Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/11/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Fair use PeterWiki56 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Krzysztof Szczepankowski
[edit]- File:Teripremiere Teripremierlamente 2020.svg
- File:Vatiho Europe Europariamente 2020.svg
- File:Vatiho Greatte Pariamente 2020.svg
- File:Teripremiere Teripremierkomisseri 2020.svg
- File:Vatiho Vatishen Obretir Obretirlament 2020.svg
- File:Teripremiere Teripremierauxersillen 2020.svg
- File:Teripremiere Teripremiergerterkomision 2020.svg
Fantasy diagrams, don't represent real-world legislatures. --Slashme (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
there has been no more Senate in Northern Ireland since 1973, except Alliance and UUP parties do not match with existing parties as of 2017 (DUP, Sinn Féin...). Fake diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can we add File:Irish Free State Seanad.svg and File:Éire Dáil Éireann 2020.svg (by the same author) to this deletion request? --Slashme (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Not a real legislature: created for online game respublica. See https://respublica.co/region?region=Kansas Slashme (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted ESA image, see here. Unfortunately, there is no fair use on Commons. Mosbatho (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 16:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Something went wrong on previewing this file. But direct link wroks - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/অ.svg Abuhenasobuj (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad SVG, uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright infringement Buffelm (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
COPYVIO - taken from https://stankin.ru/subdivisions/id_1/about Bilderling (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F1. --Wdwd (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the uploader is the real author of this photo, it's a stretched out crop of a popular photo of Andy Ngo. Instances of the image appearing elsewhere: 1 2 3 The third link suggests that the original image was shared under a CC license, if someone can verify that then we should use the original instead. BeŻet (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F1. --Wdwd (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, AKA MBG - license of file does not support commercial use.·Carn 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Carn.
- This page at Jamendo site asserts that this audio distributed with CC-SA and CC-BY. (Please, clink on the triangle to see the licenses).
- Автобы альбома разместили в 2009 году информацию о нём на разных ресурсах. И среди прочего они указывали лицензию СС-BY, cм. форум. Это не авторитетный источник, но для полноты картины. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did not notice that there were icons, but when you click on "get official license" it offers to buy a license, based on this I concluded that commercial use is not allowed. If it is not true - I'll cancel the nomination. ·Carn 17:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Carn: Takda, pẑ. pis.
{{withdraw}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)- This is not russian =)·Carn 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Carn: Takda, pẑ. pis.
- P.S. Некоего Carn я видео на конференции WikiCite. Это часом не Вы были? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Да, по моим правкам на мете видно, что это я. Когда я согласился речь шла про понедельник, во вторник пришлось с телефона участвовать, без слайдов, скомкано, я извлёк для себя урок что надо лучше готовиться. ·Carn 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- У меня сложилось впечатление, что это достойная конференция: много интересных докладов. Совершенно случайно через twitter наткнулся. Почему-то в рувики не было рекламы, хотя, вроде бы прямое отношение к редакторам имеет. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination·Carn 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. --Sealle (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Violation des droits d'image Jeg.work (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, unused selfie, uploader's request. Courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
No indication that the original sketch and text is out of copyright or has been published under a free licence. As a derivative work we cannot keep this scan. What we need to know is when the book was originally published and if there is a copyright notice. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: we are lacking a publication date so we cannot determine its copyright status. Without that info PCP certainly applies. Ww2censor (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are no indications of copyright, but unfortunately no indications of the publication date either. From images of the control panels and safety equipment (or lack thereof), I would guess this was made after the plant was built early 1950's. I have the entire 15 page document photographed (crudely), I could upload all 15 images to get a hand in figuring out the copyright status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr00bie (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Please sign your contributions to talk pages and discussions like this by typing four tilde characters
~~~~This will add your username and a timestamp for reference.- Also, there is no need to upload all the pages of the document as it would only cause further potential copyright violations. Judging from the design of the page we're discussing here, I would agree though that this is from the 1950's or early 60's. So if there is no copyright notice, we might keep it with regards to {{PD-US-no notice}}. @Ww2censor: What do you think? De728631 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I found some more information about the timeline of Schiller Station. According to this page, the mercury boilers were retired before 1977, so the brochure we're talking about must be older. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dr00bie: You stated the photo you made are crude, so please check again to make sure there is no indication of a copyright notice which can be a small as the small c in a circle "©" or "all rights reserved". Obviously, based on the link provided by De728631 the document was published after 1949, so perhaps the 1950s or 60s date may well be correct. Ww2censor (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ww2censor: By "crude", I meant that the pics I have are at an angle, not a straight-on scan. The images are high resolution. To add, I have the original and no copyright information exists at all. Weirdly, no (R)egistered or (T)rade(M)arks on the character Reddy Kilowatt or the logo for the Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The smallest text on the entire booklet is on the back cover at lower right corner and reads, "Printed by Lew A. Cummings Co, Manchester, New Hampshire".
- Then Dr00bie it sounds like De728631's suggestion that {{PD-US-no notice}} applies seems correct. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ww2censor: By "crude", I meant that the pics I have are at an angle, not a straight-on scan. The images are high resolution. To add, I have the original and no copyright information exists at all. Weirdly, no (R)egistered or (T)rade(M)arks on the character Reddy Kilowatt or the logo for the Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The smallest text on the entire booklet is on the back cover at lower right corner and reads, "Printed by Lew A. Cummings Co, Manchester, New Hampshire".
- Dr00bie: You stated the photo you made are crude, so please check again to make sure there is no indication of a copyright notice which can be a small as the small c in a circle "©" or "all rights reserved". Obviously, based on the link provided by De728631 the document was published after 1949, so perhaps the 1950s or 60s date may well be correct. Ww2censor (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I found some more information about the timeline of Schiller Station. According to this page, the mercury boilers were retired before 1977, so the brochure we're talking about must be older. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also, there is no need to upload all the pages of the document as it would only cause further potential copyright violations. Judging from the design of the page we're discussing here, I would agree though that this is from the 1950's or early 60's. So if there is no copyright notice, we might keep it with regards to {{PD-US-no notice}}. @Ww2censor: What do you think? De728631 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- The other file File:Schiller Station Informational Booklet.jpg, will have the same copyright status. --ghouston (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- But Dr00bie you should not claim these images as "own work". You did not design them, you just made a slavish copy. It would be better to state: "photo by Dr00bie, publicity booklet design by unknown". Ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ww2censor, I have made the edits. Shall I change the Author to the same type of verbiage?Dr00bie (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dr00bie I've refined the details and licence of both images for you and straightened the 2nd one too. Ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ww2censor, I have made the edits. Shall I change the Author to the same type of verbiage?Dr00bie (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- But Dr00bie you should not claim these images as "own work". You did not design them, you just made a slavish copy. It would be better to state: "photo by Dr00bie, publicity booklet design by unknown". Ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: With the recent finding and relicensing I withdraw my nomination. --De728631 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files appear to violate COM:FOP#United States.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Stefan4 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Deleted: Derivative works of copyrighted work PierreSelim (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Derivative work of images on a screen.
Stefan4 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept - As noted, the first the screen is PDTEXT, in the second it's just real-time. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) See COM:PACKAGING. The Flickr user is unlikely the person who made the packaging. Stefan4 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Deleted: INeverCry 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC) No freedom of panorama in Russia. Stefan4 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept as above. Yann (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The timetables might be considered as "databases" under the w:Database Directive. In that case, the timetables remain unfree until they are at least 15 years old.
Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as per Hedwig and others. Yann (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 2[edit]Derivative work of the aquarium's info boards. However it is conceivable that this is OK due to COM:FOP#Spain.
-mattbuck (Talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Deleted: COM:DW. Alan (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 3[edit]Incomplete uploads. Please delete and/or reupload.
Ytoyoda (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 4[edit]
Ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: by Ronhjones. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 5[edit]incomplete uploads - let the uploaders do them again
Ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Deleted: Only Unfixed images deleted. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 6[edit]Files seem to have been accidentally uploaded as a .jpg instead of as a video
Elisfkc (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Mixed close. Deleted those where video was uploaded. Kept those which are essentially links to the original videos. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 7[edit]Screenshots of videos
-Killarnee (C•T•U) 13:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 8[edit]unused, useless screenshot of a video
-akko (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 9[edit]Useless screenshots of a video
-Killarnee (C•T•U) 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: concensus is to keep. Agree that these are in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpeg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(39097253295).jpg){kind=link}
_(28216254809).jpg){kind=link}
_(39097256505).jpg){kind=link}
_(39097260125).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Dark_Grass_Blue_(Female)_(41920030290).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5286278649).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6146174256).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(11197630903).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_White_Smiley_Wink_on_Black_(3386235660).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_White_Smiley_Wink_in_%22Black_Smoke%22_(3386231596).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_Black_Smiley_Wink_in_%22White_Fog%22_(3385415445).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_Green_Smiley_Wink_with_Red_reverse._(3386221428).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_Smiley_Wink_with_Multicolour_Illumination_and_Shadows_(3385403397).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_Monochrome_3D_Anaglyph_Smiley_Wink_with_Multiple_Illumination_Sources_and_Shadows_(3386200666).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Rotating_Colour_3D_Anaglyph_Smiley_Wink_with_Multicolour_Illumination_and_Shadows_(3386193198).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Flickr images needing human review 10
[edit]Derivative works of copyrighted logos.
- File:Escut - Diada d'Aniversari dels Castellers de Lleida, 2016 (retallat).jpg
- File:Escut Castellers de l'Alt Maresme - Festes de Maig de Badalona, 2017 (retallat).jpg
- File:Escut - Diada d'Aniversari dels Castellers de Lleida, 2016.jpg
- File:Escut Castellers de l'Alt Maresme - Festes de Maig de Badalona, 2017.jpg.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I added the intermediate works File:Escut - Diada d'Aniversari dels Castellers de Lleida, 2016.jpg and File:Escut Castellers de l'Alt Maresme - Festes de Maig de Badalona, 2017.jpg. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
not my own, sorry my mistake .. LuqmanVE (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
duplicate. File:Marc E. Knapper.jpg Direct700 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Concern voiced in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#Copyright_help_regarding_File:Colonization_Cycle.jpg Caleb Bak (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MariaCastell (talk · contribs)
[edit]Bogus CC licenses, various derivative works of unclear copyright status
- File:Martin de Porres Santo.jpg
- File:San-martin-de-porras.jpg
- File:JCR - AMERICA.gif
- File:Flag, symbol.jpg
- File:Progresism.png
Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Migebert (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Backward contact tracing leading to backward and forward contact tracing, in Covid-19.jpg
- File:Backward contact tracing for Covid-19 leading to forward contact tracing.jpg
- File:Backward contact tracing for Covid-19.jpg
- File:Backward and forward contact tracing for Covid-19.jpg
- File:Forward contact tracing in a restaurant.jpg
- File:Forward contact tracing in the family.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: screenshot of questionable notability. Used in unapproved draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JosephWizz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, appeared elsewhere prior to upload (e.g., File:Laumi Business Center 2020.png is here; File:Panorámica La Sabana, San José Costa Rica 2020.jpg is here; etc.) Duck/COM:PRP issue.
- File:Leumi BC noviembre 2020.jpg
- File:Panorámica SJO octubre 2020.jpg
- File:Laumi Business Center 2020.png
- File:Panorámica La Sabana, San José Costa Rica 2020.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright doubt: these images are not likely to be own works by the user as (a) at least one can be found via reverse image search as being posted on a forum thread without attribution, (b) they lack resolution and quality to be original works from camera and allude to them being reproduced from other sources, (c) uploader has copyvio history of taking skyscraper photos from forum threads from the site http://www.skyscrapercity.com and uploading them without investigating for a free license. These 2 files are the remaining out of 12 that weren't tagged as blatant copyvios by me because I couldn't locate their exact authors
seb26 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Appear to be copyvios - low res, no camera EXIF, visual characteristics of some suggest photos of printed pages (COM:DW) (e.g., see "waves" of non-flat paper in File:Meridiano BC.jpg and File:Tribca.jpg and File:Villa Montana.jpg is clearly from this and File:Torre de Heredia.jpg is clearly from this--it looks like they've merely been scanning printed real estate listings); File:Vista Panorámica, San José, Costa Rica.jpg was taken from here; etc. Duck/COM:PRP issue
- File:Vista Panorámica, San José, Costa Rica.jpg
- File:Cosmopolitan Tower.jpg
- File:Leumi Business Center en construcción septiembre 2020.jpg
- File:LBC parte trasera.jpg
- File:Torre Universal.jpg
- File:LBC en construcción.jpg
- File:Meridiano BC.jpg
- File:Villa Montana.jpg
- File:Monte Plata.jpg
- File:Torre de Heredia.jpg
- File:Condal.jpg
- File:Vita Bellavista.jpg
- File:Tribca.jpg
- File:Vistas del Robledal.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Attila1988 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Inside the Holy Temple of the Mother of God of Azov.jpg
- File:Church of Saint John of Kronstadt in Odessa.jpg
- File:Holy Temple of the Mother of God of Azov.jpg
- File:Entrance of the Church of Saint John of Kronstadt in Odessa.jpg
- File:Bishop Germogen.jpg
- File:Archbishop Benjamin.jpg
- File:Bishop Savvati.jpg
- File:The Holy Synod of the RTOC.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Faber Burgos Sarmiento Youtuber.jpg
- File:Faber Burgos Sarmiento en la estratosfera de la tierra.png
- File:Faberco.jpg
- File:Faberburgos.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by NihadGulamzada (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
On the same date (15.01.2017) it was on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/877529992296470/photos/a.877537682295701/1200047696711363/?type=3&theater Please do not forget that DRs are discussions and not speedy deletion requests. E4024 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Poor quality, not used. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
copyright violation (consulted with the uploader) Vojtěch Veselý (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as w:en:Help:Table to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: and no license at all. --JuTa 22:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Facebook images per "FBMD", permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. JGHowes talk 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- also file:ACA Alberto Lagos bajo relieve 2.jpg
There is no freedom of panorama in Argentina for sculptures. Sculptor Alberto Lagos died in 1960 and the photos violate his copyright. The photos can be restored after copyright expiration in 2031 (70+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no any evidence that the author of the image aggreed to publish his image under CC lisence. Youtube is not a reliable source. Interfase (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase, may I know why you are posting deletion template to my all uploaded pictures? Haven't you see the licenses provided? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the licences are not reliable for the image. Interfase (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase I see you are not familiar with CC. Please, see here here and here. There is also "review needed" (by administrators) template. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is NO any evidence that the copyright holder uploaded this video on YouTube. Interfase (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase The copyright holder is uploaded this video on YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license. Which part you consider not reliable. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- How you can prove that the “copyright holder is uploaded this video on YouTube”? If it is the work of official Armenian government it should be on there website with CC license. Interfase (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase Who says that? Here is the link, saying that The Artsakh Defense Army reports that it has captured another Syrian mercenary with video provided, which has CC license. I can't understand what more you need. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that there is no any clearence about the copyright holder of the video/image: NKR army? Armenian Republic army? hetq.am? or YouTube uploader? You still did not provide an evidence about agreement of copyright holder to publush hos image under CC lisence. Interfase (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase I provided everything which needs Wikimedia and this picture will be reviewed by admins and approved. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that there is no any clearence about the copyright holder of the video/image: NKR army? Armenian Republic army? hetq.am? or YouTube uploader? You still did not provide an evidence about agreement of copyright holder to publush hos image under CC lisence. Interfase (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase Who says that? Here is the link, saying that The Artsakh Defense Army reports that it has captured another Syrian mercenary with video provided, which has CC license. I can't understand what more you need. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- How you can prove that the “copyright holder is uploaded this video on YouTube”? If it is the work of official Armenian government it should be on there website with CC license. Interfase (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase The copyright holder is uploaded this video on YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license. Which part you consider not reliable. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is NO any evidence that the copyright holder uploaded this video on YouTube. Interfase (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Interfase I see you are not familiar with CC. Please, see here here and here. There is also "review needed" (by administrators) template. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the licences are not reliable for the image. Interfase (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
These appear to be images of combatants held prisoner in an armed conflict; this may raise legal and moral issues. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, which includes:
- The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it.
- Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject.
- Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law.
Verbcatcher (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. To clarify the above: this file should be deleted for moral and possible legal reasons based on COM:IDENT#Defamation and COM:IDENT#Moral issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The title of the YouTube source video for the image on the right is "Գերեվարված իլսամիստ-ահաբեկչի հարցաքննությունը". Google Translate from Armenian gives this as "Interrogation of a captured ilsamist-terrorist".[1] Verbcatcher (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I suppose "Islamist terrorist" is what they call any of their enemies, so we can safely ignore that accusation – but should not repeat it. I agree these images are demeaning, in that the subjects are in a position where they cannot choose how to represent themselves. They have little educational value, other than showing what propaganda pictures can be like, and for that we should use images with less issues. –LPfi (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- The title of the YouTube source video for the image on the right is "Գերեվարված իլսամիստ-ահաբեկչի հարցաքննությունը". Google Translate from Armenian gives this as "Interrogation of a captured ilsamist-terrorist".[1] Verbcatcher (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
low quality picture, not notable content. Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Author is Harry Cock, see EXIF, not uploader shizhao (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This monument was designed by Vann Molyvann, who died in 2017 according to enwiki. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Cambodia has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Images of this artwork will not be free until 50 years after Molyvann's death, or until Cambodia amends/reforms their copyright law to remove restrictions to "incidental inclusion only" and allow free pictorial reproductions and free, commercial distribution and publication of pictorial representations of their copyrighted architecture and sculptures without the need of authorizations of their creators and/or their heirs. There is also an old DR concerning this copyrighted monument.
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (01).jpg
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (02).jpg
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (03).jpg
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (04).jpg
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (05).jpg
- File:2016 Phnom Penh, Pomnik Niepodległości (06).jpg
- File:Independence Memorial.svg
- File:Independence Monument Phnom Penh 2.jpg
- File:Independence Monument Phnom Penh 3.jpg
- File:Independence Monument Phnom Penh 4.jpg
- File:Independence Monument Phnom Penh.jpg
- File:Independence Monument.jpg
- File:PP Independence Monument (14266022655).jpg
- File:Sangkat Chakto Mukh, Phnom Penh, Cambodia - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Sangkat Tonle Basak, Phnom Penh 12301, Cambodia - panoramio (10).jpg
- File:Sangkat Tonle Basak, Phnom Penh 12301, Cambodia - panoramio (7).jpg
- File:Wikipedia Takes Phnom Penh.png
- File:Wikipedia Takes PhnomPenh.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Included in this DR are computer graphics (.svg / .png representations of the monument) which immediately become derivative works of this monument. I'm not sure about a Cambodian riel that depicts this monument, so I didn't marked it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This architecture was designed by Vann Molyvann, who died in 2017 according to enwiki. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Cambodia has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Images of this work of architecture will not be free until 50 years after Molyvann's death, or until Cambodia amends/reforms their copyright law to remove restrictions to "incidental inclusion only" and allow free pictorial reproductions and free, commercial distribution and publication of pictorial representations of their copyrighted architecture and sculptures without the need of authorizations of their creators and/or their heirs. There is also an old DR concerning this copyrighted architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Cambodia A1Cafel (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Illegally re-uploaded, uploader should be warned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment Note that the deleted version is not the same photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This architecture was designed by Vann Molyvann, who died in 2017 according to enwiki. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Sadly, Cambodia has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Images of this work of architecture will not be free until 50 years after Molyvann's death, or until Cambodia amends/reforms their copyright law to remove restrictions to "incidental inclusion only" and allow free pictorial reproductions and free, commercial distribution and publication of pictorial representations of their copyrighted architecture and sculptures without the need of authorizations of their creators and/or their heirs. There is also an old DR concerning this copyrighted architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Video clearly marked belta.by (upper right corner, throughout), which is the Belarusian Telegraph Agency which is not the same as the YouTube channel PopVidDNK which is hosting the video. I doubt PopVidDNK has the rights to release the video. GRuban (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lithuania A1Cafel (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work showing non-free objects A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Artwork during protests/demonstrations is temporal, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was asked for an opinion here. As UK law is more liberal than in other countries in terms of definition, I assume that this is covered by UK:FOP. The contention was that this installation was temporal, not 'permanent'. This work of art/ installations 'lifetime' was that of the demonstration- so legally it was permanent. At the time, the subject of this work, was a very loud American public figure, so his image and derivatives are permitted. In any case, I would suggest this is an inappropriate time to make political deletions. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ClemRutter: Describing an installation that was in place for up to a few days as 'permanent' seems perverse. If 'permanent' can mean this then please discuss it at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom, and update COM:FOP UK if you can reach a consensus. You may be right that derivatives of Trump's image are permitted, but the sculptor presumably owns the copyright of this sculpture. If FOP does not apply then we require permission from the sculptor. Delete, this sculpture was not permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, which is required for COM:FOP UK. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree as to permanence in that arguing that a temporary display for a short duration has any resemblance to "permanent", which I would interpret as "for the forseeable future at the time of its first display" is just nonsense in the absence of any binding legal authority. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Similar pics have been in the net from 2018 like this one:https://amazingstories.com/2018/09/i-went-to-another-world-and-bought-this-t-shirt-by-alberto-chimal/ As the file comes two years after the event and by a newcomer, a discussion is useful. DRs help us to improve Commons, IMHO. E4024 (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep We don't (well, shouldn't) delete images for being "similar" in subject. Particularly not for those which are of news-worthy events within their field. Someone wins an award, there is usually an audience and these days they will nearly all have cameras with them.
- DRs like this are a waste of time for Commons and likely to drive yet more contibutors away. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a crop of a screencap of a video owned by Worldcon 76. You can see the same exact expression, angle, video/image quality at the 2:20:00 mark [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- More evidence about the motivation of the uploader and that this is not his work.[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- That post does indicate disrespect for the rules. The phrase 'But I see the rules do not support irreverence' refers to the conventions for Wikipedia infobox images. However, this image does appear to be a crop from the YouTube video that you have linked. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- More evidence about the motivation of the uploader and that this is not his work.[3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Morbidthoughts. This image is not "own work" by the uploader. Furthermore, it is not well-suited to illustrate any encyclopedia article, let alone to "illustrate" N. K. Jemisin's remarkable achievement of having won three Hugo awards. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- The desciption of this file dosen't mention any "2D works" at all. The name of the file and the text tells about work with machines being done in the street. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Per uploader. --Missvain (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Can we simply blur his face? I took the picture because of the name, not because of the photo. The font is not copyrighted. --Edelseider (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is plain silly - electionposters are made to be seen publicly - if any picture in public space where just one poster is visible should be deleted then we should delete thousands of pictures - whitout any reasonable reason. This is NOT works of art, its political 'statements' about political candidates. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- And in that perpective any picture from a demonstration with the demonstrators carrying posters or banners would be listed for deletion, because they are carying "2D works" - that would be more like censorship and represent a quite distorted view on the issue of copyright. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. We are interpreting the law of Denmark, see COM:DENMARK. If you think this is silly then you should lobby your politicians to change the law, or to release their posters with free licenses. Demonstrations where the posters are incidental are allowed under the de minimis principle. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
While this is a work by the U.S. Air Force, it is also a derivative work, the eye in the center being taken from this image of the Eye of Sauron from the LOTR films. Therefore, this file is a COPYVIO, the eye image being under the copyright of Peter Jackson and the relevant film companies. Thespoondragon (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably no scope here. 181.203.122.157 02:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of COM:SCOPE. Google Translate shows that the description field is a resume (CV), presumably of the man shown, which indicates that he is the principal of a primary school. The only contribution to any project by this uploader. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Anthonymarvinogallagher claims that it's his own work, but that its author is "Richard Miller". Well, which? Or is (O')Gallagher a pseudonym of Miller, or vice-versa? Needs clarification, at the very least. Incidentally, Anthonymarvinogallagher writes in en:Draft:Richard Miller (cryptographer) that "Miller is known for being a ‘privacy freak’." Hoary (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoary: Hoary These are both public images. I have received permission to use them from the individual as well. There is no copyright information for either. Anthonymarvinogallagher (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anthonymarvinogallagher, you confuse me. "These are both public images": I don't know what this means. "I have received permission to use them from the individual as well": I kind of know what this means; however, in the Wikimedia Commons context, it's meaningless. But anyway, all of this has something to do with reproduction rights. Yet you follow this with: "There is no copyright information for either", which appears to contradict what you have just said. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoary: Hoary What is confusing? This is an image (display picture) posted to Twitter. This is an image posted to a public space. I asked the individual in question to use the Storyflesh image as well as this image. He said to go right ahead. I simply asked for feedback so that I can improve my article, yet now I am having deletion requests for images I have personally asked and received permission to use. Anthonymarvinogallagher (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anthonymarvinogallagher, yes, it's reasonable to say that an image posted to Twitter can be viewed by the public. But as far as I know, this doesn't affect its current copyright status. When you selected "own work", you stated that you were its author; but you also said that it was by Miller and you're now implying that you're not Miller. You are (and anyone is) of course welcome to ask Miller (or anyone) for permission to post something to Commons; but Commons can't just take your (or my, or anyone's) word for it that the OK has been given. For one thing, it's not just a matter of permission to appear here (or in Wikipedia); it's a matter of an unusually permissive copyleft license. (An additional oddity about this photograph, if it's said to be by Miller, is that it doesn't seem to be posed -- unlike, say, File:Daniel.meadows.bus.jpg, which really is a photograph of Meadows by Meadows -- and it's rather hard to believe that it really is by Miller.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoary: Hoary What is confusing? This is an image (display picture) posted to Twitter. This is an image posted to a public space. I asked the individual in question to use the Storyflesh image as well as this image. He said to go right ahead. I simply asked for feedback so that I can improve my article, yet now I am having deletion requests for images I have personally asked and received permission to use. Anthonymarvinogallagher (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Anthonymarvinogallagher, you confuse me. "These are both public images": I don't know what this means. "I have received permission to use them from the individual as well": I kind of know what this means; however, in the Wikimedia Commons context, it's meaningless. But anyway, all of this has something to do with reproduction rights. Yet you follow this with: "There is no copyright information for either", which appears to contradict what you have just said. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hoary: Hoary These are both public images. I have received permission to use them from the individual as well. There is no copyright information for either. Anthonymarvinogallagher (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-notable casual snapshot for a subject unlikely to get their own Wikipedia article. --Missvain (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Canciller Andrés Allamand participa del saludo protocolar al Presidente de Bolivia, Luis Arce, y al Vicepresidente, David Choquehuanca 02.jpg
[edit]
The photograph was obtained from the Twitter of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not from the Chilean government website (www.gob.cl), thus the license is not valid. Frodar (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Frodar: If you get to read the document where the government releases their materials under the CC license, you can see it is directed at all Chilean (central) government entities, including this one. See for instance page four. --Kuatrero (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Until not long ago (they have just revamped their website), the main page and articles published by the Ministry had, in their footer, a "Creative Commons Atribución 2.0 Chile" note just like it still appears on some sub-websites like this one. See for example this Google cached version. Hopefully they will readd that note soon later. But legally these resources have been released under the CC BY 2.0 license since 2010 as per the "ordinario" cited above. --Kuatrero (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if determined that the license applies to the social networks of Chilean government agencies, the Template:CC-GobCL must be modified, currently only refers to files from www.gob.cl. Frodar (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should, yes. I've gone ahead and modified the en template, saying now that "this file was generated by the Government of Chile" and clarifying that it also includes social media(page 1: "...lineamientos comunicacionales de plataformas digitales y medios sociales..."). --Kuatrero (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if determined that the license applies to the social networks of Chilean government agencies, the Template:CC-GobCL must be modified, currently only refers to files from www.gob.cl. Frodar (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Canciller Andrés Allamand participa del saludo protocolar al Presidente de Bolivia, Luis Arce, y al Vicepresidente, David Choquehuanca 01.jpg
[edit]
The photograph was obtained from the Twitter of the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not from the Chilean government website (www.gob.cl), thus the license is not valid. Frodar (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Frodar: If you get to read the document where the government releases their materials under the CC license, you can see it is directed at all Chilean (central) government entities, including this one. See for instance page four. --Kuatrero (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Until not long ago (they have just revamped their website), the main page and articles published by the Ministry had, in their footer, a "Creative Commons Atribución 2.0 Chile" note just like it still appears on some sub-websites like this one. See for example this Google cached version. Hopefully they will readd that note soon later. But legally these resources have been released under the CC BY 2.0 license since 2010 as per the "ordinario" cited above. --Kuatrero (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if determined that the license applies to the social networks of Chilean government agencies, the Template:CC-GobCL must be modified, currently only refers to files from www.gob.cl. Frodar (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should, yes. I've gone ahead and modified the en template, saying now that "this file was generated by the Government of Chile" and clarifying that it also includes social media(page 1: "...lineamientos comunicacionales de plataformas digitales y medios sociales..."). --Kuatrero (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if determined that the license applies to the social networks of Chilean government agencies, the Template:CC-GobCL must be modified, currently only refers to files from www.gob.cl. Frodar (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This 2 D art is in Miami, Florida, USA. The US has No Freedom of Panorama for 2D or even 3D sculpture artwork, except for buildings such as homes, apartments, dams. Leoboudv (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. In my opinion {{PD-MD-exempt}} does not apply. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- also file:PCV(Monagas).PNG
Small photos without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contributions. The uploader has problems with copyright (look his talkpage). I suspect again copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC) - Keep The other deletions indicated at User talk:Diego4654 were for files without proper licenses. There is no indication of files deleted on the basis of dubious claims of 'own work'. These look like amateur photographs. File:Mike y la bandera de Venezuela.jpg appears to have been taken from the audience at a concert. The small size and poor technical quality both suggest a crop of a larger image, possibly taken with a phone. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Kept: Per Verbcatcher and assuming good faith. Request permissions if concerned. --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, and no encyclopedic value. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Fair use (Fair use) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The Flickr source has the image as CC-BY, however this in turn links to http://www.museuartecontemporanea.gov.pt/pt/pecas/ver/187. There is a usage statement at http://www.museuartecontemporanea.gov.pt/en/informacao/fotografia-documentacao and the general statements reserve copyright. As this is a self portrait by the artist there may be a fair use rationale to apply for small resolution versions on other projects, but this does not meet the licensing policy requirements for Commons. This is in use at fr.wp and as the artist is alive, it may be possible to find a free alternative for that article. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, not own work Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like a photo from a photo booth, which would be a selfie and may have been taken by the uploader. However, Delete as out of scope, as it is unused and this is the only contribution by this user to any project. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo from Insta per description, think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-notable subject unlikely to have its own Wikipedia article anytime soon. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Superfluous with File:Hrvatska Radiotelevizija logo.svg Olou (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Superfluous with File:Hrvatska Radiotelevizija logo.svg Olou (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Private picture, no educational value Tekstman (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
An artist told me that this photo violates the painters copyright as it was taken and published on free media database without permission from them or negotiations on free creative commons. The artist told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright. No freedom of pano in the phils also. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, per COM:FOP Philippines. Does not look old enough to be public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Binondo Church
[edit]The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright. From my professor on law the law of dead defence by judgefloro is baseless becaus it applies to physical ownership and not copyright transfer. The professor also noted that the judge has been a disgraced judge, and wikipedia article proves it, and his little knowledge on copyright undermines his defences. For this particular photos these show religious sculptures and arts in their full or nearly full capacity. Most especially St. Lorenzo Ruiz is a late 20th century filipino saint, and the sculptors are still living. No freedom of pano in the phils also.
- File:Aruizjf.JPG
- File:Binondo Church Ceiling Painting.jpg
- File:Binondo Church Sculptures.jpg
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 25.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 26.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 30.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 39.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 41.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0430 43.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 02.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 03.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 04.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 09.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 11.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 25.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0475 26.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 05.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 21.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1438 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1452 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1452 07.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1462 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1462 08.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 01.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 02.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf1495 03.JPG
- File:Binondojf0505 23.JPG
- File:BinondoChurchjf0505 16.JPG
- File:Binondojf0505 28.JPG
- File:Manila Philippines Ceiling-of-Binondo-Church-01.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reluctant delete: I've only looked at File:Manila_Philippines_Ceiling-of-Binondo-Church-01.jpg as it was the image that brought me here. From what I understand of Wikimedia Commons license requirements, I read this image as ambiguous. Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa can be copied freely (provided it's not used to counterfeit), as the artist has long since passed away. If what I'm reading is true, then I'm not entirely sure the image of the ceiling of Binondo Church is free to distribute, nor can the photographer make any stipulation that the painter hasn't made. My Recommendation is to inform the uploader of the license status of the image, and the license required for it to remain on Wikimedia Commons. It's a great image, I'd hate for it to be deleted because of red tape.
- I've ran into a similar issue. I wanted to add Xorcist's photo or logo to his Wikipedia article, had received permission from Bat/Peter Stone to use it in that capacity, but I wasn't able to apply the appropriate license nor could get Xorcist to do so (seemed very complicated, and no one would assist), with the image being deleted on the grounds of Wikimedia Commons' license requirements. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Most likely a hoax. In 2012 and long after that, Mojang was based at Maria Skolgata 83, which looks vastly different. This source from October 2012 discusses the offices and shows the Maria Skolgata exteriors. IceWelder [✉] 10:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Åsögatan 140 was their first office before they moved to Maria Skolgata 83 when Minecraft was still in beta. "Minecraft: The Story of Mojang" movie was filmed inside the first office premises which can be seen here (5:47) Walls and windows matches with 1st and 3rd floors on the facade. The building seen in the reflex on door glass at 6:04 is located at Åsögatan 135. Metro station seen at 10:39 is Medborgarplatsen on the green line, which is the nearest metro station to the office. At 15:47 the building can be seen from the street. The green building at 15:48 is located in the garden. Here is a different film showing the first office. Article User:Wonka1998 10 November 2020
- Hm, you seem to be right that Mojang was formerly on Åsögatan as Carl Manneh (former CEO) posted a similar image. However, the unfortunately low quality of the image here makes it hard to tell whether it actually shows the same building. IceWelder [✉] 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
a7 Mudi Yono RealMudi Yono Real (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Nonsense nomination. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not matching any CSD rules. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Close as kept per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Stolen from a tabloid. Veracious (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Published in a news report dated before upload here.[4] Verbcatcher (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mandaluyong City Hall 0
[edit]The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright by way of an online database whose licensing is strictly enforced for commercial new media reusers. For these, the NEW city hall is a successor to a 1962 bldg that can be seen at https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=715105655267551&id=645776922200425 so theres no way this is a public domain architecture. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architect or the archi firm. Also some artistic works like tarpaulins, standees of certain animals, carvings, customised xmas tree and others
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 11.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 12.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 14.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 15.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 19.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 20.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 21.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 22.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 23.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 25.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 26.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 01.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 04.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 05.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 09.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 08.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 09.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 10.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 11.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 17.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 18.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 19.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 20.jpg
- File:0271jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Shrine Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 01.jpg
- File:0271jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Shrine Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 02.jpg
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 01.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 02.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 05.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 06.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 11.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 12.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 15.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 16.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 19.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 25.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 26.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 27.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 28.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 29.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 30.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 32.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 33.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 34.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 35.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 19.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep * Because all the Category:Town halls in Metro Manila including the subject of this deletion Category:Mandaluyong City Hall are owned by the local Government or its agencies; the city hall has no architect or painter but the hired laborers employees workers or even staff who love BAYANIHAN to make the City Hall a Heritage; no copyright exits thereat under Civil law or Copyright law; the new or renovations of the Hall were done for tourist and political purposes and I underscore to Advertise the Paint factories for free; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law;
My classmate Neptali Gonzalez's office and tourist office granted me express and unequivocal permission to take photos
[edit]- for it is for their free Political advantage being hosted in Commons for free; I was even helped by some kind staff in the photography; I finished 2nd highest of 84% in advanced Taxation II in Ateneo in 1979, under Prof. ex Governor Exequiel Javier; the highest is Cesar Villanueva and my grade is even higher than Gonzales; I was lucky since if I took the Reynaldo Geronimo Tax II, I could have been a victim of 75 per cent mass grading; this catapulted me to 2nd Full Honors in 1982 Class;
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime * (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mandaluyong City Hall 1
[edit]Its clear this bldg is a modern replacement to the 1962 city hall - https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=715105655267551&id=645776922200425 - no freedom of panorama in the phils. Payment of fees for commission to Mandaluyong City doesnt negate copyright. The photographer and former philippines judge - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentino_Floro - continues to violate poor architects and sculptors copyrights by licensing these derived photos commercially. There is also a christmas installation in some of the pictures and engraving in other photos
- File:0186jfBarangay Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong City Hallfvf 10.jpg
- File:0186jfBarangay Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong City Hallfvf 11.jpg
- File:0186jfBarangay Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong City Hallfvf 12.jpg
- File:0201jfBarangays Boni Avenue Plainview Mandaluyong Cityfvf.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 06.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 11.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 12.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 14.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 15.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 19.jpg - *see also my note below JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 20.jpg - *
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 21.jpg - *
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 22.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 23.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 25.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 26.jpg - *
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 01.jpg - *
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 04.jpg - *
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 05.jpg - *
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 09.jpg - *
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg - *
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 08.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 09.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 10.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 11.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 17.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 18.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 19.jpg
- File:0251jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 20.jpg
- File:0271jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Shrine Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 01.jpg
- File:0271jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Shrine Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 02.jpg
- File:0271jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Shrine Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 03.jpg
- File:DivineMercyShrineMandaluyongjf7248 06.JPG
- File:DivineMercyShrineMandaluyongjf7248 07.JPG
- File:DivineMercyShrineMandaluyongjf7248 08.JPG
- File:DivineMercyShrineMandaluyongjf7248 11.JPG
- File:DivineMercyShrineMandaluyongjf7248 12.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 01.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 02.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 05.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 06.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 11.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 12.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 15.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 16.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 19.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 25.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 26.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 27.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 28.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 29.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 30.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 32.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 33.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 34.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityHalljf7173 35.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 13.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 14.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 17.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 18.JPG
- File:MandaluyongCityjf7218 19.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete most unfortunately. Current rules apply (see COM:FOP Philippines, section "Recent developments") while the pending bill to amend copyright law is pending in the Congress. While Judgefloro claims that ownership of city halls by the local government mean these are not copyrighted, the copyright rule on commissioned works tell otherwise: COM:Philippines#Commissioned works. These means the "written stipulation" must be presented via COM:OTRS by whoever is the copyright holder (not physical owner). Otherwise, restore when FOP is introduced here officially and formally. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the following images show temporal Christmas décors which may not benefit from future Philippine FOP (which in its current wording based on Australian FOP and requires permanence):
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 19.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 20.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 21.jpg
- File:0204jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 26.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 01.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 04.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 05.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 09.jpg
- File:0231jfBarangays Maysilo Circle Monuments Plainview Mandaluyong Hallsfvf 13.jpg
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the student artists to host them under free non-trad licensing Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata indicates this is a Facebook download. Previously published photos require COM:OTRS verification. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright holder: Kyriacos Arkatites. Only a note: Some of my DRs about this user's uploads received criticism. I hope this one does not. E4024 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, metadata includes "Copyright holder: Kyriacos Arkatites", which des not match the uploader's username. Possibly the Cypriot professional photographer.[5] Requires permission through COM:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Author:Garo Kotchounian, Copyright holder: www.aypoupen.com Only a note: Some of my DRs about this user's uploads received criticism. I hope this one does not. E4024 (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete metadata conflicts with the declared author. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Victory gardeners' seed and plant guide - seed and plant requirements for a victory garden for a family of four (IA CAT10890830).pdf
[edit]Produced by State entity, Not Federal agency? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Undeleted per a request at COM:UNDELShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Por error del usuario que lo subió Libropedia (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Altered version of painting at File:David - The Death of Socrates.jpg with an emoji that serves no purpose. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Because this file is not in use any longer. The relatives of Prof. Dobrev do not like it as well. IvanovBG (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- My relatives do not like my pictures, either; but that is not a deletion reason. Not being in use, either. If the file is to be deleted that will be for another reason. IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google
- File:গুচ্ছ গ্রাম ফান্দাউক.jpg
- File:বলভদ্র সেতু ফান্দাউক.jpg
- File:দরকার শরীফ.jpg
- File:পাগল শংকর জিউ মন্দির ফান্দাউক.jpg
- File:ফান্দাউক ইউনিয়ন পরিষদ.jpg
- File:ইসকন.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google
- File:শ্রী নারায়ণী হাসপাতাল ও গবেষণা কেন্দ্র.jpg
- File:শ্রী শ্রী ১০৮ স্বামী রাসবিহারী দাস কাঠিয়া বাবা.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios so speedy. --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope casual snapshot of people. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status - according to watermark and metadata, the image was released by the company Veriga (likely for promotional purposes), no evidence of permission. — Yerpo Eh? 17:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find evidence on the source that this is under the licence given Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems like this is a return of the same, too-complex-for-UK-copyright logo that was already deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep i don't know which document was deleted before. To this file: its just a circle and some text, so i don't see any high complexity. So whats the point? Since here is no older deletion request, from which "was already deleted" you talking about? -- Gunnar (💬) 20:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got this one confused with Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBFC U.svg. That said, at least the USA has a concept know as "selection and arrangement copyright" i.e a sufficiently complex combination of simple structures can be considered complex enough to be copyrightable. I don't know if the UK has the same but per COM:TOO the UK's copyright threshold is lower, so this logo could be dancing on the line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Can these be OGL-Licenced? If not then I would VD here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The terms and conditions page of BBFC explicitly says "No part of the text or graphics (including the BBFC's symbols) on this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical or otherwise, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, re-keying or using any information storage and retrieval system without express written permission from the BBFC." and I don't see an OGL reference anywhere. So I'd say it's not under OGL: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per Jo-Jo, can't be licenced by {{OGL}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: The terms and conditions page of BBFC explicitly says "No part of the text or graphics (including the BBFC's symbols) on this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical or otherwise, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, re-keying or using any information storage and retrieval system without express written permission from the BBFC." and I don't see an OGL reference anywhere. So I'd say it's not under OGL: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO the UK has a relatively low threshold of originality, and it looks like between colour hues and "selection and arrangement" one wonders if this is copyrighted under UK law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep So whats the point? you voted for deletion cause you assume that the treshold is relatively low ... so better be sure. -- To this file: its just a circle and some text, so i don't see any high complexity. So whats the point? -- Gunnar (💬) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Technically, on Commons we go by the precautionary principle. At least the USA has a concept know as "selection and arrangement copyright" i.e a sufficiently complex combination of simple structures can be considered complex enough to be copyrightable. I don't know if the UK has the same but per COM:TOO the UK's copyright threshold is lower, so this logo could be dancing on the line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This is Crown Copyrighted, and excluded from {{OGL}} application. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See Commons:Threshold of originality#United Kingdom Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or, see the copyright circle that's part of the ratings label. Fry1989 eh? 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO the UK has a relatively low threshold of originality, and it looks like between colour hues and "selection and arrangement" one wonders if this is copyrighted under UK law.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep i don't know which document was deleted before. To this file: its just a circle and some text, so i don't see any high complexity. So whats the point? you voted for deletion cause you assume that the treshold is relatively low ... so better be sure. -- Gunnar (💬) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got this one confused with Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBFC U.svg. That said, at least the USA has a concept know as "selection and arrangement copyright" i.e a sufficiently complex combination of simple structures can be considered complex enough to be copyrightable. I don't know if the UK has the same but per COM:TOO the UK's copyright threshold is lower, so this logo could be dancing on the line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This is Crown Copyrighted, and excluded from {{OGL}} application. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This looks like it'd might be a derivative work of a non-free artwork from the Star Wars franchise Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from pinterest. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Complex enough to be copyrighted in the UK (see COM:TOO#UK) Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong delete This seems complex enough to be copyrighted, especially in Britain, where the Edge logo was found to be protected by copyright. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 22:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:TOO the UK has a relatively low threshold of originality, and it looks like between colour hues and "selection and arrangement" one wonders if this is copyrighted under UK law.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep i don't know which document was deleted before. To this file: its just a circle and some text, so i don't see any high complexity. So whats the point? you voted for deletion cause you assume that the treshold is relatively low ... so better be sure. -- Gunnar (💬) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Technically, on Commons we go by the precautionary principle. At least the USA has a concept know as "selection and arrangement copyright" i.e a sufficiently complex combination of simple structures can be considered complex enough to be copyrightable. I don't know if the UK has the same but per COM:TOO the UK's copyright threshold is lower, so this logo could be dancing on the line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Far too complex for a UK logo. --Minoraxtalk 02:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This is Crown Copyrighted, and excluded from {{OGL}} application. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded this file, but the authorship (and hence permission for use) was not as I was informed. This does not have the permission of the author or a valid licence. I will re-upload if these are forthcoming. Springnuts (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded this file, but the authorship (and hence permission for use) was not as I was informed. This does not have the permission of the author or a valid licence. I will re-upload if these are forthcoming. Springnuts (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Being the uploader’s request concerning a day-old file this should fall under criterion G7 (with a dash of F5).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Per COM:PCP. Given that this person lived between Omer Pasha Vrioni II and the photo is obviously of an old man, it's quite possible that it was made by someone who died less than 70 years ago. The source is quite vague on the provenance of the photo, too. I see that enwiki has en:File:Omar Pasha Vrioni II of Berat.jpg with a lot of catches. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be public domain PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Журнал «Вестник знания», 1941, № 5 (обложка). Description fixed. --Mayyskiyysergeyy (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Risk of copyright violation, the patterning is probably caused by scanning a half-tone printed image in a book with a low scanner resolution Verbcatcher (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
False license, non-free image Axakov (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No permission from authors Михальченко В. А. and О. Г. Сивирин Venzz (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
False license, non-free image Axakov (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
promotional usage, deleted article in es.wiki Triplecaña (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC) it is not promotional use. It is a picture that I took myself of the main offices of this company.--Atticus.finch.2040 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status of the images in this newspaper page needs to be evaluated. Per Commons:Hirtle chart it needs to be checked whether or not the original copyright had been renewed in the U.S. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Same problem with File:Crew Races Time To Repair Lock - 1959.pdf.
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by C.RaduLucian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Only used for vandalism at uploader's own userpage (originally created under a different page). No encyclopedic value whatsoever. User's other two uploads (File:Stai calm și folosește-ți mous-ul... FĂ CLICK AICI !!!.jpg and File:C.Radu Lucian ©®1975(RaduLucian1975).jpg) have blatant copyright issues.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:NU MĂ INTERESEAZĂ ATENȚIA TA... doar legăturile și conexiunea contează pentru mine.png
- File:CLICK HERE !!!.png
- File:Stai calm și folosește-ți mouse-ul CLUCK HERE.png
- File:CLICK HERE.png
Gikü (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
promotional Sturdyankit (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
it seems like the file was taken from here Omer abcd (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Violation droit d'image Jeg.work (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- How can it violate "droit d'image", when you uploaded it by yourself? --Túrelio (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unused image, uploader request, no evidence that the subject is notable, per our policy, OTRS permission should be required for the paintings in the background (which is unlikely to be received). Ankry (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Likely copyvio Vauxford (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Likely copyvio Vauxford (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Ulysse Gémignani died in 1973. No freedom of panorama in France. 2A01:CB00:A05:D100:F053:4197:52E:5E3C 21:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Ulysse Gémignani died in 1973. No freedom of panorama in France. 2A01:CB00:A05:D100:F053:4197:52E:5E3C 21:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The Aérotrain project has seen no active use since 1975, thus these photos must be 45 years old or older. It's quality highly resembles one of many videos online, and I suspect it being a screenshot of one of the contempory videos IIVQ (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I found the possible source. A clip can be found on aernav.free.fr, the clip called "arrivée a Chevilly". According to this page, it's part of a company vido from 1976 from the Bertin & Cie (the makers of the Aérotrain): La société Bertin & Cie a réalisé en 1976 un film de 18 minutes destiné à promouvoir le système Aérotrain. IIVQ (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I doubt this file is own work. No camera data, terrible quality, looks like a screenshot, clip-on art crown most likely copyrighted. COM:PCP. Not educationally useful. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:30AC:313D:801B:1993 22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Português (description): "Pode ser qualquer coisa" Dubious scope also. --E4024 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I doubt this file is own work. No camera data, terrible quality, looks like a screenshot, clip-on art crown most likely copyrighted. COM:PCP. Not educationally useful. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:30AC:313D:801B:1993 22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep You can't assume all those things. Passes COM:PCP and can be educationally useful. Destroyeraa (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Basically a "You're wrong!" vote. No rebuttal whatsoever against my claims. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:7CF3:A3EB:12CA:B44A 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Cameras don't need to have dates. The quality is mediocre, not terrible as we can clearly see a woman with a crown. Could be a screenshot, though you can't assume it is. Ask the uploaded about the clip-art crown. Could need some explanation to fully pass COM:PCP. Educationally useful. Destroyeraa (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Basically a "You're wrong!" vote. No rebuttal whatsoever against my claims. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:7CF3:A3EB:12CA:B44A 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I added her to Category:Unidentified women. --E4024 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in France. Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Presumably Copyrighted. Posted before on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SiDeRaLLL/photos/2025482704249866 Flipwared (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but this photo depicts a work of art by a living artist without his permission. Gnom (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Artwork is not permanent in public area, but (temporary(?)) in a museum, so then it's not allowed, see here (German text). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Flickr user reb chavez is committing a license laundering. The file belongs to SM Entertainment as part of Red Velvet's latest comeback. The user has even uploaded the same image, but with all rights reserved. Suzy Oh tell me 23:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soledad de los Reyes Gómez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low res, not own work, promotional purpose
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Viviendas para jóvenes Pradillo 34.jpg
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Edificios Averescu. Rumanía.tif
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Conjunto residencial Paseo de la Habana 175-177.jpg
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Edificio de oficinas Alius.jpg
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Viviendas Paseo de la Habana 187-189.jpg
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos. Viviendas en la calle Lígula.jpg
- File:Bueso-Inchausti & Rein Arquitectos.jpg
Triplecaña (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination No permission since 3 December 2020. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Proper source/permission missing -- if indeed uploaded by copyright holder, should submit OTRS permission Renata3 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. Next time, please ask permission before nominating for deletion. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Proper source/permission missing -- if indeed uploaded by copyright holder, should submit OTRS permission Renata3 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Source found and corrected. Source website has the following copyright statement "Site ©2009 Eric Sakowski - All Rights Reserved; Contact for usage permission Individual photographs may have been submitted by other photographers. Contact for usage permission. Some portions © WikiMedia Foundation (Templates from Wikipedia) - Please refer to Wikipedia and MediaWiki sites for more information on copyright of these works." It does not say which images are subject to "Wikipedia and MediaWiki" copyright - the attribution is wrong anyway. Even if the attribution was correct it is kind of a circuitous argument - anyone trying to establish copyright status would be referred to Wikimedia which would refer them back to the website. Headlock0225 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. In the future, please ask for permissions before submitting to AfD. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Photo has possible educational value (guitar, man, black/white, whatever) I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. Please consider requesting permissions rather than AfDing immediately. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyrighted image from one of his performances; if someone has the rights to upload the image to Wikipedia please reply to this deletion discussion below. Basically, there is no evidence of CC BY-SA licensing. I highly doubt own work. Aasim 17:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to assume good faith here and let the uploader have a chance to send permissions to OTRS. We'll proceed accordingly based on the result. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architects to host them under free non-trad licensing. This is 2016 bldg by Handel architects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangri-La_at_the_Fort,_Manila Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. w:Shangri-La at the Fort, Manila indicates United States-based Handel Architects as the designer, with the completion date as 2016. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the artists to host them under free non-trad licensing. The hospital is a 2010 bldg by RR Payumo and Associates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Luke%27s_Medical_Center_–_Global_City
- File:Saint Luke's Global City (BGC, Taguig)(2018-06-04).jpg
- File:St Lukes Medical Center BGC.JPG
- File:St. Luke's Medical Center Global City.jpg
(2018-06-04).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architec or his heirs to host them under free non-trad licensing. Substantial depictions of bldg, designed by Gabriel Formoso, and established in 1993. https://sixteenthofjanuary.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/famous-forms-of-formoso/amp/ no freedom of pano in the phils. Death year for Formoso is 1996, at https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Ojbection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama is finally introduced in our country. Online sources validate Gabriel Formoso as the architect of this work of architecture, like this blog article by Lakbay ng Lakan (lakansining.wordpress.com), which is one of my trusted blog sites on deep information on Philippine arts and architecture. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion of Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. FYI, @Judgefloro: , file/s can be undeleted (restored) once FOP exists or is introduced here—perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 03:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Museo Iloilo
[edit]See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museo Iloilo.JPG. No freedom of pano in the phils for bldgs and other works of art by people who are still living or dead for less than 50 yrs.
A 1971 bldg or architectural artwork by architect Sergio Penasales http://www.iloilo.net.ph/museo-de-iloilo-home-panays-cultural-heritage/ the architect himself is still alive, born in 1935 https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/258721
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- According to IloiloNetPh, this was completed in 1971, and per ExploreIloilo.com the architect was Sergio Penasales who is apparently still living (no death info found on Google). Fails the pre-August 1951 requirement at COM:FOP Philippines, and fails for 50 years p.m.a. for post 1951 buildings. Delete unfortunately. Undelete when FOP is introduced here, like Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) cases. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 04:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [6]. Yann (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. This is an organised graffiti and not an illegal graffiti. Plus no freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the artists to host them under free non-trad licensing Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Gines Serran Pagan is alive. A 2019 monument: https://watchmendailyjournal.com/2019/01/25/eats-travel-time-toots-jimenez-jr/. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from Serran to host the image under free Creative common licensing Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. Still, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Undeletion is possible, once FOP is introduced in the Philippines just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. Nevertheless, IPOPHL has indicated in a November 2020 email reply to Higad Rail Fan that they are open for a dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation with regards to FOP matter. When will this dialogue (to be initiated by WMF according to the email-reply) occur is yet to be seen, but hopefully sooner than later. Despite this, per COM:PCP (see this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building) deletion first is the right way, in respect of the architects' and/or sculptors' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architects to host them under free non-trad licensing. This is a 2001 blg by R. Villarosa Architects Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_McKinley_Place Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. No FOP in the Philippines, the article w:One McKinley Place is legit. Completed in 2001 by R. Villarosa Architects plus Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 06:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architec or his heirs to host them under free non-trad licensing. This is a work of architect Gabriel Formoso as said by https://sixteenthofjanuary.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/famous-forms-of-formoso/amp/ no freedom of pano in the phils. Formoso died in 1996, says https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449 the bldg is an architecture thats separate from applied art as proven by the Law on Copyright section of RA8293 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately. According to enwiki w:Pacific Star Building, this was designed by GF & Partners Architects, with Gabriel Formoso as the chief architect. It was completed in 1989. Undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines (if ever the subject of this file qualifies for the future Philippine FOP), just like the cases of Armenian (2013) and Belgian (2016) architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in both countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architec or his heirs to host them under free non-trad licensing. Substantial depictions of bldg, designed by Gabriel Formoso, and established in 1993. https://sixteenthofjanuary.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/famous-forms-of-formoso/amp/ no freedom of pano in the phils. Death year for Formoso is 1996, at https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449 Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sad to say, Delete until freedom of panorama is finally introduced in our country. Still no FOP for majority of architectural and artistic (sculptures etc.) works in the Philippines, even after this two-month long discussion of Sept.–Nov.. While there may be a potential for a dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia Foundation reps, per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (as mentioned at this 2017 deletion request to a Dubai building, in a kingdom that has no total FOP), "deletion first is the right approach", even during active forums, as Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the work's country of origin (the Philippines for this case) does not. File/s can be undeleted once FOP exists or is introduced here—perhaps via COM:UNDEL or a COM:Village pump/COM:Administrators' noticeboard motion or announcement just like the cases of images of Armenian and Belgian architecture and artistic works, when FOP was introduced in Armenia in 2013 and Belgium in 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Club Filipino
[edit]The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architec or his heirs to host them under free non-trad licensing. This is a work of architect Gabriel Formoso as said by https://sixteenthofjanuary.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/famous-forms-of-formoso/amp/ no freedom of pano in the phils. Formoso died in 1996, says https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Ojbection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [7]. Yann (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=588858826#File:Clubfiljf.JPG){kind=link}
Files also included in this DR:
I agree with the disputed tag, I have doubts if this is actually ineligible for copyright. I am nominating this for deletion per Commons:PRP, because this seems to be as complex as the Edge logo, which was found to be protected by copyright. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - sadly. More complex than the Edge logo. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised neither of you noticed the Copyright Circle on the bottom right corner. So move all the BBFC ratings up to Wiki-En. Fry1989 eh? 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good call on that. And I wouldn't be surprised if it is copyrighted in Britain. Heck, it probably may meet America's ridiculous threshold of originality too. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, copyright claims don't generate copyright.--141.84.69.20 07:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't take much heed in objections from IPs, but it should be noted that most images only have a TM mark or a Registered mark, this one actually has a Copyrighted mark, and it's absolutely complicated enough to be copyrighted in the UK. I wish they could stay, but they can't. Fry1989 eh? 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, copyright claims don't generate copyright.--141.84.69.20 07:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good call on that. And I wouldn't be surprised if it is copyrighted in Britain. Heck, it probably may meet America's ridiculous threshold of originality too. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised neither of you noticed the Copyright Circle on the bottom right corner. So move all the BBFC ratings up to Wiki-En. Fry1989 eh? 02:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 04:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems like this is a return of the same, too-complex-for-UK-copyright logo that was already deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep i don't know which document was deleted before. To this file: its just a circle and some text, so i don't see any high complexity. So whats the point? -- Gunnar (💬) 20:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Technically, on Commons we go by the precautionary principle. At least the USA has a concept know as "selection and arrangement copyright" i.e a sufficiently complex combination of simple structures can be considered complex enough to be copyrightable. I don't know if the UK has the same but per COM:TOO the UK's copyright threshold is lower, so this logo could be dancing on the line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright. For these, some photos reveal the artists groups participated here. Philippine Pastel Artists and Artistikong Kabataan both are not connected to the government as evidence by their web pages https://philippinepastelartists.com/about/ and https://artistikongkabtaanphilippines.wordpress.com. The works are physicaly owned by the AFP but the copyright remains with the artists. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the artists to host them under free non-trad and commercial licensing
- File:0495jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 09.jpg
- File:0495jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 10.jpg
- File:0513jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Mural Pinyahan Church Construction Landmarksfvf 02.jpg
- File:0513jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Mural Pinyahan Church Construction Landmarksfvf 06.jpg
- File:0513jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Mural Pinyahan Church Construction Landmarksfvf 07.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 01.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 02.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 03.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 07.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 09.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 10.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 11.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 12.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 13.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 14.jpg
- File:0526jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 15.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 01.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 02.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 04.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 05.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 07.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 09.jpg
- File:0541jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 10.jpg
- File:0551jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 01.jpg
- File:0551jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 03.jpg
- File:0551jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 05.jpg
- File:0569jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 03.jpg
- File:0569jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 04.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 05.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 06.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 07.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 08.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 09.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 10.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 11.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 12.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 13.jpg
- File:0584jfQuezon City V Luna Avenue AFP Medical Center Peace Mural Pinyahan Landmarksfvf 14.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the mural is an accessory which follows the principal, the owner which is the Government or its agency the AFP; the mural has no architect or painter but the AFP laborers employees workers or even staff who love to paint; no copyright exits thereat under Civil law or Copyright law; the mural beautifies the dirty fences of the AFP property and was done for tourist purposes and I underscore to Advertise the Paint factory for free; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law;
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime * (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all. Copyright on government-commissioned works still rests on the artists themselves, unless there is a "written stipulation on the contrary" (see COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works). Undelete if FOP is introduced here, if ever this artwork applies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 09:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Asian Institute of Management
[edit]The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the architec or his heirs to host them under free non-trad licensing. This is a work of architect Gabriel Formoso as said by https://sixteenthofjanuary.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/famous-forms-of-formoso/amp/ no freedom of pano in the phils. Formoso died in 1996, says https://prabook.com/web/mobile/#!profile/1038449
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 01.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 02.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 03.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 04.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 05.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 06.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 07.jpg
- File:128Asian Institute of Management 08.jpg
- File:Asian Institute of Management, Makati.jpg
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the facade or exterior is unimportant DE MINIS so to speak and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of Makati Local Government which granted me express permission to take Tourist and interesting points photos for it is for their political advantage in the comming election, hosting for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Phil Law;
- In support of my stance, opposition to the deltion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons adminstrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Nominators Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
Rejoinder II : the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime[edit]* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.[edit]
|
I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 09:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing any licence on the source page; is the uploader on Commons also the creator of the logo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Organization is from the UK, likely doesn't pass COM:TOO UK. Pbrks (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The artist whom i asked about the hostings of photos of artistic works on wikimedia told me that i shouldnt wait for more days while people can have access to infringe the artists copyright, by way of an online media database that has free media licensing. No freedom of pano in the phils and no permission from the student artists to host them under free non-trad licensing
- File:Manilajf9765 23.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 01.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 16.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 18.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 22.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 25.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 27.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 28.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 29.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 30.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 32.JPG
- File:TUPjf9805 33.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 03.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 08.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 25.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 26.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 27.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 28.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 29.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 30.JPG
- File:TUPjf9840 31.JPG
Mrcl lxmna (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Keep Because the Nominator has been blocked recently due to mass deletion nominations. It is fervently petitioned that - going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Ojbection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of this Single Editor, respectfully Judgefloro (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- While this DR was initiated by the troll-like nominator, looking at the subject they seem to be legally-painted. I might ping two users involved in mural-related DR's. @A1Cafel and Verbcatcher: . For Philippine FOP, however, the status quo prevailed in the conclusion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query, which means no FOP-like provision in the "Limitations to Copyright" section at R.A. 8293 (copyright law of the Philippines). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright law doesn't provide enough jurisdiction on FOP. The above artworks are likely to be legally painted, so they should be considered as murals rather than graffiti. I see no reason to neglect the painter's copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per A1Cafel. No FoP in Philippines, Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Asia#Philippines. Elly (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be public domain PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. The source website states: Все работы, размещенные на сайте, защищены авторским правом. (All works posted on the site are protected by copyright.) Elly (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be public domain, source information insufficient PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Elly (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP for indoor places as {{FoP-China}} specifically requires outdoor place. Calligraphy is protected in China per COM:TOO China. These photos all include calligraphy created by living or recently died (much shorter than 50 years) persons. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guangzhou Metro L3 Canton Tower Station.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Art in Shanghai Metro stations, and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Murals in Beijing Subway stations.
- File:Baogongjie Station.jpg (creator 锺明善, alive)
- File:HandWriting of Yuhong Plaza Station, SYMTR.jpg (creator 陈永正, alive)
- File:Liaoning University Station.jpg(creator 邰燕祥, presumably alive)
- File:LIX symtr.jpg(creator 陈忠实, died in 2016, not PD until 2067)
- File:LUT SYMTR.jpg(creator 李瑛, died in 2019, not PD until 2070)
- File:Qigongjie Station.jpg
- File:Shenyang Beizhan Station.jpg (creator 梁晓声, alive)
- File:Shenyang Metro Dongzhongjie Zhan Station Calligraphy.JPG (creator 旭宇, alive)
- File:Shenyang Metro Qishanlu Station.jpg (creator 王蒙, alive)
- File:Shenyang Metro Shenyang Zhan Station Calligraphy.JPG
- File:Shenyang Metro Yunfeng Beijie Station Calligraphy.JPG
- File:Shenyang Metro Zhonggongjie Station Calligraphy.JPG
- File:Station Handwriting of Shenyang Medical College Station.jpg
- File:Station Name of Shenyang Aerospace University Station, Shenyang MTR.jpg (creator 阎肃, died in 2016, not PD until 2067)
- File:Station Symbols of Financial Center Station, Shenyang Metro.jpg (creator 二月河, died in 2018, not PD until 2069)
- File:世纪大厦车站.JPG (creator 余华, alive)
- File:五里河.JPG (creator 张贤亮, died in 2014, not PD until 2065)
- File:全运路.jpg (creator 苏叔阳, died in 2019, not PD until 2070)
- File:奥体中心.JPG (creator 蔣子龍, alive)
- File:工业展览馆.JPG (creator 莫言, alive)
- File:沈阳新乐遗址站.jpg (creator 霍达, alive)
- File:白塔河路.JPG (creator 吉狄马加, alive)
- File:营盘街.JPG (creator 熊召政, alive)
- File:青年公园.JPG (creator 贾平凹, alive)
- File:Shenyang Metro Beiling Gongyuan Station Calligraphy.JPG (creator 贺敬之, alive)
Wcam (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Info there's an ongoing discussion about the new copyright law of China at Commons:Village pump#Copyright law change in Mainland China, which might allow images of interior artworks in China on Wikimedia Commons soon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Eti15TrSf (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: do you still think these could be undeleted with the new copyright law change? Looking at the new law there is no mention about calligraphy. They are still protected per COM:TOO China. Unfortunaly the only way to get them undeleted is to wait for a very long time for the files to be in the public domain. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Eti15TrSf: is calligraphy considered an artistic work, a literary work, or other work of some sort? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I can't really answer that question, but I feel that keeping these files could be problematic. Its possible that the intent of creating these works is to say the metro station name in an artistic form. The reason why I say it could be problematic is someone could see that files and claim that they violate COM:TOO China. It clearly says there that most calligraphy letters are protected by copyright. I personally feel that the safer route is to wait until these enter the Public Domain, so nobody would be able to question how it violates TOO China. Eti15TrSf (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think these images might be kept under the current FoP of China. As written on Template:FoP-China work may be used ... provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be indicated. In the listing of images by Wcam, many of the authors name are given. Can somebody with sufficient knowledge of the language please include name of the authors and titles of the work on the file pages? Can you please indicate which of the list can be kept? Ping to admins with the zh language: @Jusjih: , @King of Hearts: @Minorax: , @Mys 721tx: , @Shizhao: . Thanks, Elly (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I can't really answer that question, but I feel that keeping these files could be problematic. Its possible that the intent of creating these works is to say the metro station name in an artistic form. The reason why I say it could be problematic is someone could see that files and claim that they violate COM:TOO China. It clearly says there that most calligraphy letters are protected by copyright. I personally feel that the safer route is to wait until these enter the Public Domain, so nobody would be able to question how it violates TOO China. Eti15TrSf (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Eti15TrSf: is calligraphy considered an artistic work, a literary work, or other work of some sort? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: do you still think these could be undeleted with the new copyright law change? Looking at the new law there is no mention about calligraphy. They are still protected per COM:TOO China. Unfortunaly the only way to get them undeleted is to wait for a very long time for the files to be in the public domain. Eti15TrSf (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
deleted – In the discussion above it is not shown beyond any doubt that these images can be maintained. Therefore deleted per nomination and Commons:Precautionary principle. Elly (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)