America and therefore widely used. It is clearly visible that all drawings are from the same author.--Jordi (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Absurd. The uploader did not wake up one day after dreaming about flying in space, with a perfect map of Mexico in their mind, then draw it using their home computer.
- This map was either directly cut and paste from another file, or exported from a mapping tool, or directly traced from another map. Either you can provide the correct source, or COM:PRP required it is removed from the project.
- Your ongoing links to related maps are irrelevant as they provide zero new evidence about copyright, they just create unnecessary tangents and mess up this deletion discussion page. They have exactly the same issue. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The absurdity is yours. The uploader used a blank map of Mexico listed in our Category of the same name which is nothing forbidden to do. The same blank map is used in many hundreds of files all over Commons (some of which shown above) and it seems to have been originally uploaded in 2005 by Jacob Rus, well known for his maps of Mexico at that time, as shown in the other file you want to delete. This dispute has nothing to do with the individual file we are discussing here.
- As I tell you all the way, COM:PRP cannot apply in the way you want to have it because there is no serious doubt about the author who has drawn the present map (referring to the number of speakers and geographical ranges of languages shown here, not referring to the underpinning map of Mexico which is of common use). It is irrelevant if he used a mapping tool or traced the limits from an atlas or where he got his data from, since all these things are free and not protected by copyright. The only thing relevant for copyright status is that he has drawn the map by himself and not photocopied or pasted an existing map drawn by another person. Only the drawing can be protected by copyright, not the content or data of the map.--Jordi (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No verifiable sources = significant doubt.
- Your claim " all these things are free and not protected by copyright" is false. Not all tools, published maps, or derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free".
- Please provide some facts, rather than more exultations of freeness. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, the lack of sources is not to be equalized with a significant doubt (concerning copyright, not reliability). There is no doubt at all that the uploader has drawn the map, whatever his sources were (since they are all free). This is the only important thing you have to know to be sure that he is the copyright owner. Furthermore, the source is not lacking here, but declared by the uploader.--Jordi (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Of course you are right that not all derived works based on copyrighted works can be presumed to be "free", but in this case yes they can, because in this case the data shown in this particular map (number of speakers and geographical ranges of use of languages) are free from copyright by nature and cannot be protected. Therefore it is irrelevant (for copyright purposes) where the author of the map got his data from, he was free to compile it from any source at his reach.--Jordi (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have not supplied any evidence that the areas drawn on the map are not derivative works. They are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data.
- Using hundreds of words, you have not supplied any verifiable evidence that can be used to determine copyright status. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is also important that you understand that your claim that the ranges are so detailed that they "appear to have been copied or traced from a published source"
I think you both made your individual point of view now clear enough. I think you should now just wait for the decision of (another) admin. Thx. --JuTa 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- +1. It is all said.--Jordi (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Info There are two official sources available which help to understand how the data of these maps (referring to all three types of the series) has been compiled.
- Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de lenguas indígenas mexicanas: cartografía contemporánea de sus asentamientos históricos. México, D.F. 2005.
- Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (INALI): Catálogo de las Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales: Variantes Lingüísticas de México con sus Autodenominaciones y Referencias Geoestadísticas. México, D.F. 2008 (Diario Oficial de la Federación, January 14, 2008, section I, pp. 30-78, and section II, pp. 1-112).
- The first source is described as Conjunto de 150 mapas de toda la República Mexicana, los cuales presentan, de manera sencilla, la ubicación y densidad de las poblaciones hablantes de lenguas indígenas en el territorio nacional. Constituye el primer paso importante para la catalogación de nuestras lenguas nacionales.[32]
- The second source continued this work and has all the geostatistical data in the form of extremely detailed lists with the names of the languages and the villages where they are spoken, see here. However, this source does not give the numbers of speakers (to be derived from the publications of Census Authority Conapo).
- The second source (published in 2008) was not available yet when @Yavidaxiu has drawn the maps and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons in 2006. But the atlas published in 2005 was already there. One of the 150 map sheets is online, it refers to Chinantecan languages. Looking at this sheet you can see how it works: The geostatistical data is represented by symbols distributed over a limited area. The text also mentions the numbers of speakers acording to the census of the year 2000 in Mexico as a whole (133,374) and in the area shown in the map (84,395). If you compare this data with the corresponding yellow range marked in our file you can see that it refers to the same geographical area shown in the atlas, located in
eastern[should be "northern"] Oaxaca near the border with Veracruz. The number (more than 100,000 speakers) also fits into the range this map is about.
- There is no doubt that the data is free (governmental publication), and that an experienced Mexican mapmaker like @Yavidaxiu (VG-4 level expert, author of similar own drawn maps, author of the basic file for the most widely used location map of Mexico in Wikimedia) is able to draw these ranges acording to the data given by his source. It is also not relevant for the copyright if he took it directly from the 2005 INALI atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it, let's say another map which showed the delimited areas already drawn in a similar way or with dots indicating the density like in this file. As I pointed out before, for the copyright the only thing important is that he has drawn the map by himself an not photocopied or pasted it from elsewhere.--Jordi (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is magical thinking. Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map?
- Rather than throwing a shelf full of haphazard possible sources of something or other, please provide a link or a precise source that can be verified for this image. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope.
- The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk about this specific file, I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file") and you used my information for trying to delete it as well (see our talk about the map "made by Jacob Rus"). It's just a blank map of Mexico listed since 2005 in our Category "Maps of Mexico" and can be used by anyone for any purpose, nothing wrong with it.
- Here we are talking about the areas where certain Mexican indigenous languages were spoken in 2000 acording to the Conapo Census of Mexico of the same year and the geostatistical data published by the competent Mexican government agencies (INALI/INEGI/CDI). I explained you how @Yavidaxiu got the data in order to draw the present map, because you were suggesting that he must have "copied or traced [it] from a published source" which you thought would have been a copyvio.
- I have proven with my newly added information that this is not the case. The data was publicly available in 2006 and @Yavidaxiu was free to use it without any permission in order to draw the map. There is also no doubt that he was technically able to do it (VG-4 mapping expert) and that he uploaded similar drawings made by himself in other files (for example File:Taínos.svg). So there is no significant doubt about the authorship of the present map, and therefore there is no doubt about the copyright status.
- Yesterday you said that the areas drawn on the map are not a set of data, nor were they created using just a set of data. With my newly added information I give you evidence that they are. That's all, the rest we have already talked about, I don't think we should repeat the same arguments eternally.--Jordi (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- P.S.: I have now also added the info about the underpinning blank map of Mexico to the file description table.--Jordi (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map? You have managed to spend several hundred words avoiding the question. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have to spend so many word because you repeat ever and ever again the same questions already answered more than once. Only some moments ago I wrote: I showed you the map above ("Another blank map, even more similar to the one used by the controverted file"). There is nothing more to say, the source of this underpinning map is given on the corresponding file description page ("Made by Jacob Rus") and discussed elsewhere, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mexico states blank.png.--Jordi (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- So if that file gets deleted, this one has to be deleted then. It was confusing because you have given several different answers now to the same question, and used several different arguments, most of which had no basis in copyright law.
- With regard to the overlay, what precisely is the source of the maps of the "villages" or regions. These cannot be deduced from simple population data, and must have come from regional maps. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Don't try to confuse. The underpinning map is of no further interest here in this talk, it has nothing to do with the copyright of @Yavidaxiu's drawing, he used it rightfully when it was listed as a free blank map of Mexico in the Category of the same name of Wikimedia Commons, there is nothing strange about this. I did not mention it at all in the newly added arguments which were only focussed in the maps drawn by @Yavidaxiu about indigenous language distribution, not in the underpinning map he used for them because that is of common use on Wikimedia Commons. It is extremely widely used and therefore in the scope, and if you really succeed deleting it, all the other files based on that blank map could be in danger, that would be several hundreds or even thousands of widely used files all over the Wikimedia universe (as I have shown in the corresponding deletion talk). This is not our topic of conversation here.--Jordi (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your second question reveals that you do not even read and check out what I write. I explained exactely how it works above, has nothing to do with population data, but the geostatistical data given on the 150 map sheets of Cartografía Contemporánea (2005). You can try how it works if you look at the sources I linked to. Simply compare the yellow area of Chinantecan languages drawn by @Yavidaxiu with the point cloud from the corresponding atlas page.--Jordi (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Could you be less vague please. We need to be able to verify that this map was created from public domain materials. In the absence of Yavidaxiu (talk · contribs) giving an understandable explanation, you are instead making up a process from scratch that you think might have happened. This is not "proof".
- Exactly where are each of the "150 maps sheets" to be found that can be verified?
- Comparing https://www.inali.gob.mx/pdf/carto.pdf to the areas marked as Chinanteco, this is not a good match. There are significant differences, and it looks impossible to overlay the zones on the uploaded map to create a match. This appears to firmly debunk your theory that this could have been the source that this work was derived from. --Fæ (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- All untrue. The data of the atlas matches exactely the area shown in the file. Even the small details like the isolated language island of El Porvenir in the south or the community of speakers relocated to Veracruz as a consequence of the building of the Cerro de Oro Dam (as mentioned in the atlas) are reflected. There is no more "proof" necessary than to prove that the data was publicly available and anyone could draw this map at the time user @Yavidaxiu did it. I gave you the link to the source and I put it on the file description page, that is all what is necessary to provide a verifiable source. I already told you that it is not relevant for the copyright if @Yavidaxiu took the data directly from the atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it. No more talk necessary.--Jordi (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- No "verifiable source" has been provided. What has been linked is one map of one region, which you now, after several other prior claims, claim shows the uploader used a set of 150 maps to create the map overlay we see.
- However the map we can see was not be traced or derived from those other maps, presuming the other 149 (which you have not provided, so we have not seen) are similar.
- In particular the dots on the map overlap, which is not shown on the map we see. There is no reason to think that it was these maps that the uploader used to create their zones. It is equally as likely that they traced a map of counties or large pueblos which has not been declared, which lined up with the centres for language areas.
- Exultation is not copyright proof, and claims by yourself is not the same as the uploader making a clear statement of which sources they derived this map from.
- FYI, these maps along with other publications by Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas are "ALGUNOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS". Index on WorldCat OCLC 70928091. So if parts of the map uploaded to Commons was traced from the INDLI maps (like El Porvenir), then it's a copyvio per COM:DW anyway. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you
claim[should be "say"] is irrelevant. The dot cloud was there and matches virtually exactely with the map created by the uploader. He is free to draw it as he wants to, we are not judging the quality of his map but only the copyright situation, as I have told you so many times. As long as he draws it by himself he can also trace county borders or larger pueblos as he likes, this is all free data he can use to reelaborate a design. He told us above that he also used the map by Jorge Suárez for the elaboration of his map. I already told you that he may also have used some kind of intermediate source for it. That would not change anything about copyright and freedom of the geostatistical data in which the map is grounded. The 150 map sheets are published and can be consulted at any time by anyone in any place where the book is stored, it is not necessary that they are available online on the Internet to be a verifiable source. The uploader made several similar maps reelaborated from existing publications in journals or books.--Jordi (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)- BTW, there is nothing "overlapping" in INALI map No. 7, what do you mean? The different colors are not different languages, it is all Chinantecan. I think your misinterpretation may be a result of poor understanding of the map legend (no problem, I will explain it to you, if you wish).--Jordi (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- "What you claim is irrelevant", perfectly true. I have been asserting facts, not making claims. I have made zero claims about how the uploader created this map. I have asked for the source so that copyright can be verified.
- Assertion of fact: the maps that you are claiming were used to create the regions shown in this upload are not free. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- The geostatistical data is free and was publicly available at the time @Yavidaxiu made his map, that is all we are interested in. Of course the maps published by INALI are not free, neither Jorge A. Suárez' book is free, but that is completely irrelevant for our question.--Jordi (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- What you
- All untrue. The data of the atlas matches exactely the area shown in the file. Even the small details like the isolated language island of El Porvenir in the south or the community of speakers relocated to Veracruz as a consequence of the building of the Cerro de Oro Dam (as mentioned in the atlas) are reflected. There is no more "proof" necessary than to prove that the data was publicly available and anyone could draw this map at the time user @Yavidaxiu did it. I gave you the link to the source and I put it on the file description page, that is all what is necessary to provide a verifiable source. I already told you that it is not relevant for the copyright if @Yavidaxiu took the data directly from the atlas or if he used some kind of intermediate source for it. No more talk necessary.--Jordi (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly what was the source of the underpinning map? You have managed to spend several hundred words avoiding the question. --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Nope.
Folks: I'm nealry sure the deciding admin will not read your whole discussion here (I stopped it some days ago). There is no need to turn it arround and arround and arround... --JuTa 12:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: kept per Jordi - the underlying map is free to use, so, no copyright issue here. Errors and other issues aren't relevant here for Commons as the file is used. --rubin16 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fæ as no permission (No permission since). I restored the file due to the discusion on my talk page JuTa 10:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Same procedure as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png: Kein Löschgrund erkennbar, ich zitiere die Stellungnahme des Hochladers: "El mapa no es erróneo ni constituye una violación de los derechos de autor. Este mapa está basado en Suárez, Jorge A. (1993). Mesoamerican indian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv-xv." Als Urheber ist folglich Benutzer @Yavidaxiu einzutragen ("Own Work"), der auf der Beschreibungsseite auch schon als Urheber präsumiert ist. Based on free data, no copyright violation can be alleged.--Jordi (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have completed the mention of sources on the file description page (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa de lenguas de México + 100 000.png).--Jordi (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This BH photo seems to be cropped from this hamaraphotos non-free photo. DW of copyrighted work are copyvios. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, hamaraphotos version is marked 'All rights reserved'. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @Verbcatcher: I think you are missing the point. The photo originally appeared on some other website before it was copied to BH. BH seems to have cropped the copyrighted image and uploaded on their site. The fact that the full size photo is available on one site shows BH has copied and keeping this file is a {{Copyvio}}, hence, Delete this file.
Acagastya (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, It's the task of the license Reviewer to find out and deal with Authenticity. Their is a saying Trust But Verify. The file was first uploaded on Hamara photos. It's a cropped version which is available on BH and it has less resolution. Have a look before you post your decision of keeping the file. For instance if the file is taken by BH photographer, then he/she can take it from other angles, too close up shot, as it's an event, celebs are present to be clicked right. The file was first available at HP site before BH published it. May be by that time BH cropped and upload it, or maybe they never covered the event. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I am sorry that I misunderstood the reason for this nomination and did not look as thoroughly as I usually do. BH did not directly copy and crop the photo from hamaraphotos because the Hamara watermark does not appear in BH version. How do we know that the file 'was available at HP site before BH published it'? The BH page is not dated and archive.org do not have a copy that predates the upload here. It is possible that BH publish cropped versions of their photos on their website with a free license, and license higher quality versions to other websites. Hamara Photos is an entertainment portal, not a photographer's website or a picture agency. However, BH have not applied their watermark, which might indicate that it was not taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Verbcatcher: , the watermark can be easily removed from any image files, in my opinion that is called Retouched version in other word Derivative work which is also copyrights violation. Use Google Reverse Image Search to find out all possible detail about the image, we can see when it was first published, on which site and with the resolution information. Have a look here at Template:BollywoodHungama, these clearly states the indication, about the file which comply with commons policy. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Google Reverse Image Search on this image found the BH webpage, but did not assign a date to it. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- BH files date can be viewed when you check/search the event, see here. Use Google ris to check the authenticity of the file. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your link is for a different photo. I have failed to find the photo under discussion using this search tool. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a different photo link. Which link are you referring to. Use this Google link to search, using image or image link, these will definitely help you. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- This link you give above searches for and finds Photos: Bellbottom team snapped at the airport, leave for Scotland at BH. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not a different photo link. Which link are you referring to. Use this Google link to search, using image or image link, these will definitely help you. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your link is for a different photo. I have failed to find the photo under discussion using this search tool. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- BH files date can be viewed when you check/search the event, see here. Use Google ris to check the authenticity of the file. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Google Reverse Image Search on this image found the BH webpage, but did not assign a date to it. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Verbcatcher: , the watermark can be easily removed from any image files, in my opinion that is called Retouched version in other word Derivative work which is also copyrights violation. Use Google Reverse Image Search to find out all possible detail about the image, we can see when it was first published, on which site and with the resolution information. Have a look here at Template:BollywoodHungama, these clearly states the indication, about the file which comply with commons policy. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- This link is an example to check the file was published on these date on Bollywood Hungama site. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaded in a higher res to external website, so, based on PRP we can think that hamaraphotos is the copyright owner. --rubin16 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Eligible for {{PD-RO-exempt}} but contains private data protected by the European Union Regulation 2016/679.
Gikü (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Request for recommendation regarding uploaded files
[edit]This is a letter that I, Dimitrios Moustos has received from the romanian fiscal authority. I uploaded it because I wanted to refeer to it from wikipedia in an article. I do not mind the personal info (address) being there, however if necessary I can use gimp to blank it out, however, this would mean that the letter has been modified: "who knows what else has been modified if the picture has been photoshopped?" If wikimedia is not a suitable place for this letter I can of course host it on my website. First time wikipedia/wikimedia contributor, so please have patience and inform me if I am doing something unsuitable. dotbit (talk) 9:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think the documents can be kept because @Dotbit: in fact gives permission to publish their real name and address. Elly (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Photos-Akshay-Kumar-shoots-for-his-first-ever-music-video-Filhaal-with-Nupur-Sanon-and-Ammy-Virk-5-480x360.jpg
[edit]
This BH photo seems to be cropped from this twitter, [33] non-free photo. DW of copyrighted work are copyvios. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete, higher resolution versions may not have a free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, per Verbcatcher. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, just because we have low quality images available, why not License Review and the pass the image. Is it will be a easy task with no mistake, that's what you're mentioning me ZI Jony. It's was music video shoot, and maybe every media and PR team was present to click shots and interact with actors. Why every news agency has max quality images and BH has low quality files. In Twitter the images were published at 1306 IST. And after that they copied and upload cropped version. And on that same day the image was been flashed on every new channels, published in article, for example 1400 news bulletin of E24 channel of india. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 23:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @C1K98V: , You have nominated the file to delete, so you no need to vote as delete. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I am guessing what the nominator meant, @Verbcatcher: and @ZI Jony: , was there is a non-free photo out there. BH took that photo, cropped it, and uploaded it on their site, making it a DW of a copyrighted work. That is a copyvio. Acagastya (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- This image is using the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} template, and is indeed sourced and credited to Bollywood Hungama. That the image also happens to appear on another site--especially the mere and unhelpful pasting of a raw link--does nothing to impeach the Bollywood Hungama claim. It's worth noting, also, that twitter.com appears routinely to use random internet images to illustrate its articles (e.g. this article--currently the first appearing on its main page--uses, without credit, an image credited in numerous places to "Ashwini Sawant, DNA"). There is no reason to believe that taran adarsh or twitter.com is the author of the image or has anything to say about it; at the very least, there's no reason to believe it more credible than Bollywood Hungama. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony: I have a question please contact a reviewer and license review the file. So that an admin can take a decision and close the DR. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Closing DR and license review are not your tasks, let it be with the responsible person. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony: I have a question please contact a reviewer and license review the file. So that an admin can take a decision and close the DR. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- This image is using the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} template, and is indeed sourced and credited to Bollywood Hungama. That the image also happens to appear on another site--especially the mere and unhelpful pasting of a raw link--does nothing to impeach the Bollywood Hungama claim. It's worth noting, also, that twitter.com appears routinely to use random internet images to illustrate its articles (e.g. this article--currently the first appearing on its main page--uses, without credit, an image credited in numerous places to "Ashwini Sawant, DNA"). There is no reason to believe that taran adarsh or twitter.com is the author of the image or has anything to say about it; at the very least, there's no reason to believe it more credible than Bollywood Hungama. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I am sorry I misunderstood the reason for the nomination. The existence of the photo elsewhere, even with larger crops, is not conclusive, and you had not indicated that the Twitter version was earlier. This does not mean that BH has pirated the image, but there is a reason to doubt that it was taken by a BH photographer. If so, then {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} is not applicable. It is unfortunate that BH do not clearly indicate which images were taken by their photographers. If you think there is a general problem with images from BH then please raise this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Verbcatcher: , the issue has always been discussed, regarding BH site. Anybody can misunderstand what you're trying to convey that why it's a challenging job for patroller and license review, to nominate and review. But nonetheless I will be more cautious from now onwards, whenever I nominate any file. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @ZI Jony: Let's take a step back. If entity BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA claims they are copyright holders of an image, and releases it under a free license; and if there is another entity ANON, who has uploaded another photo somewhere else: however ANON's photo is from the same angle, the photo looks the same, but ANON's photo has a bigger crop, that hints BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA has cropped the image from a common source from where ANON got the file. (Otherwise, how did anybody get a bigger crop?) In that case, it is upon BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA to prove they actually own the copyright, and they need to show it was indeed commissioned work. Until they show that, there is no reason to assume BOLLYWOODHUNGAMA actually owns the copyright.
Acagastya (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Acagastya: , our OTRS permission agents have accepted the claims by Bollywood Hungama. Bollywood Hungama claims they are copyright holders of those images, but in your opinion, we have to get back to Bollywood Hungama for their claims clarification. I think that we should have a discussion on VP or OTRS noticeboard to justify the original OTRS ticket. In my personal experience, all photographers from the media are taking photos from the same angle as that's located for them. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- In reply to "Otherwise, how did anybody get a bigger crop?", the assertion is that BH's business model is to publish low-resolution watermarked and/or cropped images on their website, and assign a free licence to these versions for promotional purposes. They then sell high-resolution, uncropped and unwatermarked versions of the same images with non-free licenses, which may appear on other websites. (Previously asserted here, other than the cropping.) Verbcatcher (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello @Verbcatcher: , the issue has always been discussed, regarding BH site. Anybody can misunderstand what you're trying to convey that why it's a challenging job for patroller and license review, to nominate and review. But nonetheless I will be more cautious from now onwards, whenever I nominate any file. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 10:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Acagastya (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I was pinged on IRC to take a look at this, and it seems that there might be grounds for doubting that this photo was actually "taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer". The owner of the Twitter account appears to write for BH as a film critic, though it is not immediately clear whether he is a Bollywood Hungama photographer. Given previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/08#Bollywood_Hungama, and a previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sonakshi at the press conference of Bullett Raja.jpg, there seems to be grounds for deletion per PCP. It is worth noting that the original OTRS ticket justifying the license template would be considered unacceptable proof of release by 2020 standards, and I will leave the details for the later VP discussion. Chenzw Talk 16:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence that the photograph was by a BH photographer - the website seems to frequently rip photos from other places. The OTRS ticket is apparently unacceptable in 2020 standards. Suggest we kill any and all BH photos which do not explicitly state that the photographer was working for them. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, I accept that we have little positive evidence that this was taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer (the watermark might be evidence), but this probably applies to most of the thousands of photos that use {{BollywoodHungama}}. There is a case to be made for mass-deletion of photos that rely on {{BollywoodHungama}}, but this should be properly discussed on a widely-watched forum such as COM:VPC, not incrementally in hole-in-the-corner discussions in deletion requests. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete We always go by the copyright holder has to prove the copyright claims. For now, that is missing.
Acagastya (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: exists in higher res in other sources and we have a reasonable doubt that BH owns copyright. --rubin16 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Photos-Ayushmann-Khurrana-Neena-Gupta-and-Jitendra-Kumar-snapped-promoting-their-film-Shubh-Mangal-Zyada-Saavdhan-2.jpg
[edit]
This BH photo seems to be cropped from this NDTV non-free photo. DW of copyrighted work are copyvios. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete, higher resolution versions might not be available with a free license. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, not a valid reason to delete. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, I misinterpreted the rationale for the nomation, sorry. Our image appears to have been cropped by the uploader from the BH version, the uploaded version includes part of the BH watermark. Are you challenging the {{Bollywoodhungama}} tag? Verbcatcher (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the file was cropped by one volunteer here on commons. I'm not at all challenging {{Bollywoodhungama}} tag. I'm just following the BH to assist. If you have gone through the template it states clearly Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under the CC-BY-3.0 license. This applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The heading of the Bollywood Hungama page is Ayushmann Khurrana, Neena Gupta and Jitendra Kumar snapped promoting their film Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan. This sounds like a press meeting. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Press meet is a type of Event only for instance Big B new new movie announcement is made after inviting media for a press meet and Big B interacted with media personal. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 14:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: , you have not done anything wrong for this file! The image is using the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} template, and is indeed sourced and credited to Bollywood Hungama. That the image also happens to appear on another site--especially the mere and unhelpful pasting of a raw link--does nothing to impeach the Bollywood Hungama claim. There is no reason to believe that ssomeone else is the author of the image or has anything to say about it; at the very least, there's no reason to believe it more credible than Bollywood Hungama. @C1K98V: , the similar reply I've given here also, and Bollywood Hungama does not grants everyone permission to use some of their images under the CC-BY-3.0 license. This applies only to Wikimedia volunteers. if you are not satisfied with it, I'd prefer you to have a discussion on the OTRS noticeboard. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony: I'm not at all satisfied with your answer. But I have a question please contact a reviewer and license review the file. So that an admin can take a decision and close the DR. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not answerable to you for my vote, I just explain you to understand your problem. Closing DR and license review are not your tasks, let it be with the responsible person. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @ZI Jony: I'm not at all satisfied with your answer. But I have a question please contact a reviewer and license review the file. So that an admin can take a decision and close the DR. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 15:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher: , you have not done anything wrong for this file! The image is using the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} template, and is indeed sourced and credited to Bollywood Hungama. That the image also happens to appear on another site--especially the mere and unhelpful pasting of a raw link--does nothing to impeach the Bollywood Hungama claim. There is no reason to believe that ssomeone else is the author of the image or has anything to say about it; at the very least, there's no reason to believe it more credible than Bollywood Hungama. @C1K98V: , the similar reply I've given here also, and Bollywood Hungama does not grants everyone permission to use some of their images under the CC-BY-3.0 license. This applies only to Wikimedia volunteers. if you are not satisfied with it, I'd prefer you to have a discussion on the OTRS noticeboard. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Press meet is a type of Event only for instance Big B new new movie announcement is made after inviting media for a press meet and Big B interacted with media personal. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 14:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- The heading of the Bollywood Hungama page is Ayushmann Khurrana, Neena Gupta and Jitendra Kumar snapped promoting their film Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan. This sounds like a press meeting. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the file was cropped by one volunteer here on commons. I'm not at all challenging {{Bollywoodhungama}} tag. I'm just following the BH to assist. If you have gone through the template it states clearly Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under the CC-BY-3.0 license. This applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload. Thanks. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence that the photograph was by a BH photographer - the website seems to frequently rip photos from other places. The OTRS ticket is apparently unacceptable in 2020 standards. Suggest we kill any and all BH photos which do not explicitly state that the photographer was working for them. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, I accept that we have little positive evidence that this was taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer (the watermark might be evidence), but this probably applies to most of the thousands of photos that use {{BollywoodHungama}}. There is a case to be made for mass-deletion of photos that rely on {{BollywoodHungama}}, but this should be properly discussed on a widely-watched forum such as COM:VPC, not incrementally in hole-in-the-corner discussions in deletion requests. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree we need a wide-ranging discussion, but that's no reason not to delete these now. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: seems to be cropped from external image. PS: I personally think that we should review BH OTRS ticket in general based on the history of cropped files of other authors. --rubin16 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Albert Brenet's artwork. The artist died in 2005. No freedom of panorama in France. 90.43.170.216 15:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of panorama is irrelevant, this item is not in a public place in that sense. The reason why this model is ineligible for copyright is that it is a faithful reproduction of a historical ship. As such, it is not an original work but a "servile reproduction", and does not entail the creativity required to yield a copyright. Rama (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- PS: the closing admin will also have to revert Revision of Category:Diorama_of_Redoutable-MnM_53_OA_52, which is based on the same mistaken conceptions as this DR. Rama (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, I do see original interpretation and creativity, it is not a mere copy of an old ship, the painting and the way the model is presented are showing evidence of original work. Elly (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work that I can't consider as inegible. It contains many details and there no such detailed specification with all proportions, sizes and details for the historical ship. So, it does include some sort of creativity from the creator and is copyrighted. --rubin16 (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
A reverse image search for this image casts doubt on whether this is the "own work" of the uploader. ජපස (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I do not think this reason is relevant, as it is a copy of a 2D object, which is not a creative act. However, the text on this diploma cannot be licensed with CC-BY-SA, it would be unacceptable to change the names etc. Therefore I think the file should be deleted. Elly (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and don't think that insignia is free, too. --rubin16 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The circle-A is stylized and passes the threshold of originality. This logo isn't merely text and so isn't public domain. Now if the author is indeed a libertarian/anarchist, they might just release it as free use, but I don't see a notice on the originating website. czar 22:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The circle-A is still text, stylized or not, and is public information. This is how typefaces and stylized text is treated on Commons. See other logos with stylized typefaces like File:Subway restaurant.svg or File:Sonic Runners logo.png. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't tjink it is just a text, it is a style and creative enough. --rubin16 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
