Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/12/07
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_Moscow,_1935_(Mardjani).jpg){kind=link}
![154 File:"I fell in Love in Las Vegas".jpg](#File:"I_fell_in_Love_in_Las_Vegas".jpg){kind=link}
![158 File:"Rory" by Deborah Butterfield at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art.jpg](#File:"Rory"_by_Deborah_Butterfield_at_the_Samuel_P._Harn_Museum_of_Art.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
All need permission from family of artist. Forseth died 1988, Tharrats in 2001, Tchelitchew in 1957 etc etc
- File:A Tomasz Holuj.jpg
- File:Forseth A direct Light non raking no flash.jpg
- File:Forseth direct Light non raking no flashjpg.jpg
- File:Pavel Fyodorovich Tchelitchew "Male Nude".jpg
- File:Pelle Åberg oil on panel.jpg
- File:Jan Cremer 2.jpg
- File:Tomasz Holuj.jpg
- File:Målning av Erland Cullberg.jpg
- File:"Astre Noir" 1959.jpg
- File:Prytz Afrika Circa 1960.jpg
- File:Kage Farsta "Drakfisk".jpg
- File:Bertil Öhlund 1956.jpg
- File:Endre Nemes 1962.jpg
- File:Jan Cremer Oil on Canvas 1958.jpg
- File:Henri Sert 1964A.jpg
- File:Henri Sert 1964.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Request_for_rapid_deletion_of_contributed_photographs I've G7-speedied all images and put those, which will go into the PD within the next 30 years, into the appropriate Undelete-cat. --Túrelio (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7-req by upl at COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism and violation of the right to honor and dignity. (анальный дебошир) insult Алёна Синичкина (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — putnik 09:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A duplicate Goran Radoš (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
NSFW. Do not open if you are not comfortable seeing a dick pick on your entire screen. Only used as vandalism at this diff on the Romanian article of a political party. Gikü (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, bad quality penis, too small. Taivo (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
CV of https://thisis50.com/2020/11/24/john-mgbemena-model-actor-and-musician-also-known-as-caesar-takes-the-world-by-storm-with-his-new-project-i-hate-it-here/ Curbon7 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I deleted his both uploads due to failed license review. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of User:Alejandro Villalobos music
[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The metadata states the photos are copyrighted by "Laura Forero P." who does not appear to be the uploader; need permission to upload and license copyrighted photos. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, these are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo 73.75.250.106 17:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by Ellin Beltz. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Screenshot from CNBC. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, author is Romy Johnson, not uploader. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
unused file. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 06:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, spam. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Verletzung Urheberrecht Michael.giger (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, educational value is weak. Taivo (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Verletzung Urheberrecht Michael.giger (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
out of focus picture of ordinary pet. Tekstman (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Facebook. I'll delete file:Zwartje.jpg due to same reason. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope? Probably copyvio too Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, both. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation https://www.gettyimages.es/detail/fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/jose-mourinho-head-coach-of-tottenham-hotspur-fotograf%C3%ADa-de-noticias/1188931795?adppopup=true Brgesto (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as clear copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Taken from twitter, no evidence of CC Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, source – Twitter. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Satyamiris87 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No meaningful exif, VKC5 is taken from twitter feed. Highly likely that they are all from the web and not own work. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all Satyamiris's contributions due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
While free this is too blurry to have any EDUSE. Yes its arty but what purpose would it serve? Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, out of scope. Taivo (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no purpose, spam (uploaded to purpotedly illustrate a power plant) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, not spam. Very bad drawing. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Does not look like own work. Tekstman (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Scan from a book or newspaper; no evidence for free license or being uploader's own work MPF (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Scan from a book or newspaper; no evidence for free license or being uploader's own work MPF (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all photos uploaded by HacıyevaGülnar due to same reason. Mostly small photo, only one has camera data. Likely different photographers' copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Screenshot of licensed software Tekstman (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
No permission Tekstman (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, only 7 words, ineligible for copyright by US laws. Unused file, the uploader's only contribution, no educational value. Deleted as out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
No free license, see https://www.wozzol.nl/woordjesleren/algemenevoorwaarden Tekstman (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but I am the creator of www.wozzol.nl and by posting the image I accepted that this particular picture is now under the wikipedia license. So it can stay on Wikimedia. Barbeleet
Deleted, Wozzol is not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in nl.wiki. Deleted as out of project scope. This is the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Company page "to be opened soon". Tekstman (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in nl.wiki. Taivo (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Logo of unknown company. Tekstman (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in nl.wiki. Taivo (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Non notable / copyrighted Tekstman (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I used the wrong license MotoJawaCZ (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Complex logo, courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I want it to be deleted it is not my work Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Not my work Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a duplicate logo, exists already in this link: file:CRB2.png. DZwarrior1 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete both as copyright violation. This is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
duplicate File:Kok Bayraq.PNG Валко (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, superseded by file:Flowchart pre-treatments aluminium.png. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Doorframe01 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused symbols of fictitious state of questionable notability. Used in unapproved draft.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Kekistan is hoax, speedily deleted. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, es:Liga Foralista was deleted due to non-notability. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
No mention of a Creative Commons license at source Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 17:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all contributions of Stage Life World Magazine (talk · contribs) due to copyright violation. Most files come from copyrighted site, one has Luigui Salas as author and copyright holder, the last is simply unlikely own work. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Поскольку Логотип Ĩŵąŋ (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Поскольку Логотип Ĩŵąŋ (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Поскольку Логотип Ĩŵąŋ (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Mongoose145 (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. F10. --Minoraxtalk 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Http 2.bp.blogspot.com -4qanjqk6ofE TdHaLYPIn7I AAAAAAAAFQ8 DeJEavMMCBM s1600 Hombres.jpg
[edit]
unused selfie. Pibwl (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, this is self-promotion-only user and his last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
unused personal(?) promotional photo. When he is famous enough to have an article maybe he will upload a new one. Pibwl (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I will reoganise it later Lukes103 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
i need to change it Lukes103 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, unused file, uploader's request, courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
unused low res personal(?) photo, one of few uploads. Pibwl (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all uploads of Palumbéli Máté (talk · contribs). Small photos without metadata, one unsourced collage. Depicted person is notable, but all the photos violate real photographer's copyright. Taivo (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
unused personal(?) photo, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
unused selfie, one of 2 uploads. Pibwl (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, would be in scope as example of cosplay. I'll delete it as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright violation ? (No metadata and small image) Supporterhéninois (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Source its copyright violation by "Roblox" AichiWikiFixer (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, was uploaded by an LTA. --Achim (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skin and Blister (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not your personal free web host. No contribs to any wm project.
- File:Skin and Blister Band Photoshoot.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister Musik.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister Band.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister desert of joy cover.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister Desert Of Joy.jpg
- File:Viny Mamonto (Skin and Blister).jpg
- File:Skin and Blister Debut Release Yes! Yes! Yes!.jpg
- File:Annisa Anindya (Vocalist of Skin and Blister).jpg
- File:Skin and Blister - Yes! Yes! Yes!.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister.jpg
- File:Skin and Blister (music group).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Achim (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of CTsabre14
[edit]CTsabre14 (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:X2 Conference 2014 - 2.png (710×560)
- File:X2 Conference 2014 - 1.jpg (570×398)
- File:X2 warehouse.jpg (4254×2833, author and copyright holder Davis Turner)
First group. Mostly small photos without metadata, one photo is credited to another person. Probably copyright violations.
- File:X2 Elite logo.png
- File:X2 Projects logo.png
- File:X2 Groups logo.png
- File:X2 Movers logo.png
- File:X2 Cold Chain logo.png
Second group. Unused logos, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Jhowell86
[edit]Here are all contributions of Jhowell86 (talk · contribs):
- File:Bob Giaimo Portrait.jpg (271×296)
- File:Chef Ype at the Kids LiveWell Press Conference.jpg (1024×680)
- File:Guacamole Pepper-Jack Burger.jpg (700×549, copyright holder Andy Franck)
- File:Mango Vegetarian Stir Fry.jpg (700×516, copyright holder Andy Franck)
- File:Metro Diner Cafe Interior.jpg (1000×712)
- File:Silver Diner Airport Logo.jpg (700×347, complex logo)
- File:Silver Diner BWI.jpg (1000×715, author and copyright holder Ed Massery)
- File:Silver Diner Exterior View.jpg (700×285)
- File:Silver Diner Interior View.jpg (700×447)
- File:Silver Diner Logo.jpg (complex logo)
- File:Silver Diner Logo.png (complex logo)
Small photos without metadata, some are attributed to different photographers. Three complex logos. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Surmounts
[edit]Here are all remaining contributions of Surmounts (talk · contribs):
- File:Arun & Friends.jpg
- File:Black and white.jpg
- File:K D Guru AKA B D Guru.jpg
- File:Narasimha and Friends.jpg
- File:Office-VMT.jpg
We have even OTRS-permission for some files, but in my opinion they are all out of project scope due to missing educational value. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Saudjubaer
[edit]Here are last remaining contributions of Saudjubaer (talk · contribs):
- File:Manhattan Film Academy logo.gif
- File:MFA students taking part in workshop with Joe Pennella.jpg
- File:Middle Eastern Ladies taking part in MFA workshop.jpg
- File:Robert Tutak, Agnieszka Holland, Jamal Al Sharif at Manhattan Film Academy Press Conference.jpg
- File:Robert Tutak in Cannes 2003.jpg
Robert Tutak and Manhattan Film Academy were considered non-notable. All the files are out of project scope.
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Samuelhadwin
[edit]Samuelhadwin (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:BODEGA EL PLACER.png (414×571)
- File:Emilio Crespo.png (depicted person died in 1979)
- File:Luis Level de Goda.png (depicted person died in 1899)
- File:Pabellón criollo venezolano.png (855×399)
- File:Sempervivum.png (960×720)
- File:SIEMPREVIVA VEN.jpg (1664×2371, camera Blu Advance L5)
- File:Una planta de mango.jpg (810×1080)
- File:UN TERRENO DEL SECTOR DEDICADO A LA PRODUCCIÓN AGRÍCOLA.png (701×436)
Mostly small photos without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shklyaev
[edit]Shklyaev (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:Antonova N.png
- File:Blinov haval.png
- File:Fedina komi.png
- File:Krestyaninova udmblogs.png
- File:Madina kabardin.png
- File:Sandaara yakut.png
- File:Tabris podkast.png
- File:Tembulat kabardin.png
- File:Wiki pavlov.png
Derivative work of photos with unknown copyright status. Taivo (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aidar Uteshev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not in use. A part of a straightforward advertising activity.
- File:Сап хм.png
- File:ЛОГО САП.jpg
- File:Производство Костанай.jpg
- File:Главное фото завод.jpg
- File:Костанай завод.jpg
- File:ПМК.jpg
- File:100 000 авто.jpg
Bilderling (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete all. If camera data exist, then always different. One photo has even "author: Galyamin Sergey". Taivo (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)}}
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Raquelgarcia
[edit]Raquelgarcia (talk · contribs) uploaded these imnages:
- File:Beazul.jpg (960×720)
- File:Caripe..jpg (604×453)
- File:Caruachi Estado bolívar..JPG (800×600, camera Sony Cybershot)
- File:Clve.jpg (960×720)
- File:Guri. El agua Almacenada en el embalse..jpg (640×480)
- File:Guri. En el aliviadero..jpg (640×480)
- File:Guri. Estado Bolívar..jpg (640×480)
- File:Guri-Impresionante Caida del agua..jpg (640×480)
- File:Lasdelicias en Caripe..jpg (604×453)
- File:Lirio amarillo..jpg (960×720)
- File:Llovizna. Bolívar..jpg (556×417)
- File:Llovizna puente. Bolívar..jpg (719×539)
- File:Obra de Carlos cruz Diez. Bolivar..JPG (480×640)
- File:Obra de Dios en Caripe..jpg (556×417)
- File:Puente orinokia.jpg (960×720)
- File:Relax. Club Náutico Pto. Ordaz. Bolívar..jpg (604×453)
- File:Represa de Caruachi..jpg (1280×1024, camera Motorola 1.3 Megapixel)
- File:Rio orinoco y caroni. Nunca se unen..jpg (604×453)
- File:Salto2.jpg (604×453)
- File:Salto kama. La gran Sabana. Bolivar..jpg (453×592)
- File:Saltos del Parque la Llovizna..jpg (604×339)
- File:Un palito cumanes..jpg (1200×1600, camera BlackBerry 8320)
Small files, mostly without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Tanishka
[edit]TANISHKA (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:6 peacocks altogether.jpg (810×1080)
- File:A deer from the herd.jpg (2448×2444, camera Vivo Y31L)
- File:Artificial lights.jpg (2448×3264, camera Vivo Y31L)
- File:GARDEN Of manipal university.jpg (4128×2322, camera Samsung GT-I9500)
- File:Govardhan parvat.jpg (3264×1836, camera Lenovo K6)
- File:Peacock spotted.jpg (1080×810)
- File:Sarovar kund, raman reti.jpg (1690×1576, camera Lenovo K6)
- File:Swami narayan temple.jpg (2322×4128, camera Samsung GT-I9500)
- File:Yamuna river near temple.jpg (992×585)
Different cameras. I suspect different photographers' copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Chaka Coolada
[edit]Here are last remaining uploads of Chaka Coolada (talk · contribs):
- File:1921-10-09, La Novela Teatral, Ricardo de la Vega, Tovar.jpg (1921 poster)
- File:1921-12-18, La Novela Teatral, Tonadillas y tonadilleras.jpg (1921 poster)
- File:1921-12-25, La Novela Teatral, Tonadillas y tonadilleras.jpg (1921 poster)
- File:Beulah Quo.jpg (477×600, no source, "Unknown photographer")
- File:Suzy DeLair.jpg (527×655, circa 1950 photo)
- File:TempestDragcon.jpg (241×209)
- File:Tempest-DuJour-RuPauls-Drag-Race-Season-7-Photo-10-things-04.jpg (467×657, camera NIKON D700, author Ed Flores)
- File:Ursula.png (434×436, no source, "Unknown photographer")
The photos are small, mostly without metadata, one is credited to somebody else, many have "unknown photographer". The posters have incorrect CC-license, source country is unknown. In my opinion they all violate real author's copyright. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/125362354@N05
[edit]Claimed as CC0 but this is flickrwashing. Flickr account has 0 followers and 0 following. This flickr account cannot be trusted
- File:Solomon Areda Waktolla- Harvard Law School graduation.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla presiding the Bench.jpg
- File:Solomon Areda Waktolla -University Kennedy School of Government Graduation.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla presiding the Bench at Supreme Court.jpg
- File:Harvard Law School Graduation-Solomon Areda Waktolla.jpg
- File:Solomon Areda Waktolla- Harvard Graduation.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla on the Bench.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla - Appointment ceremony at the Ethiopian Parliament.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla taking the oath of Office.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla taking the oath of office for Chief Justice of Supreme Court.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla - Appointment ceremony.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Areda Waktolla- Permanent Court of Arbitration , Peace Palace , Hague.jpg
- File:Harvard University Kennedy School of Government Graduation- Solomon Areda Waktolla.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla on the Bench at Federal Supreme Court.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla discussing on the Bench.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla on the cassation Bench.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla discussing with colleague Justices on the Bench.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/125362354@N05 2
[edit]As in the previous nomination this is a case of flickrwashing. They have 3 followers now and randomly follow 140 accounts. The flickr account can still not be trusted, and previously deleted images were denied undeletion.
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla- Presiding the Cassation Bench.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla- Oath for Office.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla- at Peace palace, the Hague.jpg
- File:Solomon Waktolla- Harvard University Graduation.jpg
- File:Deputy Chief Justice Solomon Waktolla.jpg
Njd-de (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Files of Olsony92
[edit]Here are last remaining contributions of Olsony92 (talk · contribs):
- File:Расковинський Цезар Сильвестрович Пам'ятник 2.jpg (375×500)
- File:Алея 2 смт. Нова Прага.jpg (500×375)
- File:Алея смт. Нова Прага.jpg (500×375)
- File:Видал Расковинський Цезар Сильвестрович.jpg (437×582)
Small photos without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably a selfie; out of scope JopkeB (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of ZS Khumalo
[edit]ZS Khumalo (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:013NEWS logo.png (complex logo)
- File:IMG-20200528-WA0032~4.jpg (1012×840)
- File:Lindiwe Ntshalintshali.jpg (1280×853)
- File:Peter Nyoni.jpg (1280×853)
- File:Zama Khumalo.png (480×658)
- File:Zama Khumalo 2.png (480×273)
Small photos without camera data. I suspect different photographers' copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mikanguyen01 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These all look like logos or screenshots of Minecraft, and there is no indication that the uploader has the right to licence them.
- File:Minecraft@UWLogo.png
- File:Minecraft Logo.png
- File:Quad at Night.png
- File:Commencement.png
- File:Creators.png
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Nonsensical, seemingly personal files. Out of project scope.
Kissa21782 (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aussieeditor999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dmartens10 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This photo was probably taken by Nuri Yılmazer for Red Bull. See photo site of Red Bull. 1 2 For this reason, it should be deleted since it is copyrighted. Uncitoyen (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This photo was probably taken by Nuri Yılmazer for Red Bull. See photo site of Red Bull. 1 2 For this reason, it should be deleted since it is copyrighted. Uncitoyen (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
copyright violation Photo: © Donald Gillies Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This photo was probably taken by Nuri Yılmazer for Red Bull. See photo site of Red Bull. 1 2 For this reason, it should be deleted since it is copyrighted. Uncitoyen (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FotosHistoricasDeSalta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Purported {{PD-AR-Photo}} license applies only to photographs (template even says "Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art")--these are all COM:DWs of paintings. Argentina is pma + 70, and there is no evidence of data of author death and all are too recent for that assumption. FWIW, uploaded by sock of serial copyright violator.
- File:Ansuategui-ch.jpg
- File:Sanmiguel-ch.jpg
- File:Aveliino-araoz-ch.jpg
- File:Jucornejoarias-ch.jpg
- File:Velarde-ch.jpg
- File:Outes-ch.jpg
- File:Jtodd.jpg
- File:Avefigueroa (1).jpg
- File:Agususandivaras-ch.jpg
- File:Moya-ch.jpg
- File:Langu-ch.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 17:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Heba Aisha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Visual characteristics suggest screenshots of existing works. Most appear to be uploader taking black and white pictures of a screen; for example, see pixel grids and moiré patterns (especially on File:Shakuni Chaudhary.jpg and File:Satish Prasad Singh.jpg.) File:Pradeep Mahto.jpg is just taken from this; File:Mahabali Singh MP.jpg is just take from this; File:Shakuni Chaudhary.jpg is just taken from this; File:Dadan Pahalwan.jpg is just a screenshot of this video; etc. Uploader appears very confused about derivative works. Duck/COM:PRP issue.
- File:Renu Kushwaha.jpg
- File:Raj banshi Mahto.jpg
- File:Pradeep Mahto.jpg
- File:Mewalal Chaudhary.jpg
- File:Amarjeet Kushwaha.jpg
- File:Satish Prasad Singh.jpg
- File:Shakuni Chaudhary.jpg
- File:Ritlal Yadav.jpg
- File:Dadan Pahalwan.jpg
- File:Mahabali Singh MP.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed that they are derivative work. I saw one such used on article phoolan devi of english wikipedia. Is there any way to retain them as many english wiki articles are waste without pic of subject and there is no scope of getting their valid image considering the difference between india and western world. We are still very less aware about commons policies. I will be glad if someone makes necessary changes or suggest changes required to keep these photos.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heba Aisha: Who is "We"? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, pcp. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Heba Aisha (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]No evidence of GODL license at source. To the contrary, source's copyright page says "the material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." (bold added)
- File:Rama Devi.jpg
- File:Kaushalendra Kumar.jpg
- File:Alok Kumar Mehta.jpg
- File:Narendra Kumar Kushwaha.jpg
- File:Baidyanath Prasad Mahto.jpg
- File:Santosh Kumar Kushwaha.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Comment by Heba Aisha
Gazoth Eatcha, Patrick Rogel Bharatiya29 plz see images from these website lok sabha and Rajya Sabha including government departments are under GODL-INDIA licence as per NDSAP.... See quote from documents. Stop delition.
- The page you cited is not updated for a long time. The NDSAP policy of Government of India is a comparatively new policy. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- This file seems to have passed File:Gautam Gambhir - LS MP.jpg Heba Aisha (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The page you cited is not updated for a long time. The NDSAP policy of Government of India is a comparatively new policy. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=399098669#Lok_Sabha_MP_images_-_GODL%3F.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
See it too https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/06#Extent_of_Template:GODL-IndiaHeba Aisha (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also see the policy statement of NDSAP
Heba Aisha (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)These data need to be made available in an open format to facilitate use, reuse and
redistribute; it should be free from any license or any other mechanism of control. Opening up of government data in open formats would enhance transparency and accountability while encouraging public engagement. The government data in open formats has a huge potential for innovation building various types of Apps, mash-ups and services around the published datasets. Notification of NDSAP mandates government departments to proactively open up data. NDSAP in India is applicable to all entities of Government Setup[1][ http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf] Also page 13 of the one of the two document(which can be downloaded from data.gov.in says that: {{Data will remain the property of the organisation where it is published but sharing donot imply any violation of act and rules of GoI. These two policy document are available on clicking the logo of data.gov.in on the copyright page of the source I listed.}}
- Delete per nom until the copyright expires or the Indian Government updates their web sites and pages. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Jeff G. You understood it wrong. I recognise that first nomination folder is against commons policy but this folder is not. Plz see the document of govt policy above ....these images are royalty free usable by all.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- There exist Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India....thousands of photos are there which are from government website.All are under GODL-INDIA licence. These are royalty free images available to all under National Data Sharing policy.....I have put the Government Document above which can be downloaded from the website from where I got these photos.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- As per past discussion many images which are having same licence and downloaded from same website are approved...example this one!-
- There exist Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India....thousands of photos are there which are from government website.All are under GODL-INDIA licence. These are royalty free images available to all under National Data Sharing policy.....I have put the Government Document above which can be downloaded from the website from where I got these photos.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Gautam Gambhir - LS MP.jpgHeba Aisha (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Heba Aisha: Stop putting images in DRs, they are supposed to be wikitext and HTML only. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok . Already many discussions have been completed by many users for keeping GODL tagged pics. If my photos are deleted then I wonder what is the logic behind keeping thousands of pic with same licence, some of which have been approved like one above. The administrators should read the policy document of government of india which is available on every website.I am aware of that. It is wrong to delete these images.(I repeat these images are not copyrighted)Heba Aisha (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata credits Fabio Bruni Ytoyoda (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata credits Gruppe C GmbH Ytoyoda (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata credits MARIUS KUNIGISKIS Ytoyoda (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Most uploads of CFMOTO Racing Team (talk · contribs) have the same problem. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
All of the user's other uploads are from the web. This is likely as well too. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
unused personal photo, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
,_Moscow,_1935_(Mardjani).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Moscow,_1935_(Mardjani).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not PD: the artist died in 1966, the copyright would expire in 2036 Crash48 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
,_Moscow,_1935_(Mardjani).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
,_Moscow,_1935_(Mardjani).jpg){kind=link}
Metadata says "Copyright (c) 2019 Shutterstock. No use without permission." Flickr washed. DrKay (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DrKay: Anyone can edit the metadata and add such informations. -- Calvinsky (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. On Shutterstock at https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/prince-harry-and-meghan-duchess-of-sussex-visit-to-africa-25-sep-2019-10423641i. Apparent license laundering. Dylsss (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll also add that this Flickr account has a handful of other images that don't appear to be own work. Dylsss (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE - unused, bad quality, unsuitable for depictions of subject thus no realistic educational utility. Эlcobbola talk 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST - unused image with unidentified subject Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Heartlove2
[edit]Heartlove2 (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:Apostol Avizay Hernandez del Centro Cristiano Internacional Sinai.jpg (Facebook file)
- File:Mayerlin Castañeda del Ministerio Salmistas & Profetas.jpg (watermark estudio ocho)
- File:Pastor Cash Luna en la iglesia.jpg (Facebook file)
I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Hermann Luyken
[edit]Hermann Luyken (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:2011.10.16.165756 Banco de Boston Av. Roque Sáenz Peña Buenos Aires.jpg (sculptir José Fioravanti died in 1977)
- File:2011.10.16.165831 Relief Banco de Boston Av. Roque Sáenz Peña Buenos Aires.jpg (1921–24 sculpture)
- File:2011.10.17.092716 Banco Alemán Calle Reconquista Buenos Aires.jpg (1926 sculpture?)
There is no freedom of panorama in Argentina for sculptures and the photos violate sculptors' copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Houstonpearce
[edit]Here are last remaining photos, uploaded by Houstonpearce (talk · contribs):
- File:Spexterior.jpg (313×188)
- File:Sphsmainbuilding.png (313×99)
Tiny photos without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Dixitssumit
[edit]Here are all contributions of Dixitssumit (talk · contribs):
- File:Amit Dixit DAV.jpg (1096×1108)
- File:Ramaknt gaur.jpg (1692×1128)
- redirect file:Ramaknt gaur.jpg.jpg
- File:Sumit.jpg (1365×1365, Facebook file)
Small photos without camera data, one comes from Facebook. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Lucia Norman
[edit]Here are last remaining contributions of Lucia Norman (talk · contribs):
- File:Árboles.JPG (1920×1304)
- File:Edificio abandonado.JPG (1691×1416)
- File:Ramas y árboles.JPG (2048×1536, camera Apple iPhone 4S)
- File:Un pasto muy verde.JPG (1920×1440)
Mostly small photos without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Raghlin
[edit]Raghlin (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:
- File:Beach Guacuco.jpg
- File:Monumento San Antonio de Capayacuar.jpg
- File:Nazareno, Caripito Edo. Monagas.jpg
Out of project scope, because they are tilted. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Yarvic vasquez
[edit]Here are all contributions of Yarvic vasquez (talk · contribs):
- File:Aparicio edo monagas.jpg (640×480)
- File:Caripe edo monagas.jpg (960×640)
- File:Juan griego edo nueva esparta.jpg (1280×960)
- File:Juan griego edo nuevas esparta.jpg (1280×960)
Small photos without metadata. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Kophen
[edit]Here are last remaininbg contributions of Kophen (talk · contribs):
- File:Avenidaaztecas.jpg (1000×750, camera Samsung KENOX S630)
- File:Magnoliafoto.jpg (440×330)
- File:Mosaico de David Siqueiros, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, campus Coyoacán.jpg (416×300)
- File:Zurisphoto.jpg (337×450)
Small files. No camera data (one exception). I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files of Forest Kämp
[edit]Here are last remaining contributions of Forest Kämp (talk · contribs):
- File:Forest Kämp.jpg (5116×2480, author and copyright holder Ahto Sooaru, All rights reserved)
- File:Tartuff 2014.jpg (960×717)
- File:Tartu JK Tammeka.jpg (900×758, screenshot)
Copyright violations / Autoriõiguste rikkumine. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
File:Michael Kennedy arrested at the New York City Federal Building in 1985 while protesting the US involvement with the Contras.jpg
[edit]
1985 photo but exif says it was taken with an iPhone. Unlikely to be own work. Gbawden (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Inirihamye (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old photos, we need the permission of the photographer
- File:"Where We At" Brooklyn Museum Open Hearing.png
- File:Dindga McCannon at the "Where We At" Brooklyn Museum Open Hearing.png
Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) per exif - needs permission Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, uploader is indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Out of project scope, copyright violation is possible as well. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Judging by Commons:Threshold of originality#China it seems like Chinese logos have low copyright thresholds and thus this one may be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rkgovindarajan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rkgovindarajan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:R.k govindrajan with ustad amzad ali khan saheb.jpg
- File:RK.Govindarajan.jpg
- File:Releases by former president Dr. Shankar Byal Sharma.jpg
- File:Air 2016.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted advertisements. No FoP in Japan for 2D works.
- File:Go To Eat ! in Kyoto.jpg
- File:Go To Eat Campaign in Hyōgo 01.jpg
- File:GO TO EAT TOKYO.jpg
- File:Go To Eat! in Hiroshima.jpg
- File:Go To Travel by JR Central.jpg
- File:Go To Travel Pennant by JR Tokai Tours.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted advertisements. No FoP in Japan for 2D works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iulianrusse33123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of the user's other uploads are copyvios. These look like web downloads too.
Ytoyoda (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 0ChrisLambert0 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence of permission from https://www.semedia.co.uk/
- File:Big Ben at Noon.jpg
- File:Pepe Guardiola signing a contract.jpg
- File:Brian Blessed on a shoot.jpg
- File:Pepe Guardiola.jpg
- File:Muraiwai Beach.jpg
- File:Brian Blessed enjoying a cup of tea.jpg
- File:Red arrows on display.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Williams.maryelizabeth (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:SCOPE, heavily retouched photographs that don't serve an encyclopedic purpose.
- File:Que Demonias at 5 Pointz.jpg
- File:World Upside Down at 5 Pointz.jpg
- File:Death to 5 Pointz.jpg
- File:9762992434 460838b64b z Inverted.jpg
- File:3423491692 9d5d978538 z negative.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Probable copyvio given that the uploader's other low-res image was a copyvio IagoQnsi (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
private pic; out of project scope LexICon (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof for the own work of the uploader. I think this image was taken from this image (Traveling notes of Melih Eriş). Takabeg (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Credible claim of requester. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No source nor the original creator information. We can't know if the image is a public domain. Nanahuatl (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a painting by Rudolf Gerhard Zill [2]. . He was still alive in 1960, see https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/66500176_rudolf-gerhard-zill-b-1913-pair-of-portraits-of ("signed and dated 1960"). Copyright violation. Mutter Erde (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Mutter Erde: Hi, I found the image on the Nazi Propaganda Archive website and only intend for it to be used on the one article that I have used it on as fair use.--LeftiePete (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on commons. Btw: This is a free file: File:Heinrich Knirr – „Führerbildnis“ (1937).jpg. Mutter Erde (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Reinhard Klesse lived 1932-2014; there's no reason to think the underlying work is PD in any country, and there's no license or date on the underlying work. Prosfilaes (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Toby Davis' Twitter feed, taken by Lisa Baskerville, his girlfriend, on his iPhone - needs permission Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tobydavis34: it would be quite easy for you to say Lisa to send OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, personal image, Uploader's only contribution to wikipedia is this picture Migebert (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
F10 - previously declined because the draft autobio on enwiki hadn't yet been deleted Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Some kind of internal scheme voor a call center. Tekstman (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
A screenshot without educational value and probably copyrighted. Tekstman (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
flag for phantasy country Tekstman (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hoax, phantasy screenplay of so called popular comedy. Tekstman (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
dubious licensing, no evidence of PD VLu (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused photo. Without some sort of identification is of no educational value. Malcolma (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
out of scope, unused, no cat, one of few uploads. Pibwl (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MaekennaShaye (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos may be above the threshold of originality. Furthermore, File:KQBG Logo.jpg is not legitimately in use.
As such, permission may be needed:
Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commons
wikimedia.org.
Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete both. These are not simple logos. Taivo (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/designgeist
[edit]Looks like these were uploaded to illustrate an abandoned draft (or fake article?) at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Designgeist&oldid=332529008 in 2009. The images all say "©Copyright. Quenby Hall, Leicestershire, England", the historical painting is not attributed to an artist.
- File:Quenby Hall Historical Painting.jpg
- File:Quenby Hall Front.jpg
- File:Quarter Wedge of Quenby Hall Blue Stilton®.jpg
- File:Quenby Port Stilton.jpg
- File:Half of a Quenby Hall Blue Stilton.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Turkmenistan.
VLu (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Georgia. They are legally painted murals, no way to deny the painter's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Would require an OTRS, and it seems the original uploader forced this licence upon the Communication Office instead of the Communication Office explicitly giving the rights. Veverve (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Saudi Arabia. Built in 1971, still within the 50 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Metadata contains the name of the author and copyright holder; need their permission to license their photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, OTRS-permission from author and copyright holder Gerald Lobenwein is needed. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Somebody's resume cover letter. Out of Project scope. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Watermarked by the photographer. Need their permission to license their photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from sculptor REY LAZ CONTRERAS, alive and living https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey_Paz_Contreras Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
After extensive discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, the status quo prevailed: there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippine copyright law. Reviewing the object; according to Art BGC this sculpture was indeed designed by Rey(nato) Paz Contreras (still living per enwiki) and unveiled in 1997. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evoque in Dubai 099 (5957859156).jpg which I accessed just recently, "deletion first is the right approach in accordance with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle": Commons always respects the copyrights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the country (the Philippines for this case) does not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to Radio Okapi, not MONUSCO: https://www.flickr.com/photos/67163702@N07/15599236231. No evidence that it was published under a free license. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wait. Radio Okapi is a creation of MONUSCO and the Swiss NGO Fondation Hirondelle, and defines itself as "the radio of the United Nations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, managed by the MONUSCO" ("la radio des Nations Unies en République démocratique du Congo, gérée par la Monusco." Since Radio Okapi can be contacted, it would be wise to ask them if they authorize the reproduction of the image in Wikimedia Commons. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Radio Okapi is linked with MONUSCO. MONUSCO publishes many works by various photographers and endorses these works under its own license. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, I do not see here copyright problem. Educational value exists. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
False claim of own work Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- This underscores the entrapment posed by the Upload Wizard. One can create one's own derivative work of a public domain work, but the wizard only prompts for one license. Is the present license really a "false claim" intended to deceive or does it really represent a failure of the Upload Wizard to prompt for licenses for both the digital image (derivative work) and the original image? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, No evidence of public domain. No author data, no publication data. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, uploader has no other live global contributions. Out of project scope. ƏXPLICIT 06:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence, that uploader DocDestiny (talk · contribs) is the YouTube channel owner. OTRS-permission is needed to restore the image. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Uploader tried to have it speedily deleted in this edit. Excessive self-promotion in filename, description, and large destructive watermark. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, declining speedy deletion was proper decision, but now I'll delete the image due to quality problems. Taivo (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
non-free picture, taken from French professionnal handball league: https://www.lnh.fr/lidl-starligue/joueurs/arthur-anquetil LeFnake (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, by Fitindia on 14th of December due to missing permission. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This file is a picture of a copyrighted comics (Le Grand Pouvoir du Chninkel) drawn by living artist Grzegorz Rosiński. Kokonino (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kokonino: It's picture of copyrighted work, but it's done in a way that is allowed for commons. You can't use this image to reproduce the artwork, because of Depth of Field in image. I was told that images like that are fine for commons. The same as if you have image with small Depth of Field of the cover of the book. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think we could apply De minimis rule here. Rdrozd (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- On which basis? This is pure example of the case in which "Copyrighted work is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." Bokeh around the central part of the picture does not change anything. Polimerek (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alas, that's right. Rdrozd (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- On which basis? This is pure example of the case in which "Copyrighted work is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." Bokeh around the central part of the picture does not change anything. Polimerek (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete unless the flickr license is valid - it's just as delete-able as if it were a crop that was the "centerpiece" of a collage, making it NOT de minimus. The hand alone, not to mention the hand with the eyes, is in my view a work of art by itself. Now, had the non-fuzzy part been non-copyrighted material, such as simple shapes or a word or two in a speech bubble, then I would be okay with it as being in the public domain as {{Pd-simple}} or a similar reason. If the flickr license is valid - that is, if flickr uploader cinnamon_girl owns the rights to the underlying work, then of course this should be speedy-closed as "keep, properly licensed." @Jcubic: You uploaded it, do you have any evidence that the flickr image's "CC BY-SA 2.0" license is legitimate? Davidwr (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I used the wrong license MotoJawaCZ (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, that's true, but I'll fix the license. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This picture is not from 2015, and the artist is not mentionned. We don't know if it's free of rights. Sammyday (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks too modern to be public domain. Artworks in the Philippines are protected for 50 years after the artist's death. Painter should have died before 1969 for this to be PD, which seems very unlikely. There is also no COM:FOP in the Philippines. Howhontanozaz (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Cannot find any immediate sources regarding this artwork.
Unsure but somehow "uncomfortable" on its copyright status. I might page both @A1Cafel and Verbcatcher: who are mostly involved in artworks-related deletion nominations. However, while the gallery is a government-owned and managed establishment, this doesn't mean the works under their care are free or not copyrighted (see also the IPOPHL's latest reply, of which the whole extract is found here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- To JWilz12345 I have raised 7 Questions on FOP vis-à-vis i am a smart one and co-conspirator (the Parent-Child Sock accounts orchestrating via Similar acts as evidence)
- The Nominator herein has valid and unresolved yet issues; It is fervently petitioned that - all the Nominations of the herein Nominator should be as ruled "going to keep this for now until someone else can nominate if they see fit"; Wherefore premises considered I humbly register my Strong Objection to this and the Mass Deletions Requests of the related Single Editor (underscoring for now and until the issue of Check user is resolved) May I quote this Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC); I am still reviewing the Mass Deletions in my and User:Ramon FVelasquez talk pages; I plan to make an accounting and summations towards a conclusion on the Check User issue very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have shared my inputs on FOP : A fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one Judgefloro (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: sorry but, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz was closed with no decision, perhaps because there is no basis to claim that Howhontanozaz and the troll-nominator are both the same. And please, respond with focus to the nature and circumstances of the subject of your photo and not the nature of the user (which is a form of logical fallacy called "poisoning the well"). For the FOP, the status quo prevails (as the Sept.-Nov. discussion has concluded) - no freedom of panorama until Republic Act 8293 is amended to permit reproductions and publications of copyrighted artworks and architecture under free licenses and in commercial media like post cards, calendars, and commercial T-shirt prints. While IPOPHL is open for a possible dialogue with Wikimedia Foundation for FOP matter (meaning there may be a possibility that FOP may be introduced in our country), the proposed House Bill 8062 that will amend the copyright law still has no freedom of panorama provision (worse it has additional sections that may involve requesting telcos to block websites showing content that infringes copyright, and may also have the power to launch take down notices). Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Evoque in Dubai 099 (5957859156).jpg which I accessed just recently, "deletion first is the right approach in accordance with Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle": Commons always respects the rights of the artists and architects, even if the general public of the country (the Philippines) does not. If you disagree, you may raise FOP issues at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or Commons talk:Freedom of panorama, and if you contest Precautionary principle, raise it at Commons:Village pump. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have shared my inputs on FOP : A fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to save uploaded photos versus i am a smart one Judgefloro (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: There is no freedom of panorama for drawings and paintings in the Philippines (see COM:FOP Philippines). The picture shown in the photograph is clearly too modern to be public domain, so we need evidence of permission from the artist who created the picture, as well as permission from the photographer. The uploader and claimed author Judgefloro appears to claim to be the former Philippines judge Florentino Floro, whose Wikipedia article does not mention the creation of artworks, and this file is not in Category:Florentino Floro. Therefore it seems unlikely that the the uploader created the artwork shown. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good afternoon from hereat Bulacan; happy holidays to you and your family; I admit that this is not my painting; I just took this photo when I was touring Museum & Archive Gallery (National Parks Development Committee) of Rizal Park; I was granted permission by the Park Office and Administration to take photos as part of Philippine There is more fun in the Philippines I am respectfully submitting the matter to the sound discretion of Commons very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
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) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
![15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/07#c-Howhontanozaz-2020-12-07T15:23:00.000Z-File:"I_fell_in_Love_in_Las_Vegas".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
![11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/07#c-Taivo-2020-12-16T11:10:00.000Z-File:"I_fell_in_Love_in_Las_Vegas".jpg){kind=link}
FOP is fairly broad in Germany, but only for public places. I wonder if universities in Germany are considered public places. JopkeB (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The uploader Thorn d'Est wrote on the Discussion page:
- Also mir ist nicht klar, worum das digitale Foto vom Glasbild Johannes Schreiter gelöscht werden sollte. Das Glasbild wurde von öffentlichen Geldern bezahlt, ist im Besitz von RLP. Für das Gebäude gibt es keine Zugangsbeschränkung und das Foto ist von mir erstellt. Bitte erkläre diesen Vorschlag noch etwas besser.
- Von der Straße her ist das Glasbild auch gut sichtbar - von 1960-2013 wurde es als Fenster benutzt - entfaltete damit die Wirkung im einstigen Foyer der IKM wie auch in den öffentlichen Raum. Die Translozierung erfolgte dann in den Neubau 2020 und so, dass es nun hinterleuchtet wurde (in Absprache mit dem Künstler geschehen - was schon ein Glücksfall ist) und seine Wirkung wieder in das Foyer und zur Straße hin entfaltet. Zudem ist das Gebäude kein Privathaus, es finden öffentliche Veranstaltungen in dem Unigebäude statt, das zudem unmittelbar beim Mainzer HBF liegt. Hier mal noch ein Eindruck von seiner Wirkung, wenn man den HBF zur nächtlichen Stunde in Richtung Wallstraße verläßt.
- Momentan gehen diesen Weg sicher weniger als sonst - aber in der Regel sehen diese Ansicht pro Tag einige tausend Menschen.
- Grüße Thorn
My conclusion: "Für das Gebäude gibt es keine Zugangsbeschränkung" (There is no restricted access to the building), so the artwork is in a "public open space". That is the answer to my question. For me this is sufficient to consider the artwork to be within the conditions of FOP in Germany. I rest my case, this file may stay, I withdraw this deletion request. JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, the nomination is withdrawn. Taivo (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope, by the uploader's username, the uploader is likely affiliated or works for the company 73.75.250.106 17:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Do not delete this logo. Needed for the company page that is being built. Similar to current tech companies pages that are on Wikipedia that have their logo attached to their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigLever Software (talk • contribs)
Deleted, complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Source is probably this. The website states "All content is available for Personal Use", which is not allowed on Commons. 73.75.250.106 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D sculptures in US. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
![17:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/07#c-DMacks-2020-12-07T17:10:00.000Z-File:"Rory"_by_Deborah_Butterfield_at_the_Samuel_P._Harn_Museum_of_Art.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
![11:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/12/07#c-Taivo-2020-12-16T11:25:00.000Z-File:"Rory"_by_Deborah_Butterfield_at_the_Samuel_P._Harn_Museum_of_Art.jpg){kind=link}
This image is posted on this website. But the photographer probably be alive. Hamid 93tr (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Presumably copyrighted, seems to be a 3D mockup model of this expo centre, the official website has a similar image. While the source does say that all content by them is licensed under creative commons 4.0, it is apparent that they are not the copyright holder. Dylsss (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, per Dylsss. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This image is posted on this website. But the photographer probably be alive. Hamid 93tr (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The source says All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. at the bottom of the page. Dylsss (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly watermarked added Template:Tasnim to the file. Dylsss (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept, per Dylsss. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably a photo taken from this website, at the bottom of the relevant site, it is written that it was created in 2017. A person's biography page is also the most important building of website. the name of the person who created this web page at the bottom of the relevant site and the name of the person who uploaded this file appear the same. But it is also possible for someone else to take this photo, such as by a photographer, especially for a photo gallery of hospital. For exemple photo in the hospital's website. It would be more correct to delete the file if possible.
- The same photo File:N92A4768-.jpg Uncitoyen (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, the photo appeared in internet before upload into Commons and now per our policy OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means from photographer, not from depicted person) is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Поскольку Логотип Ĩŵąŋ (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Sahitya Chetona Patrika (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except self-promotional userpage in en.wiki and uploading the logo/signature, which is used only on the userpage. All his/her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No evidence of accepted free licence at source. Although the threshold of originality is unknown in Malta, as a former British dominion and colony, we can assume that the very low threshold of the UK may apply, and the work is not too simple for protection. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, maybe the foreground is even simple, but background is not. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The file is a derrived from a Wisconsin DNR PDF - http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/maps/DNR/0967900a.pdf stating it is a public document, but is not clear if this is in the public domain as this is the work of the Wisconsin state government. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, apparently this applies to file:Bathymetric Chart of Alma Lake in meters.png as well. Taivo (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A derivative, no evidence of a free license, no FoP in Turkmenistan. VLu (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for 2D artistic works in the UK: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Freedom of panorama. DrKay (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
utterly pointless here - features elsewhere and all other pictures in category show more of road structure Adam37 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Google Street View isn't a free image source. --ghouston (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Although there was a discussion a while ago that perhaps since the images are captured automatically, they aren't eligible for copyright. I don't remember if a conclusion was reached. --ghouston (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Per above, plus No FOP in Ukraine. . --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
1. illegal view from behind a wheel 2. uworst road picture in London (no meaningful or distinctive content) other photos now other pictures cover same zone much better (since 2000 when it was taken) Adam37 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. But I see here some educational value, especially given that it was photographed in 2000 – we have not so much photos from before 2004. Point 1 is not a reason to delete anything, this is non-copyright restriction. Taivo (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Considering Delete, @Taivo: If I read COM:TOO UK correctly, the DHL logo on the truck may be problemic for this case? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Taivo. DHL logo is clearly DM. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This photo has a copyright symbol and Amon Carter Museum Ooligan (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment But if this is really 1847 American photo, then any copyright message is null and void. Taivo (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as an 1847 photo it's PD and the copyright watermark is invalid. JGHowes talk 18:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The name in the file and similarity corresponds to a company logo (Igalia), it is trademarked. It should not have been uploaded in the commons, less with a CC (which does not have as far as I know). Gpoo (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. Copyright is one thing, trademark a different one. --Achim (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I added the page by mistake, my apologies. It is not creative commons. It is copyrighted. --092001bb 19:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. In my opinion this is not a simple logo, protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, exceeds COM:TOO. JGHowes talk 18:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a company logo, it is trademarked. It should not have been uploaded in the commons, less with a CC (which does not have as far as I know). Gpoo (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: No valid reason for deletion. Copyright is one thing, trademark a different one. However, TOO can be discussed. --Achim (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. In my opinion this is not a simple logo, it is protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, exceeds COM:TOO. JGHowes talk 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Поскольку Логотип Ĩŵąŋ (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This photo is taken myself. You can see this website,I decide the license is CC-BY-SA 3.0,so I can upload to here. https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:AVBWU549_KMB_81C_07-12-2020.JPG
LN9267 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Incorrect request, here is no logo. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, source file license review verifies CC-BY-SA 3.0 release. JGHowes talk 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Company would like to post under new user name 2600:1700:5450:8890:7870:FB24:9646:7CD5 21:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a reason to delete a file. Please request renaming per COM:RENAME. Taivo (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. JGHowes talk 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Violation de droits d'auteurs et degradation de l'image publique 132.166.20.156 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: A person of no notability. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
stamp is free only as a whole: when you cut or crop its part, it fails out of the regulations of PD-RU-exempt rubin16 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Rubin16 at 09:01, 9 Februar 2021 UTC: No license since 1 February 2021 --Krdbot 20:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Kuwait and the photo violates architect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Safi Mahfouz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope.
- File:ফখরুদ্দীন আহমদ মুরাদাবাদীর নাম.png
- File:Kifayatullah Dehlwi.png
- File:MD. Miyan Deobandi.png
- File:Shukrullah Mubarakpuri.png
- File:Imamuddin Panjabi.png
- File:Taqi Amini.png
- File:Name of Salman Mazahiri in Arabic Calligraphy.png.jpg
- File:Name of Azizur Rahman Hazarwi in Arabic Calligraphy.png
- File:Name of Ata-ul-Muhaimin Bukhari in Arabic Calligraphy.png
- File:Name of Yusuf Ludhianwi in Arabic Calligraphy.png
- File:Owais Al Qarni Arabic Calligraphy.png
File:Safi Mahfouz Arabic Calligraphy.png- File:Safi Mahfouz.jpg.png
- File:Minnatullah Rahmani.jpg
- File:Nijamuddin Asir Adrawi.jpg
- File:Hasan Jan.jpg
~Moheen (keep talking) 10:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- File:Safi Mahfouz Arabic Calligraphy.png should not be deleted even if this is text. Used on user page. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding other files, i believe they aren't calligraphy (but i might be wrong), they are simple arabic/Bangla text. I don't think they have much educational value, they are used in the article as decorative images. Although these files does not violate any copyright, so i am not sure should we keep them or delete them. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- At moment all the files are used, except Nijamuddin Asir Adrawi.jpg. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- In used is no a good reason for keep any file. We should discuss about the value in project scope. These files are just looks like nameplate. It shouldn't be applicable for all the articles which currently have no image.~Moheen (keep talking) 07:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually per COM:INUSE "in use" is good reason to keep almost any file without copyright problems. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Are we encouraging to upload this kind of "nameplate"? ~Moheen (keep talking) 12:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually per COM:INUSE "in use" is good reason to keep almost any file without copyright problems. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- In used is no a good reason for keep any file. We should discuss about the value in project scope. These files are just looks like nameplate. It shouldn't be applicable for all the articles which currently have no image.~Moheen (keep talking) 07:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- At moment all the files are used, except Nijamuddin Asir Adrawi.jpg. Taivo (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @আফতাবুজ্জামান: if these image have no meaningful use, then first remove them from wp.bn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Wikimedia Commons does not decide editorial content on other projects. These files are in use, therefore in scope. No issue with renomination due to other issues though, such as copyright etc. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted screengrab and therefore not the uploader's own work in the sense relevant to Commons. Copyright would belong to the television studio or YouTube creator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The link [3] allows reuse under Creative Commons. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The YouTube channel belongs to the Epoch Times, which is a Falun Gong affiliated media conglomerate, with a noticeable presence in the United States, even though this channel is subtitled in Chinese. I can believe they had a video crew at Ellis's press conference, and so actually own the video. --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: I uploaded another screenshot from the same video at File:Jenna Ellis press conference.jpg - if this is decided to be deleted, that one should be as well. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Video at YouTube has a CC-BY license (click "Show more", at the bottom), and per GRuban, the channel seems to be owned by the copyright owner. The CC-BY-SA 4.0 license used for the screenshot was wrong, however - the only option for a free license at YouTube, as used in this case, is CC-BY 3.0. I'm going to keep the file and correct the license. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted screengrab and therefore not the uploader's own work in the sense relevant to Commons. Copyright would belong to the television studio or YouTube creator. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- The link [4] allows reuse under Creative Commons. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment
{{YouTube CC-BY}}and it's originally license version 3.0 unported. 84.250.12.111 20:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Video at YouTube has a CC-BY license (click "Show more", at the bottom). The CC-BY-SA 4.0 license used for the screenshot was wrong, however - the only option for a free license at YouTube, as used in this case, is CC-BY 3.0. I'm going to keep the file and correct the license. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Logo of non free software: https://www.vectorworks.net Tekstman (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The logo is ineligible for copyright. I changed the license accordingly and added the logo into en:Vectorworks. Taivo (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or replace. This is not the current logo, delete or replace with the current version.
- Replace with logo available here. 97.115.162.123 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The file is now marked {{PD-logo}} and can be kept. Out of date is not a reason for deletion; any user can upload a new version if they wish to do so. -M.nelson (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Porque no es la imagen más representativa del actor. No es una foto del actor que use para promoción y no ha dado permiso para que sea usada. Es 7na captura de un fotograma de un vídeo en la que sale con una expresión des favorecedora 95.121.248.236 18:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep not a valid rationale for deletion.--Up and Go (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No issues with copyright; an unflattering image is not a valid reason for deletion. -M.nelson (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This image is posted on this website. But the photographer probably be alive. Hamid 93tr (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Really and how old is he 400?Baratiiman (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- But when did the depicted person live (birth/death)? --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- qajar dynastyBaratiiman (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I meant years, numbers or century.--Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- 18th Baratiiman (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Any idea whether the depicted image is originally a painting or drawing? Also, has the sign in the lower left corner any known meaning? --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it's a drawing, tasnim has taken a photo of Baratiiman (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Any idea whether the depicted image is originally a painting or drawing? Also, has the sign in the lower left corner any known meaning? --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- 18th Baratiiman (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- I meant years, numbers or century.--Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- qajar dynastyBaratiiman (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- But when did the depicted person live (birth/death)? --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The depicted person is Mirza Taghikhan Kashani who died on 13 Rajab 1303 AH (=17 April 1886 AD). This is definitely a painting (in contrast to a photo) and Tasnim (the watermak) has nothing to do with it. {{Tasnim}} notoriously claims copyright over content which it doesn't own (copyfraud). On the hand, no information about the creator has been provided. The term for copyright protection in most Asian countries (including Iran) is 50 years p.m.a., whereas the European term is 70 years p.m.a., so the cutoff date for {{PD-old-assumed}} should be lowered by 20 years (120 years --> 100 years) regarding Iranian files. All in all, while I really hate to host images whose authorship information has not been provided, it is safe to assume that hosting this particular image won't damage Wikimedia Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum: I changed the license from CC to {{PD-Iran}}. The former was nonsense; the latter makes sense, because all works whose creator(s) died before 22 August 1980 are in the PD in Iran. And it is sensible to assume the creator of this work died before 1980 considering the subject had died one century before. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, not a photo; old enough to presume it is PD for Iran. --Pitke (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unclear file history (first copied from EN:WP to IT:WP, then exported to Commons). Original author seems to be user Abbasanta at English Wikipedia, who had his last contribution in 2004. License cannot be verified. Either attribute image to user Abbasanta at English Wikipedia similar to File:NURAGHE LOSA02.JPG or delete image (unused file; other images of better quality are available for the same object). Archie02 (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- the original image at en.wiki has been deleted because duplicate of a file Image:Nuraghe Losa01.jpg that I can't find here. The file we are talking about contains instead an attribution to an author, rather than a wp user, and was uploaded by User:Shardan, who is a longtime trusted user. Shardan released it to it.wiki with a GNU license, citing the author and where he found it. The only further investigation we could do now is asking a en.wiki admin (maybe User:Calliopejen1) to check what was the text in the original deleted image. However, even if we 'discover' that the original uploader was Abbasanta, still the image must be credited to its author, who should be this John Thorton, and he's already named, here. I can see no reason for deletion, by now --g (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm an en.wiki admin and checked. The uploader at en.wiki was User:Abbasanta.[5] The text at the time of deletion (after batch application of GFDL to early untagged uploads) was: "The central body of nuraghe Losa, Abbasanta (Oristano, Sardinia, Italy). The picture was taken by John Thorton the 1st of January 2004. {{GFDL-en}}" Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the research and input. To me it remains open, if User Abbasanta is identical to the photographer John Thorton and thus was allowed to assign a license tag back in 2004. As long as this cannot be proven (leading to a validated License assigned to the file in question), I think it is safest to delete the file as it remains to be unused, and of low quality. The same reasons led to deletion of the file on originally hosting EN:WP (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_December_3#Image:Nuraghe_Losa01.jpg) in DEC-2008. And if we cannot prove, that user Abbasanta is identical to photographer John Thorton, "source" can only be given as "unknown". --Archie02 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm an en.wiki admin and checked. The uploader at en.wiki was User:Abbasanta.[5] The text at the time of deletion (after batch application of GFDL to early untagged uploads) was: "The central body of nuraghe Losa, Abbasanta (Oristano, Sardinia, Italy). The picture was taken by John Thorton the 1st of January 2004. {{GFDL-en}}" Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3ANuraghe+Losa01.jpg×tamp=20080417234136){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. Unused image, per COM:Redundant, in Category:Nuraghe Losa (Abbasanta) several similar images are available with better quality. --Elly (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
scan of a (notable?) historical image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 08:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Source and Author revised to "unknown". Date revised to "before 1919" as the image (postcard ?) is showing description and city name in German language. City became part of Czchoslovakia in late 1918. Photographic content stipulates a much older date of creation. License updated. Keep --Archie02 (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Unknown" is unfortunately not enough. 1917 works with unknown author can still be copyrighted. Anonymous works would be in public domain per {{Anonymous-EU}}, but anonymous work must be proven. Maybe photographer's name is written on backside of postcard? Taivo (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- In fact the postcard was published not later than in 1907: the picture is signed as "Bahnhof der B.N.B." where B.N.B. stands for de:Böhmische Nordbahn that ceased to exist since 1.1.1908. Maybe even earlier as far as the locomotive at the picture looks like de:kkStB 53 that was in use till 1901. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep If the postcard was published before 1901, as per the locomotive mentioned by Andrei Romanenko, it would qualify for {{PD-old-assumed}}. The very small resolution of the scan makes it hard to look at the locomotive more closely. I wouldn't count on the photo being anonymous, there's a publisher mentioned at the left side, hard to read in this scan: "Verlag v. Jos. (illegible), Leins(?) i.B.(?)", and the photographer might be known even if not mentioned on the postcard. My suggestion is, I think: Be bold, assume pre-1901 publication per the locomotive, so change date to "before 1901" and use {{PD-old-assumed}}. But I'm not 100 % sure. As it's used in article in Czech Wikipedia, the notability/scope question can be answered in the affirmative. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and if kept, move to a more meaningful file name. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Concluding from discussion: Photo is from 1908 at the latest and is probably not anonymous. Therefore it is copyrighted until 2029. . --Elly (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This is Copyrighted image from https://www.abfaesfahan.ir . Please delete it as soon as posible. thanks Hamid 93tr (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- too simpleBaratiiman (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Iran doesnt have TOO: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iran. --Elly (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
No evidence of GODL license at source. To the contrary, source's copyright page says "the material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed." (bold added) Эlcobbola talk 19:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- see the policy statement of NDSAP
Heba Aisha (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)These data need to be made available in an open format to facilitate use, reuse and
redistribute; it should be free from any license or any other mechanism of control. Opening up of government data in open formats would enhance transparency and accountability while encouraging public engagement. The government data in open formats has a huge potential for innovation building various types of Apps, mash-ups and services around the published datasets. Notification of NDSAP mandates government departments to proactively open up data. NDSAP in India is applicable to all entities of Government Setup[6][ http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf]
Deleted: per nomination. De NDSAP policy is aimed at the Indian government. The image is taken from the website of the Indian parliament, which is not the same as government. The copyright claim on the website of the parliament appears most relevant. Can probably be used on en:wikipedia as fair use. Elly (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC). --Elly (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:CHARACTER. Unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted character. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:CHARACTER. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Also:
Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know which is the correct way to conduct this discussion, but here it is (as the author and uploader) – at least four reasons (there may be more) speak against deletion: [1] it is small (fair use), [2] it is completely digitally redrawn with free software (Inkscape, which makes it another type of a media), [3] it is in use (tree pages), and [4] it is almost 100 years old (Rule of the shorter term, Works created before 1978 etc.).
- I am not a lawyer, but the work was created in the USA, so the laws of this country may apply and should take precedence. You cannot delete based just on subjective opinion (e.g. this cannot be processed with OTRS, since the copyright owner, Ub Iwerks is dead).
- P.S. – just a sidenote: the above said applies to File:Oswald iwerks.svg and File:Oswald jump.svg only, the File:Oswaldrabbit03.jpg is not my work, I have nothing to do with this upload (and it is not used anywhere) so it would be correct to open a separate discussin about it–Jozefsu (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- P.P.S. As you may know, it is very hard to illustrate articles about visual content, and as an user (in a non-english Wikipedia article) for that purpose I created my own rendering of Ub Iwerks' work, so the files are – I repeat – my personal work. Digital rendering may never match the original perfectly so it basically makes it a tribute-work (you can easily check the SVG's digital content and signature, and I advise you to do so). Can this be settled simply by placing diffent copyright tag? I appreciate your (or any other administrator's) help.–Jozefsu (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Important Update: @Kaldari: It's an error – you actually overlooked my info at the Summary/Source section that the original work that was used to create the derivative SVGs was already a public domain!
- No need to change anything. PLEASE REMOVE THE DELETION TAGS.
- (@Kaldari: The file that is not by me, thus not my concern – Oswaldrabbit03.jpg – may also be a public domain! Hope this helps.)–Jozefsu (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Important Update: @Kaldari: It's an error – you actually overlooked my info at the Summary/Source section that the original work that was used to create the derivative SVGs was already a public domain!
- @Jozefsu: Please read COM:CHARACTER. It doesn't matter if the images were extracted from a public domain source or were re-rendered. The character itself is copyrighted, thus these images are infringing on the character copyright. You are free to upload them to other wikis that accept Fair Use images (such as English Wikipedia), but Commons does not accept Fair Use images. It also doesn't matter that the character is almost 100 years old. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit's copyright doesn't expire until 2023 (and there's no controversy about this as Disney negotiated the copyrights to Oswald in 2006 from Universal so we know they were renewed). Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: I read it, and I disagree with some points listed there (but I guess my opinion isn't relevant in this case). If this was at public court there would be a different case (my point is: even courts are less technical in such cases), but if Wikimedia is clear with this as a policy (I am not certain if Wikimedia as a free, volunteer-based project has a rigid policy, but I can be wrong in my interpretation of what I have read over years) – I must surely respect the platform's rules.
- BUT, I still think the deletion is NOT the best option here, there must be a solution based on mutual respect (me the contributor - you the admin). First, what about the original that was used as a derivative? It still says its in public domain, then I can simply replace my SVG work at Wikipedia with crops from it, right?
- Also, did you read ALL my comments? A SVG-redrawn image – that simply doesn't match the original bit-by-bit – is still considered an artwork in its own right that simply cannot be copyrighted if the author puts it out free. As I understand it, it is a category of tribute-work (I don't know about visual arts, but in music its very common). As its obvious, I love Iwerks and all I've done – both the drawings and the article – are a tribute with sincere esteem!
- Please, try considering my earlier arguments, and as I said I can conclude more, but most importantly don't act in the deletion alone. I would prefer hearing other Wikimedians' opinion also before a final decision is made. I've always held on to my freely invested work that I have put public, and yes I accept the fact that sometimes we win sometimes we lose.–Jozefsu (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I read your entire argument. The fact that the images are new renderings of the character means that they are derivative works. You own the copyright on any elements that are completely new and unique, but Disney owns the copyright on the look and feel of the Oswald character. In other words, if the image is recognizable as Oswald, Disney has some stake in the copyright ownership and you must pay Disney a licensing fee to use it. This is why Warner Brother can't just come up with their own version of Mickey Mouse and start using it on their shows and merchandise. If you really want to understand character copyrights, please take a look at [7], [8], and [9]. Once the copyright on Oswald the character expires in 2023, you can create and upload as many unique renderings of Oswald as you want. Note, however, that most specific cartoons featuring Oswald will still be copyrighted until even later.
- >"First, what about the original that was used as a derivative? It still says its in public domain, then I can simply replace my SVG work at Wikipedia with crops from it, right?"
- No, if you crop the original image or substantially change it in any way, you are creating a new derivative work and violating Disney's character copyright by creating a new unauthorized reproduction of their character. And note that I have no intention of deleting your images myself. I'm just nominating them for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Your argumentation is logical, and thank you for it, but sorry for continuing to fight for what I believe is right :)
Your articles are as much technical about it as much I consider myself un-technical (well unconventional, anyway we are not robots, we're human beings). Mickey Mouse is particularly good example of a character as it became an international symbol, an 'ownership of all Humankind'. And the initial concept was stolen right from Ub Iwerks (Walt himself never paid tribute to Ub, instead created a fame with a legend of a mouse that suddenly appeared in his room etc. long story made short). I must also disagree that people must pay (or actually pay) tribute in any use of Mickey just out of fear of a Megacompany. There are plenty of caricature and sarcastic dummy versions that look exactly like Mickey... Anyway, my argument is strongly against the interpretation of a derivative as being the same thing (though in my case the character is too recognisable). Based on many aforementioned argument no Court case would be won, as it is not that clear – you could always say "I changed the character enough, I used it only as an inspiration" – isn't that the basis of all art? We basically all copy each other. That is why I said that from the point of view of computing, the SVG image is just bunch of geometric shapes – it does not meet the threshold of originality (as in these clear cases: 1, 2).
I must update even more as in meantime I did some investigation on the copyright of the ominous derivative image, the File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg. The links were down, but are still accessible through here and here. If you look at it, there are some really clear legal explanations, although I agree not all cases are the same :(
- ● the first copyright info – while applying to short movie clips – explains that "the law at the time granted the owner 28 years to file a copyright registration" so if it was not renewed with the Copyright Office or the Library of Congress it may be that the copyright for these Oswald images have long run out. (OK, with your claims about Disney you discarded this.)
● as for the second case, I quote unaltered the most important (I'm sorry if you are familiar, but I use it as a case for prospective on-lookers): "Generally a film or still is protected by copyright if it is less than 95 years old... In 1988, the U.S. joined the Berne Copyright Convention which states that no formalities are required to obtain a copyright... However, prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, there was a previous copyright act, known as the Copyright Act of 1909. Under this statute, once an artist had created a work of art, he immediately was granted what was called an "unpublished copyright." ...The initial term of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909 was 28 years... Once the 1976 Act was enacted which gave all works of art 75 years... Courts generally tend to back the copyright holder... (Recently, the Martin Luther King estate lost their lawsuit over the "I Have a Dream" speech...)".
Disney may own Oswald, but I don't think we should write to them for OTRS, since they already put that image out probably acknowledging how ridiculously old it is (I sincerely think they don't care). But I also know that doesn't help us at writing, since we can only add images from within this projects' domain, so we must either upload them or use something else, usually of lower quality :(
Anyway, there is still some contradiction to consider about the request: while the original uploader of File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg claims Public Domain (and that's why the image was initially moved to Commons from Wikipedia) I dont't understand why I can't for the derivatives or crops. If the claim for that image is true shouldn't these images also safely stay with the originally set copyright tag, being derivatives or not?
And of course one last thing to consider if we insist on being crudely technical: you are right about the year 2023 so let it be – after the deletion, if we are still alive, I can reupload them. Considering my small but personal input, the deletion will be a shame, but Wikipedia readers can certainly wait those two years (its actually a luck, we live in relatively nice period of history). So be it, hang loose, I must take it easy.–Jozefsu (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The critical thing to understand about File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg is that copyright status isn't actually as simple as we present it on Commons. A single image such as File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg can have multiple overlapping copyright statuses for different parts or aspects of the work (as well as for the work as a whole). This is similar to how in a movie, you have separate copyrights for the music, the script, the video, copyrighted works depicted within the movie, and the movie as a whole (the creative combination of all of those aspects). File:Trolley_Troubles_poster.jpg is not 100% public domain since it includes a copyrighted character. I was planning on nominating it for delation as well once this deletion discussion concludes. I didn't include it here because I didn't want to make this discussion more complicated. I chose only the simple cases to start with. Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: Great! That deletion will affect 22 (twenty two!) articles across international Wikipedia, isn't there some kind of community voting procedure here as well on the sister-project Wikipedia? If there's none - I start to understand why people leave Commons. Do I have to remind you that it's you overzealous admins that play this game alone – if Disney, the worlds biggest Megacompany would have been bothered by these small images (which promote them thus increasing their business!) they would have already filed a takedown notice. I told you before, so I repeat: do what you want. BUT without proper voting procedure this is highly unfair and controversial (not in line with Wikimedias policy as I understodd it). PLUS, as for our discussion here, while both of us used valid arguments you contradicted yourself at least two times. The first instance I described earlier (now you you decided to delete that image too, so its 'settled') and the second being when you said I can transwer the files for fair use to Wikipedia and later changed mind saying fair use can't be my option. Well, so you know I will not give up the UB Iwerks article and will after this deletion transfer the files to show up there, because they are ridicuiously small for printing, and thus unlikely to be considered a legal infringement.
- (Of course I have known worse scenarios, when peoples uploads were deleted without notice or by a bot, so in the name of the Community I appreciate your diligence. Wikipedia is full of vandal attacks, they (we) would be lucky if they had such a zealous band of admins.)–Jozefsu (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jozefsu: I don't nominate images for deletion in order to please myself or Disney. The only reason is to protect our re-users. If we are telling Commons users that they can re-use these images without any problems, we are lying to them and legally endangering them. Disney may not send a take-down notice to us, but they wouldn't hesitate to send a take-down notice to anyone who is re-using the images commercially. Remember, this is the same company that forced three day care centers in Florida to paint over their Mickey Mouse murals because they hadn't paid a licensing fee to Disney.[10] Do you really want to endanger our re-users? Also, you misunderstood my comments about Fair Use. You cannot host images on Wikimedia Commons under Fair Use, but you CAN host images on English Wikipedia under Fair Use. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- (Of course I have known worse scenarios, when peoples uploads were deleted without notice or by a bot, so in the name of the Community I appreciate your diligence. Wikipedia is full of vandal attacks, they (we) would be lucky if they had such a zealous band of admins.)–Jozefsu (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, but we are still missing opinions of other users/admins. Someone else may have a word, hopefully recommend a better solution. I don't think we want to see an encyclopedia without pictures where we will be left as only option trying to explain how visual art products, comics, paintings and movies look like... (there is no much consolation in that exact argument of the policy guideline). Although indeed there is no universal solution, I agree with what you said 'copyright status isn't actually as simple as we present it on Commons'. Eventually I understand the problem from the point of view of business use. Of course as a free user, I am concerned about Wikipedia articles only. But please don't presume we the regular users don't know/care about copyright issues, its a neverending pain that takes away energies that we could utilise elsewhere. Yes, it's kinda komplex, e.g. we kind of talk about free encyclopedia and in the meantime our logo is copyrighted, to prevent potential misuse. I guess its not just a two faced, hypocritic world, but an inevitable reality. (I understand there is already a danger of misuse of even our freely submitted material here. Let's hope that will never happen.)–Jozefsu (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Last year The Walt Disney company just gave huge honor to Ub. So I am eventually fine with their ownership of Oswald and the deletions :)–Jozefsu (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: Don't know if I am allowed to do this (while the dispute is on) but as a possible solution, I added copyright notice to both files, as used here. Same category, but some years difference :) –Jozefsu (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- To whomever it may concern as per this nomination: After the appropriate copyright notice added this deletion request may become irrelevant and unregular.–Jozefsu (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Jozefsu: This is, as I'm afraid to say, because the nominator isn't @Yuraily Lic: , by that user, the DR rationale would be "COM:DW of copyrighted characters, no FOP in XXX, per YYY/COM:TOYS, or see also ZZZ costume cases". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I had just finished closing this DR as "delete" when I reviewed the article on Trolley Troubles again and realized I had made some misunderstandings, so I've reopened the discussion. Our own article cites United States Copyright #L24088 as the reason why the film Trolley Troubles is out of copyright. Meanwhile, [11] asserts that while Poor Papa was created before Trolley Troubles, Trolley Troubles was the first film to be copyrighted, which is what matters under the Copyright Act of 1909. @Kaldari: What do you think of this argument? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: There is no copyright of concern. The copyright of the listed images is dependent on the copyright of this poster, a derivative of the 1927 film Trolley Troubles. This film was directed and produced in the U.S. by citizens thereof, and thus is a “U.S. work” for Wikimedia Commons policy. It is not old enough to be absolutely free from copyright, however, so a full canvas of relevant copyright and renewal registrations is necessary. The film (as viewable on Wikipedia) is of such a low quality that it is not possible to tell whether a copyright notice is affixed, and the relevant issues and indexes of the CCE do not indicate a timely registration. However, for the sake of absolute certainty, I checked the relevant renewal records; and Trolley Troubles was not renewed. Because of this, the film is not in copyright in the U.S. There is some concern over what copyright in the poster is unique to that item, separate from the film; but it is not relevant in this case, because the film is not copyrighted. Kaldari: I do not know from whence you hold the assumption that the film is copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think the point is that failure to comply with copyright formalities on a derivative work does not cause the original work to fall into the public domain. So if Oswald first appeared in Poor Papa and subsequently in Trolley Troubles, Trolley Troubles cannot be fully free unless Poor Papa is free as well. (See w:It's a Wonderful Life#Ownership and copyright issues for a notable example.) However, the forum user's argument in my link is that under the copyright laws of the time, Trolley Troubles predates Poor Papa by date of publication, which is what matters, so the copyright of characters in Trolley Troubles cannot be constrained by the still-copyrighted Poor Papa. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- King of ♥: In this case, because Poor Papa was subsequently published (in 1928), it has no prior copyright as an unpublished work. I know of It’s a Wonderful Life, but, as I said, the story was published prior to the film’s release, rather than (what would be in this case) the other way around. I can verify that Poor Papa was renewed (R169190 referencing L25296); but that for a 1928 publication copyright, not a 1926 creation copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree; but it is important to make this point so we have a full understanding of the copyright of the work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- King of ♥: In this case, because Poor Papa was subsequently published (in 1928), it has no prior copyright as an unpublished work. I know of It’s a Wonderful Life, but, as I said, the story was published prior to the film’s release, rather than (what would be in this case) the other way around. I can verify that Poor Papa was renewed (R169190 referencing L25296); but that for a 1928 publication copyright, not a 1926 creation copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: I think the point is that failure to comply with copyright formalities on a derivative work does not cause the original work to fall into the public domain. So if Oswald first appeared in Poor Papa and subsequently in Trolley Troubles, Trolley Troubles cannot be fully free unless Poor Papa is free as well. (See w:It's a Wonderful Life#Ownership and copyright issues for a notable example.) However, the forum user's argument in my link is that under the copyright laws of the time, Trolley Troubles predates Poor Papa by date of publication, which is what matters, so the copyright of characters in Trolley Troubles cannot be constrained by the still-copyrighted Poor Papa. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Question How does character copyright work? Poor Papa was the first film produced while Trolley Troubles was the first film published. Is it the first work produced or the first work published which determines character copyright status in the United States?
- I was able to find this:
| “ | POOR PAPA, a photoplay in one reel by Universal Pictures Corp. © 22May28; L25296. Universal Pictures Co., Inc. (PWH); 25Apr56; R169190.
from Catalog of Copyright Entries: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips, January-June 1956, page 56 |
” |
- I could not find a renewal for Trolley Troubles. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: great thanks for the thoughtful discussion from @King of Hearts and @TE(æ)A,ea. Summarising: Trolley Troubles was published in 1927, Poor Papa was published later, in 1928. Trolley Troubles seems to be free (no renewal records and likely not to have copyright notice), so, the character is not copyrighted, too. The restriction of Poor Papa is less relevant here as the character was first published in a now-free Trolley Troubles. --rubin16 (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
