Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/11/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Anadolu_Ajansı.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2834193.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I do not want this photo to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons anymore. Mmack1220 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not wanted 174.87.122.119 04:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Anadolu_Ajans%C4%B1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Anadolu_Ajans%C4%B1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
_-_Anadolu_Ajansı.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
_-_Anadolu_Ajansı.jpg){kind=link}
Its soooooooooo bad 98.128.150.138 12:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. --Achim (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Urheber (Maler) Herbert Pohris ist 1971 verstorben Hedwig Storch (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
fictionnal / hoax : commons is not a depository for personnal invention. See COM:SCOPE 80.215.234.130 12:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Commons, is just harboring the Coat of Arms of the King Consort of Sweden, Queen Cristina I’s Husband of Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by House of Stewart (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Hoax, User:House of Stewart blocked as xwiki LTA. --Achim (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
this is not actually properly licensed - the site hosting it does not have the authority to grant CC by anything considering it appears to be a photo from a BBC promo https://www.subfactory.fr/series.html&action=g_serie&serieID=9522 Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily deleted as a clear copyright violation. --Nick (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
yet another image that is released on a random fan site as cc by 3.0 but doesn't actually give the source - this appears to be a screenshot or promo image that the person who released the rights does not actually own the rights to. Praxidicae (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily deleted as a copyright violation. --Nick (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A similar file was found at https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=368552803471&story_fbid=10157663366018472 (dated July 2, 2020, as opposed to the claimed date of October 10, 2020). Given the lack of FB metadata, a regular deletion request is opened. Note that the file here seems "improved" compared to the file at FB, and seems "cropped" more closer to the subject. Probably an attempt to remove FB metadata. User also had notices of images with questionable copyright or origins. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. JGHowes talk 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Attack image, used in attack edits on en.wiki C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola talk 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
TinEye result shows this was first published at https://hiveminer.com/User/HerveIR (to be exact https://farm1.static.flickr.com/557/19850066322_6943132c22_b.jpg and dated August 12, 2017). Both cannot be accessed now, but assuming it had been published and reshared somewhere, and given the questionable uploads of this uploader (please see his/her talk page), this image is a probable copyright violation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. JGHowes talk 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The image comes from the Ted the Caver website/scary Internet story (source); it was not created by the uploader as suggested in the file description. The website itself releases nothing under the Creative Commons license and even notes that the text is copyrighted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 18:13, 20 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Image was taken from Reddit where it was posted around May 2020. Further, the poster made no reference to the origins of the base Mickey Mouse costume photograph; also Mickey Mouse and his design are both very much copyrighted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 18:13, 20 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted newspaper clip. Nanahuatl (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Fair Use Right" (low resolution) --Buzancar (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buzancar: , we can't upload fair use images to Commons.--Nanahuatl (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Fair Use Right" (low resolution) --Buzancar (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, fair-use-material is not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I forgot where I got the source from, and I don’t want to violate copyright laws. NonPopularPerson (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 18:13, 20 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know how to properly source the place where I got the image from. NonPopularPerson (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 18:13, 20 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 21:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Praxidicae as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: www.netflix.com {{PD-textlogo}}. Jonteemil (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, delete it as a duplicate then since we already have the logo here and it's properly licensed and not written as own work. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted as a duplicate. Also, a reminder to Jonteemil - just because a file is in the Public Domain doesn't mean it shouldn't have correct attribution and source details. --Nick (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
mistakenly uploded Cjajnik (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Suppression image. Erreur de ma part. Je testais le texte dans la banniere d'en bas. Sauvymer (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Suppression image. Erreur de ma part. Je testais le texte dans la banniere d'en bas. Sauvymer (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Suppression image. Erreur de ma part. Je testais le texte dans la banniere d'en bas. Sauvymer (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This file CAN be violating a right autor Rhoscoes (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete because of copyright notice on the website saying "all rights reserved". —Enervation (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
está mal Elpepefachero (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 23:33, 20 November 2020 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 09:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Redundant to File:UK traffic sign 774.svg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Yungelita (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- And later you made several updates. Now it is a bit complicated to understand what is what. I guess an admin can eliminate some (or all) of these images to see if there is any real "own work" here. Even in that case the nude girl does not seem to be in scope, just as many unidentified women we delete everyday who are more dressed up. We do have porn stars, and even non-porn actresses with nude images here. No need for unidentified people. Delete. --E4024 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yungelita, tiene algun problema con la persona en la imagen? Esta enfadada con Vd por hacerla pública sin su consentimiento? Por eso esta tratando de censurarla? (Me puede responder después de 24 horas cuando su block termine.) --E4024 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I concur that this does seem out of scope. Per E4024, we have plenty of images of nude women already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Hello, the file belongs to me, I am the woman in the photograph, however I do not want it in Wikimedia because I don't want people close to me to see me naked.
The reason for the user name change is because he belongs to a public figure and I don't want to steal his identity (Yungelita), so I asked for the user name change. I changed the photo numerous times because I thought that this way my photos will be speedy deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungelita (talk • contribs)
- I understand Yungelita is suffering for a mistake they have made, and are altering the image, taking the risk to be blocked again. I had marked this file for speedy deletion and now I am making a call to our dear admins to do it. (No, not voting again, just stressing a humanitarian concern.) E4024 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks E4024 :) I really apreciatte your support! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungelita (talk • contribs)
Deleted: We don't have that many photos of unshaven women so I would have kept it but deleted F7 as a courtesy. --Gbawden (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Fictional diagram: out of scope unless fiction itself is notable. Slashme (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Spam and advertising poster 36.81.45.96 06:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --JuTa 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Some doubts regarding the license. It's taken from a modern (2020) book. Share-alike license when the author is unknown? Bilderling (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Some doubts regarding a license. Semakina - who's she? Does she allow this sharing? Bilderling (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This crop doesn't work, no thumbnail Superbia23 (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Corrupted file. --Regasterios (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No clear copyright information . The image is stated to be from a veterinary publication. Richard Avery (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, the declared source has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which is unacceptable here. [1] Verbcatcher (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete, just use {{CC-BY-NC-ND}} in the next time such files occur. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this the same file we deleted before? E4024 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Images copy+pasted from various sources, dubious copyright status, unlikely own work by the uploader.
- File:Blind and deaf school karachi.jpg
- File:Jam of sanghar.jpg
- File:Makli-KalaKot.jpg
- File:295259-Makli---KalaKot-Fort---Haleji---Bhambore---Libra-IMG-0792.jpg
- File:Jams coins.jpg
- File:Coins of jams.jpg
- File:Nawabs of Sanghar.jpg
- File:Rule of jams.jpg
- File:Coins hailing from the period of the Jams of Sindh.jpg
- File:Map of Sindh.jpg
- File:Coins of the Jams of Sindh..jpg
A.Savin 01:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Came via facebook. Likely copyvio given the uploader's history. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 06:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Forlornhope15 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyvios given the uploader's history.
- File:SPWLA chapter map.png
- File:Frank S Millard Training Center.jpg
- File:Modern Cover of Petrophysics.png
- File:First SPWLA newsletter.png
- File:Z speaking at london symposium leadership lunch.png
- File:SPWLA membership 1960s.jpg
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Personal picture with no encyclopedic value - out of scope. — Yerpo Eh? 07:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Dark image, I doubt it passes COM:EDUSE for this case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions[edit]
|
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gncnarangwal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious own work claim, company logos and marketing images.
- File:Theofficialgncnarangwal fb link blue.png
- File:GNC NARANGWAL FB LIKE BLUE.png
- File:GNC SHOOTING ART 1.jpg
- File:GNC ADMIN BLOCK.jpg
- File:GNC PASSWAY 2.jpg
- File:GNC DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION.jpg
- File:GNC SHOOTING TARGET.jpg
- File:GNC INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE LOGO.jpg
- File:GNC PASSWAY.jpg
- File:GNC INDOOR STADIUM.jpg
- File:GNC PLAYGROUND PANORAMA.jpg
- File:GNC GROUND.jpg
- File:GNC PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.jpg
- File:GNC CAMPUS.jpg
- File:GNC LOGO WHITE.jpg
MKFI (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 09:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused, text-only, non-educational material. It looks like they are a screenshot of a website, which might not even be own work.
whym (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated above —Enervation (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tapping guitarist (talk · contribs)
[edit]Based on the user's behaviour these would simply seem to be images intended for personal promotion.
- File:Ck guitars.jpg
- File:Double neck ck.jpg
- File:GUITAR TAPPING GOD.jpg
- File:CHRISTOS KALIVAS.jpg
- File:Ck double neck guitar tapping.jpg
- File:Ck 7&8.jpg
- File:CK double neck.jpg
Herby talk thyme 12:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I've speedied some per F1 as they've appeared elsewhere prior to upload here. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)- Delete - COM:NOTHOST per nom, also same visual characteristics as those speedied which may suggest they're also copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
image will not be in use (wikidata item will be deleted shortly). but does this image help improve the project at all? Quakewoody (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by J-EWSJ-EWS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private Image gallery, Not educational, unused.
GeorgHH • talk 14:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, uploaded for spam purposes Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by YaghooblooZahra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajagurukb (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ankittushar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
en:Draft:Dilraj Singh Nandha is 4 times deleted and uploader en:user:Kamalaujla was blocked there indefinitely. Probably the photo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Yungelita (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want to delete it because the woman in the image had no idea that you would upload it here? Is that the reason now you want to change your username in Commons? / La desea borrar pq la mujer en la imagen se opuso a su presencia en la red? Eso tiene algo que ver también con su deseo de cambiar el nombre de usuario? (Por qué necesita "suplantación de identidad"?) Salu2. --E4024 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: Answers in Special:Diff/514164920 (by uploader):
- Hello, the file belongs to me, I am the woman in the photograph, however I do not want it in Wikimedia because I don't want people close to me to see me naked.
- The reason for the user name change is because he belongs to a public figure and I don't want to steal his identity (Yungelita), so I asked for the user name change.
- I changed the photo numerous times because I thought that this way my photos will be speedy deleted.
- These comments were for File:Nude artistic.jpg, but I assume they apply to this file too. Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: Answers in Special:Diff/514164920 (by uploader):
- I understand Yungelita is suffering for a mistake they have made, and changing the image, taking the risk to be blocked again. I had marked this file for speedy deletion and now I am making a call to our dear admins to speedy delete it. --E4024 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: What mistake exactly? If it's merely that they uploaded a photo of themselves naked, note that they also added an identifiable photo of themselves naked to the Vietnamese Wikipedia and left it up for over a month. Is there a limit to this, or do we always courtesy delete naked photos? Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by E4024 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7 In history uploader requested deletion — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete seems out of scope. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude artistic.jpg, we have plenty of images of nude women already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Per Gbawden's closing rationale for File:Nude artistic.jpg We don't have that many photos of unshaven women so I would have kept it and my comments above. Also note that this file was uploaded more than five months ago and the uploader cropped the file during this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)- Delete Per uploader's comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked slim woman 2.jpg, not own work and no evidence of licence from copyright owner. Brianjd (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Because i don't want to compromise my Privacy showing my face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammeandme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Lo subí por error Yungelita (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yungelita, yo me imagino que Vd no habla inglés. Esto se nota de la mala traducción de Google que ha utilizado el otro día. Entiendo que tiene un problema de revelar su intimidad o la de otra persona que desea reparar. Lo primero que hay que hacer es asegurarse que el archivo no esté usado en ninguna parte. Lo otro, naturalmente no hacer más "updates" que le puede causar un largo "block". Espero que se porte de una manera más colaborativo para no estar aislada (de las personas que trabajamos aquí como voluntarios y solo deseamos ayudarla) y hasta ser impedida de trabajar aquí. Saludos. --E4024 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by E4024 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7
Seems uploader requested a deletion when looking through history. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I marked it as G7 due to uploader request of deletion on same day. (If you saw there already was a DR, Dear Admin, why did you open another one? :) --E4024 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This does seem out of scope. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude artistic.jpg, we have plenty of images of nude women already. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment worth noting that the G7 tag was declined due to this ongoing discussion. CCing involved parties above @Billinghurst and E4024: --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- "This discussion"? There was/is a discussion opened 8 and a half hours before this one, Doc. --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @E4024: We cannot speedy delete files that have been present from June 2020, even when the uploader adds a new version today. I have to leave some comment against the conversion from decline speedy to DR rather than just remove the tag. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. It has no importance at all, but if I were you and wanted to remove the SD tag, I would simply remove it, as there already was a DR. IMHO that was the correct way. Take care. E4024 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- "This discussion"? There was/is a discussion opened 8 and a half hours before this one, Doc. --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep In use (and therefore in scope). Was added to vi:Khỏa thân by the uploader on 17 October 2020, before it was cropped and more than one month before this request! Unless a Vietnamese speaker can shed some light on this, surely deletion requires a stronger rationale than "uploaded in error"? Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per comments below, not own work and no evidence of licence from copyright owner. Brianjd (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader's changes to this file have been reported to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Yungelita. Brianjd (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as a courtesy, and because I am not sure this is the work of the subject. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Why do you think this is not the work of the subject? Why does it matter anyway? Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: She claimed "I don't want to people close to me to see me naked" in the comment of her "own work" upload of 07:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC). I find it impossible that she took this with a self-timer on a very high tripod or dresser because there is no self-timer indicated in the raw metadata per http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi , and I see no trigger device in her visible hands. It is likely that the photo was instead taken by a tall person other than the uploader, and that we need permission from that tall person. The photo also exhibits poor lighting on the subject's face, and is only 1,743 × 2,868 pixels, or less than 5 megapixels. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Why do you think this is not the work of the subject? Why does it matter anyway? Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hola E4024 , Gracias por el apoyo, ya no moveré absolutamente nada, dejaré que las cosas se solucionen Esta foto obviamente yo no la tomé, la tomó alguien cercano a mí. Por razones personales y didácticas la coloqué en Wikimedia, ya que pensaba que nadie cercano a mí la iba a ver, pero recientemente, alguien la vio, y pues quisiera revertir la foto, sé que he hecho edits utilizando fotos de mi cuerpo y es por fines didácticos, y en dichas fotos no se ve mi cara "Hairy Vulva of a young woman" pero en las dos fotos que pedí que retiraran sí se ve y ahí está el problema. Espero poder seguir colaborando con Wikimedia con fotos de fines didácticos y contar con su apoyo (admins) para resolver esto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iammeandme (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ElJoselochi2020 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
- File:Natalan.jpg
- File:Top manias.jpg
- File:Jexs y su hermana.jpg
- File:Jexs logo.jpg
- File:Acción Android.jpg
- File:Jexs en su casa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lbalebanga5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Lambert Balebanga tz Boy.jpg
- File:Lambert Balebanga LB.jpg
- File:Abemba Balebanga AKA big man.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Prefeito Interino Benedito Oscar.png
- File:Nilson Prefeito.png
- File:Prefeito Nilson.jpg
- File:Paulinho Prefeito.png
- File:Paróquia Matriz de Mariluz.png
- File:Vista Aérea Mariluz.png
- File:ParóquiaSantoAntônioMariluz.png
- File:ParóquiaSantoAntôniodeMariluz.jpg
- File:Templo de Mariluz.png
- File:ParóquiaSantoAntônio-Mariluz.png
- File:Mariluz vista área urbana.jpg
- File:Mariluz 2018.jpg
- File:Centro de Mariluz.png
- File:Centro de Mariluz.jpg
- File:Polo Uningá Mariluz.png
- File:Terminal Rodoviário de Mariluz.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Susmoy Sharif (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images outside the scope of the project. Commons is not a web host.
- File:Susmoy Sharif`s My Home.jpg
- File:Susmoy Sharif`s Natureal.jpg
- File:Susmoy Sharif Youtube.jpg
- File:Susmoy Sharif`s Stodio.jpg
- File:Susmoy Sharif Vai.jpg
- File:Actior Susmoy Sharif.jpg
- File:Team With Susmoy.jpg
- File:Susmoy Sharif Frace.jpg
Herby talk thyme 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF. Looks like screenshots from something else. Every other file by this user has been an obvious copyvio.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Text only file, unused, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 21:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Test file, unused. Uploaders single contribution. GeorgHH • talk 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright is watermarked on the image! Delete its crop also... E4024 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: fixed by User:Sebastian Wallroth. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Picture seems like a scam and is probably illegal. Has no education purpose. Myloufa (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Spam —Enervation (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Not own work, no EXIF data, all photos can be found on-line.
Smooth O (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
All are uploaded as "own work" but they appear to be corporate logos, so license is invalid. According to our page on TOO, India's rules are similar to the US; I'd say that Patanjali might be below TOO, but the rest appear to be above TOO, so even if they were correctly licensed they wouldn't be appropriate for Commons.
GeneralNotability (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unused logos of questionable notability, very vague categories, out of scope.
- File:Digibox logo.png – Delete per en:Digiboxx, out of scope. Taivo
- File:Quikr logo.png – Keep in scope, simple logo. Taivo
- File:Nearbuy logo.png – Keep in scope, simple logo. Taivo
- File:Bikanervalalogo.png – Delete complex logo. Taivo
- File:Tooter logo.png – Delete complex logo. Taivo
Jianhui67 T★C 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I commented all logos. Taivo (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Digibox, Bikanervala, and Tooter per Jianhui and Taivo. @Fitindia: Did you perhaps miss these? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyvios, given uploader's history.
- File:Roposo logo.png
- File:Amara raja.png
- File:Patanjali ayurved.png
- File:Welspun group logo.png
- File:DDnews logo.png
- File:Relianceretaillogo.png
- File:Baidyanathlogo.png
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Lacks a valid license for the country in which it was created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keepthe person in the photo died in 1889. Should be in the public domain. Nashona (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Given the date of death, this must have been created more than 120 years ago, so it should be public domain according to Commons:Hirtle chart. —Enervation (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Still lacks a valid license for the country where it was created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're looking for. Doesn't it meet these conditons?
|
This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions:
The above provisions are contained in 17 U.S.C. § 303. See also this page for more information. |
|
Nashona (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Long dead both her and the photographer, she was An American and it's 95% likely the photo was taken in the US. --Missvain (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
not authorized to upload this image Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not authorized to upload this image. Rishabsingh.nitt (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation: exact the same photograph is on https://nl.123rf.com/photo_2449315_isolated-obsolete-vintage-morse-telegraph-machine-on-white-background.html, with another name as photographer: FSergio from Ukraine. See also talk page. JopkeB (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete —Enervation (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
100% identical to File:Map of UT of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh.jpg with an incorrect licence. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not "own work"; may be non-free logo Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 08:26, 27 November 2020 UTC: Copyright violation: Not "own work"; may be non-free logo: https://1023radio.com/pages/get-out-guide --Krdbot 15:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Seems unused personal photo, even country is unidentified. This is the uploader's only contribution. That way the photo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BJFCollins (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Rachid Nekkaz à la Grande poste en présence d'une foule énorme le 8 mars 2014.jpg
- File:Retrait du portrait géant du président Abdelaziz Bouteflika lors du Rassemblement de milliers de personnes pour soutenir le Candidat Rachid Nekkaz le 19 février 2019.jpg
- File:Nadine Morano tente d’empêcher Rachid Nekkaz de payer une amende anti-niqab le 14 octobre 2016.jpg
- File:Rassemblement de milliers de personnes à Khenchela pour soutenir le candidat Rachid Nekkaz le 19 février 2019.jpg
- File:Rachid Nekkaz devant TOTAL.jpg
- File:Rachid Nekkaz devant le siège de Total "Non au gaz de schiste" le 24 février 2015.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried to delete it myself but was unable to do so. It is fine to delete it. It was uploaded in error.
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No permission from painter Zhuang Shuhong (庄树鸿) Yinweiaiqing (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a wall picture from the temple in India. I don't care who is real painter. VocalIndia (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- If this really is by Zhuang Shuhong, who died only in 2016, then this would be under copyright and should be deleted from Wikimedia. —Enervation (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a wall picture from the temple in India. I don't care who is real painter. VocalIndia (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the Epoch Times Yinweiaiqing (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 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, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the Epoch Times Yinweiaiqing (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the Epoch Times Yinweiaiqing (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
missing evidence of permission Rhoscoes (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
unused selfie Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Not used Mcwizardry1 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Not used Mcwizardry1 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Project scope. --Polarlys (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
100% identical to File:Union Territory of Ladakh of India.png with an incorrect licence. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere Floralys1 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere Floralys1 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere. it will be renewed in a anonym version Floralys1 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere. it will be renewed in a anonym version Floralys1 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete as fast as possible to save privatesphere. it will be renewed in a anonym version Floralys1 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere. it will be renewed in a anonym version Floralys1 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
in Metadata(Author) is because of a fail too much Detail user-information, please delete to save privatesphere. it will be renewed in an anonym version.thanks Floralys1 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible copyvio : Revista Lucha Libre y Revista Super Luchas seems to be a magazine hich started publication in 2007 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- + File:El Trío Fantástico.jpg + File:Kato Kung Lee Sin mascara.jpg. --E4024 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This photo was shared by the Ministry of Interior of Turkey. see VOA has already define the source of the photo. The photos taken by the state institutions in Turkey has the copyrighted. Therefore, it must be deleted. Uncitoyen (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
copyvio, author - photographer: Ахломов, Виктор Васильевич (15 марта 1938—15 апреля 2017, Москва, Россия) Svajcr (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Web photo: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://m.footballdatabase.eu/images/photos/players/2016-2017/a_21/21649.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.footballdatabase.eu/fr/joueur/details/21649-xavier-tomas&h=405&w=270&tbnid=dEi8pkWRyQpFdM&q=xavier+tomas&tbnh=275&tbnw=183&usg=AI4_-kQMuFB-GujvDcXNmzraRYIhZtFaow&vet=1&docid=h89gcb9MeWAgkM Ytoyoda (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
obvious non-free/promo image, not taken by the author Lugnuts (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Picture of Nick Dimbleby (professionnal photographer), autorization needed Shev123 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Likely COM:LL: taken from Andrew Scheer's Flickr account but photo taken by Author: Bernard Thibodeau, as per EXIF data. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violent, this is a company's logo (URL:https://www.fitlg.com/img/cfyc-logo.png) Mạnh An (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's from the company's source and it's accepted by the company's manager. Which way should I mention and attach this logo to keep it on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NhiNg123 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Simple {{PD-textlogo}}. --Achim (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Achim55, PD-textlogo. --Minoraxtalk 08:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Poor resolution 2603:8081:160A:BE2A:A0A7:4E79:D2D2:E4A2 07:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep --Achim (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep One of two photos we have of the high school. It's not a great photo, but it could be useful for something. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 08:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Cropped to cut out the copyright watermark. E4024 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; there is nothing wrong with cropping images to get rid of watermarks. If the original file gets deleted, this derivative file will be deleted as well. No need to a separate DR. --4nn1l2 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious CC-PDD mark: Space X company patch of Spanish satellite launch. MKFI (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There is no evidence that SpaceX has released this patch in particular under a free license, when they do not typically do so for any other patch. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The quality of the picture is really low. It is out of COM:SCOPE, as it has no educational purpose. Not used in any Wiki. Myloufa (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Could be included in the the French Wikipedia Carole Simard-Laflamme article. The photo seems to be legitimately by the uploader, given the information how it was photographed with a Samsung Galaxy Note 3. —Enervation (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Enervation: I removed it from the said article because of so low quality. --Myloufa (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think low-quality images are okay if they are educational and we do not have any better images on that topic. "Where a subject is rare and/or difficult to capture, even a poor-quality file may be of significant educational value, especially if Commons has very few or no similar files already. On the other hand, poor or mediocre files of common and easy-to-capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples." —Enervation (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)``
- @Enervation: I removed it from the said article because of so low quality. --Myloufa (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Enervation. Not great, but not low quality enough to be useless. --GRuban (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: AGF of other Commonists. --Missvain (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by C1K98V as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1), [2] high resolution CptViraj (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete:- it seems that the screenshot is taken from this youtube link. The YouTube link is of February 2019. The commons upload is of April 2019. The dress of Sidhu is same, the background is same. All these raise concern about the "Own work". Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Неясный правовой статус, частное фото с изображением персон, не давших согласия на свободное использование их изображений Egor (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Unclear legal status, private photo depicting persons who did not consent to the free use of their images --Egor (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe it should not be on Wikipedia Yitbe (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Why not? I think it shows well an aspect of the current Covid-19 time. The people on the photo cannot be recognized, so there is no privacy issue. Unless ofcoarse you are not the photographer, then I'll plee for deletion as well. JopkeB (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since you are the uploader, you can request a speedy deletion. But the image may reasonably be within the scope of what belongs on Wikimedia Commons. —Enervation (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
While the SCP Foundation is under the Creative Commons website, the image used for SCP-173 is copyrighted. The sculptor has allowed its use for non-commercial purposes in connection with the SCP Foundation, but has not released it under the Creative Commons. The SCP-173 article describes the copyrighted nature of this image in greater detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Almàr23 as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Coat of arms of Francesco Antonio Nolè.svg
Converted to regular DR per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Shield and motto taken from the old version made by SajoR; galero, pallium and cross taken from the same author, but the source says "Own work". --Almàr23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by San2t6n2qeyiwaruk3puh0seh as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Radio Gong 96,3 Logo.svg
Converted to regular DR per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ssolbergj as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Greater coat of arms of the United States (monochrome).svg
Converted to regular DR per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Missvain: The file was in use, it should have had a replacement undertaken or left in place. It is not reasonable that works using this work just have had the file deleted. Noting that CDL does not do PNG -> SVG replacements, so that task would have to be undertaken manually. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ssolbergj as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Great Seal of the United States (reverse monochrome).png
Converted to regular DR per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The image nominated for deletion is not redundant. While these two images depict the same seal, File:Great Seal of the United States (reverse monochrome).png is a monochrome image of the seal by itself, while File:Dollarnote siegel hq.jpg is a color image of the seal with a lightened background showing the seal's position on the United States one-dollar bill. The nominated image, File:Dollarnote siegel hq.jpg, is being used on multiple articles in 10 different wikis. In particular, it would be preferable to use this image in articles (e.g. en:Eye of Providence) which label the image with a caption referring to the seal's placement on the US one-dollar bill. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It is not a duplicate, and should not be deleted for redundancy as it is not inferior --- I also second what Newslinger writes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per both comments above, not a dup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Not own work, unsourced satellite image of an unidentified location. MKFI (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Author request, it looks inferior to File:Kashmir map.svg. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are some advantages to your image—it doesn't have so much overlapping text like the other image. —Enervation (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1), low resolutions, missing EXIF, [3] C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 09:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Nasim}}, which says "all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license". This image has no attribution to agency photographers, and looks like it originated on the subject's Instagram account (https://www.instagram.com/p/BwCgzzGAsts/). Lord Belbury (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Per other deletions of this user's uploads, this looks Flickrwashed: it's from a Flickr account created the same day as the upload, with a handful of images, all uploaded at the same time to a newly created Flickr account with the photo subject's name. Same modus operandi as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aidin Ardjomandi.jpg. If the uploader has permission to use all these press shots, dumping them on Flickr immediately before putting them on Commons isn't the way to do it. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
A blurred image of no educational purpose. Richard Avery (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a Bollywood Hungama image from event, set or parties. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- As the uploader, i agree. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a bollywood Hungama event, set, parties C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copy of File:Stagg Field reactor.jpg Py4nf (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
image is not in use. wikidata item has been deleted. but does this image help improve the project at all? Quakewoody (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
image is not in use. wikidata item has been deleted. but does this image help improve the project at all? Quakewoody (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
image will not be in use (wikidata item will be deleted shortly). but does this image help improve the project at all? Quakewoody (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Promotion or advertising Lotje (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: It depicts a metal water bottle. Doesn't appera to be advertising. --Missvain (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
does all of the print in this image cause a problem with permission? Quakewoody (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 1
[edit]COM:COSTUME. These versions of the Jollitown characters were revealed circa 2008.
- File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 31.jpg
- File:6954Baliuag enhanced community quarantine 35.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 01.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 02.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 03.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 04.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 05.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 06.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 07.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 08.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 09.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 10.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 11.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 12.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 13.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- :: Keep Category:Jorge Allan Rodriguez Tengco expressly gave me permission when I met him at La Familia Resto in Baliuag, as Bulacan Tourism Officer; he owns Jollibee, Mang Inasal Red Ribbon Greenwich Baliwag; the Mascots are owned by him or at the very least he paid Jollibee for Tourism purposes of Bulacan; hence the Provisions of Commons do not apply as Express Exemption; Costumes and cosplay Determining whether a photograph of a costume or cosplayer is a copyright infringement is complex. Some widely-agreed upon points: See my point? It says "This is a complex and difficult issue, which in the end comes down to the decision of individual contributors."
- Wherefore PREMISES considered, your Request for Deletion is hereby DENIED for utter lack of Merit;
- These pictures are educational in scope, since they depict important scenes and Vide also Example of official Filipino letterhead and permit
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
| ||
|---|---|---|
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
- 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) 04:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @Judgefloro: Respectfully sir, ownershop of an artwork does not connote ownership of its intellectual rights. The designs of the respective Jollibee mascots belong to the designers or to Jollibee corporation, if these were made-for-hire. Owning a franchise of a Jollibee, Mang Inasal, Red Ribbon or Greenwich does not allow the franchisee to license the use of such mascots. That said, you are free to photograph these mascots for your own personal use, but instead, you published your photos here in Commons. So you must abide by Commons rules and regulations. Read the entire article on COM:COSTUME and not just cherrypick and quote "This is a complex and difficult issue, which in the end comes down to the decision of individual contributors." Your arguments do not hold up to anything, no disrespect intended. In order for these photos to be kept, please provide proof that Jorge Allan Rodriguez Tengco is the copyright holder of the mascots and after that please provide proof that he gave you a license to photograph and publish said mascots. Another route would be to provide proof that the designs of these mascots are public domain or were released under a free license, which I highly doubt since these designs were unveiled only in 2008. You also cannot argue that these are utilitarian or de minimis. You base your arguments on technicalities of court proceedings but did you know that most intellectual property disputes are argued or mediated in the Intellectual Property Office? Howhontanozaz (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reply: the Law and Jurisprudence I cited support my legal stance here; they are very persuasive in Commons considering the FOP New Discussion; and I have repeatedly asked the Editors who promised to filed the Letter to the IPO to file them lest the delay would render nugatory any discussions here; suffice it to say that in the hierarchy I cited, the IPO Director's would be Reply and not to decline my 2 Letters, then, elevation to the DOJ Secretary vis-a-vis the De Minimis USA and Phil Jurisprudence I cited in the decided cases being suppletory to the Copyright FOP present Vacuum; any Webinar or discussions with the IPO are useless since they do not create Jurisprudence; in fact IPO directors come and go; and even USA and Phil SC Decisions are split; this is a grey area: your word against the word of others; why continue the discussions here, when you can personally write the IPO director to issue Reply on 1 Central Issue: Whether or not Uploading of FOP photos in Commons is copyright vio, and if so, who has the right to question it, and then the 4 years prescriptive period? I did put my very long Legal Treatise on this here, but I am arguing against the wall since, as Ecclesiastes sayeth: the fast runners do not always win and Life is Useless sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete costume mascot images for per COM:COSTUME, but Weak delete for the first two because they are not mascots per se (probably wrong category). @Howhontanozaz: the person Judgefloro mentioned seems to be the owner of the establishment (but I cannot confirm). Copyright of those characters belongs to Jollibee Foods Corporation. But, the first two files you nominated seem to be small statues of Jollibee. For FOP, unfortunately, the conclusion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (perhaps the last of a series of Philippine FOP threads from September) is that the Philippine copyright law does not have any usable FOP provision. Near-FOP provisions, clauses (d), (e), and (j), are not free enough for Commons. (D) relates to "reporting of current events," and (e) is about the inclusion of copyrighted works via illustrations for "teaching purposes" and having compulsory fair use condition (note to Judgefloro, the accepted consensus on Commons is at Commons:Fair use, to sum up "Commons does not accept fair use licensing"). (J) is almost close to FOP, but per Clindberg it is like "you own a physical copy of an already-published work, you're allowed to publicly display it, but not make further copies." Also an update, as confirmed in a reply to email from Higad Rail Fan, IPOPHL is open for a potential meeting or dialogue with Wikimedia Foundation, though the principal agenda may be freedom of panorama. When will this meeting / dialogue happen is not certain, however, and when will the sought-after amendment to Republic Act No. 8293 is also not certain, as of this writing yet. But it is certain that copyrighted costumes are out of this proposed meeting / dialogue between IPOPHL and Wikimedia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping in line with all of the PH related deletions. See discussiong below for now. --Missvain (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 2
[edit]Reviewing the previous DR and also the individual files, it appears the rationale by Howhontanozaz is valid. Jollibee characters are copyrighted by Jollibee Foods Corporation, and these mascots are faithful representations of the characters (see COM:COSTUME). Thus permission from the multi-million peso Filipino fastfood company (not the people who hired these mascot performers) is required (preferrably via COM:OTRS). Though I doubt permission will be ever granted, as the company is aggressive in filing lawsuits against those infringing their intellectual property, even to foreigners like the January 2019 case of a Chinese "copycat" restaurant using their mascot, only naming the establishment "JoyRuleBee". Because of this, we can safely say it is 
Not OK to host images of Jollibee characters' mascots here as Commons requires files to be freely reusable, even for commercial purposes.
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 01.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 02.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 03.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 04.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 05.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 06.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 07.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 08.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 09.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 10.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 11.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 12.jpg
- File:Jollibee mascots in Jollibee Baliuag 13.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Magandang Hapon po; No objection to the deletion, with a query regards Judgefloro (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete as the original nominator. Even if we assume that there is FoP in the Philippines, most FoP provisions only apply to permanent works of art located in public places. Costumes are only temporary. -Howhontanozaz (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
As Judgefloro seems to use "poisoning the well" logical fallacy (attacking the Philippine news media outlets as doing "a comedy of errors, responding to the article of the Philippine Star about the IP infringement of a Chinese fastfood restaurant to Jollibee Foods Corp.), I will then give two another sources that he failed to include about this IP infringement: GMA News article and Manila Bulletin. While this may be an issue of trademark, unscrupulous persons may reuse these images in a way that infringes Jollibee's IP rights, against the rule at COM:PCP. Nevertheless, for the discussion to go smoothly, I shall page those who are mostly involved in Costume-related DR's: @A1Cafel and Yuraily Lic: . Also paging @Verbcatcher and Jeff G.: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Missvain. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
this should not be on commons - it definitely is well above the threshold for originality Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no COM:FOP for artworks, including 2D graphic works, in the US "even if permanently installed in public places" per COM:FOP United States. Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2834193.jpg){kind=link}
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2834193.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfortunately, there is no COM:FOP for 2D graphic works in the UK "even if permanently located in public places" per COM:FOP United Kingdom. Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2834193.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete You could blur the poster but even then, its not the best view of any bus shelter that there could be. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- One of two photographs that clearly show Metro buses with Metro bus shelters, and if the reason for deletion is valid it also applies to the other (File:Erinvale bus, Belfast - geograph.org.uk - 1538414.jpg). According to COM:FOP United Kingdom this is a building with a poster in the window. Is it usual to blur posters in windows? Peter James (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
_-_geograph.org.uk_-_2834193.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately, COM:FOP in Finland is limited only to buildings per COM:FOP Finland. Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no COM:FOP for artworks, including 2D graphic works, in the US "even if permanently installed in public places" per COM:FOP United States. Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright Infringement. See: A Crow Looked at Me talk page. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no COM:FOP for artworks, including 2D graphic works, in the US "even if permanently installed in public places" per COM:FOP United States. Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yuri Patti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Malaita. A Pictorial History from Solomon Islands by Ben Burt p275 - 1962 Tony Hughes, District Officer, records whispered votes at Gwee'abe in Sinalagu, east Kwaio, during the Malaita Council elections.jpg
[edit]
Following discussion with the uploader, the information about this image is incorrect. The author is unknown and while the file is now PD in the Solomon Islands (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Solomon Islands#Durations last bullet) it was not PD there at the date of URAA and therefore is not PD in the USA. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sports venues in Kigali
[edit]Per enwiki Kigali Arena was built in 2019, by "Rwanda Housing Authority (RHA) and Turkish firm Summa". 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, Rwanda has no Commons-acceptable FoP. Images of Rwandan architecture and sculptures are only legal without architects' and sculptors' authorization if the purpose is either reporting or noncommercial, conflicting with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses which state that all files must be freely usable for any purpose, including commercial media like post cards, T-shirt prints, and commercial YouTube vlogs.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Problema de derecho de autor Rhoscoes (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Bad quality double of File:Flora1854.jpg Каракорум (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for outdoor 2D artwork in Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- In Taiwan, FoP is also applicable to the outdoor 2D artwork. The 58 Article of Copyright Act (ROC) says:
- Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances:
- Reproduction of a building by construction of another building.
- Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture.
- Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article.
- Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.
- It is for all outdoor artistic works, not only for 3D one.
- Here is another article in Intellectual Property Right Journal (智慧財產權月刊) issue 192, it says that base on the law, sell a postcard with photo of outdoor painted doesn't need authorization. The journal is published by Intellectual Property Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs, the competent authority of copyrights in Taiwan. I think the article is more credible than Kai's unfounded view.
- Would you please do some literature searching first and don't request deletion only by your own thinking?--Reke (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Boldly non-admin closed again as restored, that file was restored by the deletion admin per a separately discussion . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
See this Village Pump/Copyright discussion. Latest correspondences from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reaffirmed that the non-commercial restriction for Taiwanese non-architecture extends to photographic reproductions like this image file. Since this photo shows the artwork intentionally, this cannot benefit from Taiwanese de minimis (in which the artwork must be incidental or at background). Correspondences in Chinese: [4] and [5]. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There is freedom of panorama in United States for architecture, but not for other kind of art. Maybe the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Bildunterschrift 1764 = vermutlich Geburtsjahr des Vaters (vermutlich Johann Albert Eytelwein) Hedwig Storch (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please explain the problem with this upload --Polarlys (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
no more use 미르송 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
From Instagram, fotografer is not uploader https://www.instagram.com/p/CHyS4f5nkzd/ Emergency doc (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Do you think she made the photo herself? It doesn't look like that. There is no photographer mentioned on instagram. --Gellopai (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a little camerasign and a link to the photographer Julian Wohlers. But not the uploader and no sign of a free license.--Emergency doc (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
error de autoria Josep Lluis Verd (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
hay otra versión mejor Josep Lluis Verd (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Bogus use of the {{PD-USGov}} template. That template applies to works of the United States federal government, not to state governments like Texas. State governments (with the exception of CA, FL and MA) can and do hold copyright in their works. This is the work of the Texas Senate, per the uploader and the source. There is no indication of a free license at the source. Эlcobbola talk 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Cjp24 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- France recognizes what is called "freedom of panorama", for images taken outdoors, within the framework of non-commercial use, insofar as the images respect private life. This is explained (in French) on the page Depuis la loi du 7 octobre 2016--MAPIMKO (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Above text (in English) off topic.--Cjp24 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation. I had something similar removed and was told freedom of panorama does not extend to murals and the mural is the primary subject of this photograph, thus for consistency this should be removed. Graywalls (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment A mural in California, a state in a country where the FoP is limited only to "buildings". However, are contemporary artworks painted on buildings considered acceptable in Commons? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: , you nom'd my upload that was very similar to this and said that it does not. So, this is the same situation, is it not? Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like a two dimensional mural, which is not allowable under FoP US. Buidhe (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: , you nom'd my upload that was very similar to this and said that it does not. So, this is the same situation, is it not? Graywalls (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: This work of art is not in the public domain and is likely copyrighted by the creator. That means we can't keep it. That's how the US rolls. --Missvain (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
New user comes with a 26 KB file, image of a politician, as "own work". The formula "small file without camera EXIF" has been criticised. Please someone else find a better deletion rationale; IMHO we cannot keep this file as it is ("own work"). E4024 (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm.
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Own work? Really? GerritR (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I want to replace this image I uploaded with a PNG (File:Kaifeng Jewish names list.png, from Hebrew Union College), to remove the watermark and JPG artifacts. Enervation (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.
This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 3 Regulatory Signs. 2008 (Second Impression 2008).pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 4 - Warning Signs. 2013.pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 5 Road Markings. 2003 (Sixth Impression 2009).pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 7 -The Design of Traffic Signs 2013.pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 1 (Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road). Designs 2009.pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 2- Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations) - Operations 2009.pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 (1982 amended to 2004).pdf
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
DR requested as these originated with Highways England and not DfT directly.. Even though that Agency was mailed around the time of upload there's still been no confirmation that these are in fact as OGL, as good faith would sugggest. Per Fae's comments about OGL applicability to documents otherwise marked Crown Copyright, these will have to be removed without a further clarification or direct confirmation of OGL status.
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 1 (Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road). Designs 2009.pdf
- File:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 2- Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations) - Operations 2009.pdf
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't understand the reference to Highways England. The title page of each volume lists "Department for Transport/Highways Agency", but while Highways England is the successor to the Highways Agency, there's an important difference between them: the Highways Agency was part of the Department for Transport (and hence a government department), while Highways England is a separate company. In any case, the files appear on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual, which says at the bottom "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". In the absence of some other statement, the manuals are under OGLv3. The only possible problem is that Part 2 include the TSO logo, which is probably not covered by OGLv3. I think it's below the threshold of originality, but if it isn't then maybe it should be removed from the file. --bjh21 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- See Page 3 of the document ( which is the pre OGL crown waiver) That's the issue related to what Fae raised on something else. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: You're quite right; I hadn't spotted that. The copyright page of each volume says "For any other use of this material, apply for a Value Added Click-Use Licence" and that obviously means we can't rely on the blanket OGL statement for gov.uk and we need to look deeper. The Value Added Click-Use Licence stopped being issued on 2009-12-01 and "Most information that was previously regarded as value added [could then] be re-used under the PSI Click-Use Licence."[6] The exceptions were the members of the Information Fair Traders Scheme[7], which didn't include any of the organisations mentioned on the title page. So from 2009-12-01, these volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual could be licensed under the PSI Click-Use Licence. The PSI Click-Use Licence was then superseded by the OGL, and "Any information subject to Crown copyright that was available for re-use under the PSI Click-Use Licence may now be re-used under the OGL."[8] That seems to me to add up to a definitive statement that these volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual are now licensed under OGL. --bjh21 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bjh21: Thanks. If you could also review the current 2018 set on.gov.uk as well, much appreciated, because they would be something nice to have on Commons/Wikisource if possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've updated the "Permission" section on each file to summarise my reasoning above. --bjh21 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Withdrawn but without objection if it gets re-nominated at a later date.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. --Missvain (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SeanEnsign (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader's name implies it is the subject of Sean Ensign. These images require permission from the original photographer and graphic designer, respectively.
ƏXPLICIT 02:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 01:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Balintawak Interchange 1
[edit]Photos are COM:DW of the billboard, a 2D graphic work. Unfortunately, there is no applicable COM:FOP in the Philippines.
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 07.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 08.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 09.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 10.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 11.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 12.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 15.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 16.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Derivative works - This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
- These pictures are educational in scope, since they depict important scenes and Vide also Example of official Filipino letterhead and permit
- Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos ==
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
- FOP matter update
- Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
* (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)"
|
- 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) 04:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping for now per discussiosn. --Missvain (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- reclose. --Minoraxtalk 02:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Balintawak Interchange 2
[edit]Renominating the files (the early closure seems too swift), as COM:DW of copyrighted advertisements. The statement from Ms. Emmelina Masanque (Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau of the IPOPHL) is clear: pictorial illustrations and advertisements are among the objects of copyright in the Philippines. Also: COM:De minimis cannot be applied as these unambiguously (and intentionally) focus on the ads.
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 07.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 09.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 10.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 11.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 12.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 15.jpg
- File:02472jfBalintawak Interchange Caloocan Quezon City EDSA Roadfvf 16.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Additional Comment the above-mentioned files cannot be cropped, because cropping would eliminate their usability. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- These photos are unimportant to me personally (but are educational in value depending upon the nationality of the user - to know how spam, hypnotizing eye sores abound in Sin City of Metro Manila); I had been asked and messaged by I think a Commons admin from abroad about Daniel photos since theirs are deleted or blurry; here, my focus is in the roads and scenery especially the Jeepney vehicles; since under Commons Category of Category: Billboards and Advertisements including Daniel Padilla among others in the Philippines, they are valued photos to teach generations especially the greatest number of LGBT Company Limited who are fans of the 3 stooges of Fil soap operas and Cinema anthology
- They can be cropped and upload a new version but submitted No objection sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: another issue here is COM:ADVERT - Commons is not a place to host material that is purely for advertising purposes only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Invalid licence. The declared source has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license which is unacceptable on Commons.[9] Verbcatcher (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Photo is COM:DW of the billboard, a 2D graphic work. Unfortunately, there is no applicable COM:FOP in the Philippines. Howhontanozaz (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Derivative works "This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted"; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
- All the Billboards and Ads in the Philippines are paid ads for very limited time; they are often made garbages, trash or even litters by Typhoons; nothing important about these Commercial garbage; I say garbage since they dirty the scenery; people had been sick of ads in Probinsyano which died; now it is better to view them in NetFlix or Lambingan or TFC computer since only 9 seconds skip the ads and you are no longer bothers by these Ads;
- Keep Commons:Derivative works - DE MINIMIS De Minimis bars Deletions in Commons on FOP matters
A.M. 3-10-3-10 SC 2020 IPR Rules (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC) 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Case] take effect on November 16, 2020, a) the2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof. Rule 3 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION b) SEC. 2. Who may file an action under these Rules. — Any intellectual property right owner, or anyone possessing any right, title or interest under claim of ownership in any intellectual property right, whose right may have been violated, may file an action under these Rules. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. In case of juridical persons, proof of capacity to sue must be attached to the complaint. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative, civil and criminal liabilities. If the acts of a party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt. Rule 19 EVIDENCE IN COPYRIGHT CASES SEC 1. When copyright presumed to subsist. — In copyright infringement cases, copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to which the action relates, and ownership thereof shall be presumed to belong to complainant if he so claims through affidavit evidence under Section 218 of the Intellectual Property Code, as amended, unless defendant disputes it and shows or attaches proof to the contrary in his answer to the complaint.
- rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
- De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
[edit]
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
- FOP matter update
- Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
* (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)"
|
- 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) 06:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping for now due to the drama llama involving FOP and PH right now. See below. --Missvain (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a billboard ad. Such works are copyrightable according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque (Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under IPOPHL) who was one of the principal guests at the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR). These fall under category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements" (point 40:27 of the webinar). The discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied, hence still there's no FOP in the Philippines. The ad is also the main focus (not incidental), so de minimis can't apply. Input/s made by the uploader-judge is mainly incoherent and "nonsense", according to one admin who replied to my undeletion request at Commons:UNDEL. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not sure how this photo got kept. DM clearly doesn't apply here. The ad covers almost all of the photo! --pandakekok9 03:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pandakekok9: perhaps the admin based their decision on the incoherent input and "double keep vote" of Judgefloro, most especially in light of mass "no FOP in the Philippines" deletion nominations made by a certain Mrcl lxmna. P.S. it was an another admin at this previous thread of COM:UNDEL who said about incoherence of Judgefloro's remarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee advertisements 1
[edit]These photos are COM:DW of the advertisements and unfortunately, there is no applicable COM:FOP exception in the Philippines.
- File:0938jfJollitown 54th Anniversary Jollibee Glorieta Park Baliuag Bulacanfvf.jpg
- File:0938jfJollitown 55th Anniversary Jollibee Glorieta Park Baliuag Bulacanfvf.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- :: Keep Category:Jorge Allan Rodriguez Tengco expressly gave me permission when I met him at La Familia Resto in Baliuag, as Bulacan Tourism Officer; he owns Jollibee, Mang Inasal Red Ribbon Greenwich Baliwag; the Mascots are owned by him or at the very least he paid Jollibee for Tourism purposes of Bulacan; hence the Provisions of Commons do not apply as Express Exemption;
- Wherefore PREMISES considered, your Request for Deletion is hereby DENIED for utter lack of Merit;
- These pictures are educational in scope, since they depict important scenes and Vide also Example of official Filipino letterhead and permit
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
[edit]- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
- FOP matter update
- Rejoinder
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) 04:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping in line with all of the PH related deletions. See discussiong below for now. --Missvain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee advertisements 2
[edit]Derivative work of billboard ads. Such works are copyrightable according to Ms. Emmelina Masanque (Assistant Division Chief of the Information Dissemination and Training Division of the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau under IPOPHL) who was one of the principal guests at the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR). These fall under category "pictorial illustrations and advertisements" (point 40:27 of the webinar). The discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Comment with Query (the latest thread in that discussion forum that has started from September this year) reached a conclusion that none of the "near-FOP" limitations enumerated at Section 184 could be applied, hence still there's no FOP in the Philippines. The ad is also the main focus (not incidental), so de minimis can't apply. Input/s made by the uploader-judge is/are mainly incoherent and "nonsense", according to one admin who replied to my undeletion request at Commons:UNDEL.
- File:0938jfJollitown 54th Anniversary Jollibee Glorieta Park Baliuag Bulacanfvf.jpg
- File:0938jfJollitown 55th Anniversary Jollibee Glorieta Park Baliuag Bulacanfvf.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message and good afternoon; I just bought banca-fresh live shellfish and fish from Hagonoy Fish Port (opens 3 am to 3 pm) and the Panasahan Fish Port of Malolos opens at 3 pm onwards; to marinate them with Del Monte Vinegar, salt and peper, calamansi Dayap and Luya, taste better when you deep fry them in Magnolia Oil; just these few words to keep off stress; down on memory lane, when I sat in my Golden Throne at Br. 73, RTC, Malabon from November 5, 1998 to July 20, 1999 I usually buy Kakanin and nearby some few meters is Nanays Concepcion Pancit or in Navotas Pancit Luglog of Norma in front of San Roque Parish; respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of Commons; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reclose. --Minoraxtalk 06:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
These photos are COM:DW of the billboard and thus need the consent of the copyright holder before its publication here in Commons. Also, there is no COM:FOP in the Philippines.
- File:00737jfCircumferential Road 31 Highway Boundary Pasig Makati Bridge River Cityfvf.jpg
- File:0782jfCircumferential Road 25 Highway Boundary Pasig Makati Bridge River Cityfvf.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 01.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 02.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 03.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 04.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 05.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 06.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 07.jpg
Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Derivative works "This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted"; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
- All the Billboards and Ads in the Philippines are paid ads for very limited time; they are often made garbages, trash or even litters by Typhoons; nothing important about these Commercial garbage; I say garbage since they dirty the scenery; people had been sick of ads in Probinsyano which died; now it is better to view them in NetFlix or Lambingan or TFC computer since only 9 seconds skip the ads and you are no longer bothers by these Ads;
- Keep Commons:Derivative works - DE MINIMIS De Minimis bars Deletions in Commons on FOP matters
A.M. 3-10-3-10 SC 2020 IPR Rules (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC) 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Case] take effect on November 16, 2020, a) the2020 IPR Rules now require the complaint and the answer thereto to include the evidence in support thereof. Rule 3 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION b) SEC. 2. Who may file an action under these Rules. — Any intellectual property right owner, or anyone possessing any right, title or interest under claim of ownership in any intellectual property right, whose right may have been violated, may file an action under these Rules. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. In case of juridical persons, proof of capacity to sue must be attached to the complaint. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative, civil and criminal liabilities. If the acts of a party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be a ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt. Rule 19 EVIDENCE IN COPYRIGHT CASES SEC 1. When copyright presumed to subsist. — In copyright infringement cases, copyright shall be presumed to subsist in the work or other subject matter to which the action relates, and ownership thereof shall be presumed to belong to complainant if he so claims through affidavit evidence under Section 218 of the Intellectual Property Code, as amended, unless defendant disputes it and shows or attaches proof to the contrary in his answer to the complaint.
- rights and conditions are lost by prescription” (Article 1106). Article 1139 of the said code also states that, “Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.” Title V. – PRESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3 > PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law. (1961) Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; Art. 1149. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. (n)
- De minimis non curat lex This page in a nutshell: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder, or in situations where this does not apply as described below, do not upload works derived from other non-free works onto Commons, or they will be deleted; there is a proviso here : or in situations where this does not apply - which, squarely applies here: specifically, the case is within the 4 corners of De Minimis in Philippine Copyright via-a-vis the New SC 2019 Circular on the stiff requirements before anybody including Commons editors can ask for Deletion or accuse Copyright Infringement;
- Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
- Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would say either put this DR on hold or Keep since a relevant discussion exists at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP. IMO, as long as that forum is open, deletions should not be made. This DR should also be closed since it was started by a foolish troll. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
- 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 Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:
- FOP matter update
- Rejoinder
FOP matter update: Rejoinder
|
|---|
* (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)"
|
- 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) 05:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Judgefloro (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Keeping in line with all of the PH related deletions. See discussion below for now and discuss wherever you see fit. --Missvain (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Renominating again. The images here are clear: focus is on billboard ads! The respondent has misused the term "de minimis": non of the ads are incidental or accessory (as the category indicates). Cropping will leave all of them useless — thus fails de minimis test as long decided by the community. Also I'm requesting the admin to w:WP:SALT the category itself, as it just invites copyright-infringing materials.
- File:00737jfCircumferential Road 31 Highway Boundary Pasig Makati Bridge River Cityfvf.jpg
- File:0782jfCircumferential Road 25 Highway Boundary Pasig Makati Bridge River Cityfvf.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 01.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 02.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 03.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 04.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 05.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 06.jpg
- File:09401jfMcDonald's advertisements and Interiors Philippinesfvf 07.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Reclose. --Minoraxtalk 06:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. See Commons:Coats of arms. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly based on the image of the flag and not purely the textual description. No indication at Fernie government website that the coat of arms image is not copyrighted, especially since it was only created in 2004. —Enervation (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - This file could be used if transferred to the English Wikipedia and used as non-free content for the purpose of identification on the Fernie article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
A way to keep it up
[edit]
@Enervation: May I ask then, if I were to make an original coat of arms based off of the blazon in maybe sodacan style, would that mean the file could stay up? If so I will try to get that up immediately. Jack Ryan Morris (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you make a coat of arms based purely on the textual description, then that should be okay in terms of copyright. I'm not too familiar with Wikimedia Commons deletion requests so I would wait for confirmation from someone else before you invest too much time drawing up a new design. —Enervation (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Flags and coats of arms are every different with terms of copyright. I recommend uploading this to wikipedia under correct non free rationale. --Viiticus (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.
This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.
- File:Mb1motorwayalphabettemporary.pdf
- File:Mw1motorwayalphabetpermanent.pdf
- File:Th1transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Th2transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Th3transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm1transportmediumalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm2transportmediumalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm3transportmediumalphabet.pdf
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Per Fae's concerns expressed elsewhere concerning applicability of OGL documents already marked Crown copyright (and nominally published initially prior to OGL). These were uploaded in good faith, but per Fae , applying precautionary principle.
- File:Mb1motorwayalphabettemporary.pdf
- File:Mw1motorwayalphabetpermanent.pdf
- File:Th1transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Th2transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Th3transportheavyalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm1transportmediumalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm2transportmediumalphabet.pdf
- File:Tm3transportmediumalphabet.pdf
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am aware of the previous DR, which could be taken into consideration in any new review. Fae had expressed the concern about applicability on their talk page here User talk:Fæ#Traffic_Signs. @Fæ: as courtesy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pursuant to an e-mail asking for OTRS confirmation, the nominal source of these said there were not able to complete the relevant request, thus, As there is NO clarity about the status of these, they should be deleted, as should ALL UK traffic signs related content on Commons, derived from the relevant drawings by contributors here ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep All of the files here are in a Zip file linked from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-working-drawings-tsrgd-2002. That page says in part "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". I can't find any contrary statement about these working drawings, so as far as I can tell they're covered by OGLv3. OGLv3 doesn't cover "departmental ... logos", but the Department for Transport logo on the drawings is below even the UK TOO, being the words "Department for Transport" in a commonplace typeface. I think the permission statement attached to the file is incorrect, since it's associated with an entirely different set of files (the traffic sign images for reproduction). --bjh21 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:Bjh21 and to keep the images. However, I cannot find the discussion in User:Fae's talk page or archives. So I do not know the additional arguments. Elly (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: The previous discussion seems to have been archived at User talk:Fæ/2021#Traffic Signs..... --bjh21 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Bjh21, Elly (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: The previous discussion seems to have been archived at User talk:Fæ/2021#Traffic Signs..... --bjh21 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with User:Bjh21 and to keep the images. However, I cannot find the discussion in User:Fae's talk page or archives. So I do not know the additional arguments. Elly (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per the other comments. Since it looks like these files are covered by OGLv3. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept. The source website indicates files are OGL3 except where otherwise stated. On the right hand top corner of the files is stated Crown copyright. According this website The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence, which confirms the OGL license is valid. In addition, in the discussion here, on User talk:Fæ/2021#Traffic Signs.... and in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/11#UK_Traffic_Sign_Working_drawings_-_OGL_or_not?, no exceptions have been listed. Therefore the risk of copyright violation is imho extremely small or even absent and the images can be kept. No copyrighted logo's found on the files either. Elly (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)