Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/01/26
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Parliament_2021.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_LE_GRELLE_et_ctesse_(Gérard)_LE_GRELLE_née_Annette_van_Lancker.jpg){kind=link}
author request Deltagammaz (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web. --Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
lack of info Ghenzo Mulno (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden at 07:11, 26 Januar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): No permission since 25 January 2021 --Krdbot 15:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Contentlounge-s3.bf-contentlounge-production.aws.bfops.io-styles-manual crop-s3-2020-09-Alexej Nawalny 66519447 0.jpg
[edit]
copyvio: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=simg:CAQSwAIJnam8xQzxX_1watAILEKjU2AQaAghCDAsQsIynCBpiCmAIAxIowxrOGsUa5w7KGsQatRr9D_1oPzRrHLpo66z_1aOtsttC7ZOtY67CT3LhowAFzxFeusf6oRaZDXVWeezdaKVuuS11O-rUiASDCTiEfaf9BqTcue7W05_1jVi2vYuIAQMCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgTf8NIDDAsQne3BCRqhAQoYCgVldmVudNqliPYDCwoJL20vMDgxcGtqCicKFHBvcnRyYWl0IHBob3RvZ3JhcGh52qWI9gMLCgkvbS8wY2htbDkKHQoJaGFpciBsb3Nz2qWI9gMMCgovbS8wM2J3emgxCiAKDW5vIGV4cHJlc3Npb27apYj2AwsKCS9qLzlfYmhwbgobCghjcmV3IGN1dNqliPYDCwoJL20vMDNnajQ0DA&sxsrf=ALeKk01dkH2AnO8z8Oz_D5l9jNisJccGYQ:1611677471602&q=%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%B4%D0%BE+%D0%B8+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5+%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHtL-5_rnuAhWRl4sKHXuZCV0Q2A4oAXoECBAQMg&biw=1366&bih=635 Lesless (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an asset from the video game en:Terraria, it is in no way public domain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Shivani Narayanan on Instagram My attitude is my unique gift which I am not obliged to explain to anyone CDJJ(JPG).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"FBMD" in metadata = image is from Instagram/Facebook Ytoyoda (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Dyolf77 at 18:43, 26 Januar 2021 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shivani Narayanan on Instagram My attitude is my unique gift which I am not obliged to explain to anyone CDJJ(JPG).jpg: "FBMD" in metadata = image is from Instagram/Facebook --Krdbot 15:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
뉴스 기사에 삽입된 사진을 자름.(Crop photos inserted in news articles) ※중알일보 기사 2016.06.26, https://news.joins.com/article/20223198 -- 메이 (토론) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Very unlikely own photo - see https://www.facebook.com/marcbanca92/photos/a.2304149406495187/2831021823807940/ and uploader's upload history / talk page Gikü (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
copyvio, see description Lesless (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyright cover Remy34 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 05:10, 30 Januar 2021 UTC: No permission since 21 January 2021 --Krdbot 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The "Daily Storner" website is copyrighted, thus this image of a portion of the website is also copyrighted. Shuld never have been ported over from en.wiki. The uploader has previously attempted to upload copyrighted images of this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This image is labeled "Self" in the license, but is highly unlikely to be the work of the uploader. A Tineye search shows 69 prior uses of it, so it is likely to have been picked up from somewhere on the Internet. Photo is most probably copyrighted and uploaded without permission. It should never have been ported over from en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. From Facebook. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. From Facebook. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tannushree Sharma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used or used in vanity article.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. From Facebook. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manojkathuria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Vinayak Garg in the office of Lazy Gardener.jpg
- File:Vinayak Garg, Founder of lazy Gardener with plants.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. From Facebook. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work of the uploader. See the Exif data. jdx Re: 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image. TheImaCow (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low res, no EXIF, uploader copyvio history, including of this subject (see File:Tormodeikill2020.jpg). Duck/COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF, uploader copyvio history, including of this subject (see File:Edvard Eikill.jpg). Duck/COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 21:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 03:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statue of Gregory the Illuminator at the north facade of Saint Peter's Basilica
[edit]Derivative work. See COM:FOP Vatican.
- File:Gregory the Illuminator (15584744487).jpg
- File:GegoryIlluminatorStPietro.jpg
- File:Gregor der Erleuchter.JPG
- File:Gregorius de Verlichter in het Vaticaan.jpg
- File:Gregorius de Verlichter standbeeld in het Vaticaan.jpg
- File:Gregory the Illuminator Statue in Vatican City (2010).jpg
- File:Gregory the Illuminator statue on the facade of Saint Peter's Basilica.JPG
- File:Place Saint-Pierre - Statue (Vatican).jpg
- File:Saint Gregory the Illuminator.JPG
- File:Saint Peter's Basilica (01).jpg
- File:Saint Peter's Basilica (164).jpg
- File:Saint Peter's Basilica (165).jpg
- File:Saint Peter's Basilica 2016 - 032.jpg
- File:Vatican City (46567976102).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The statue was apparently unveiled in 2005, and the creator appears still alive. AtomCrusher (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the sculptor is Khachik Kazandjian from Paris, and like AtomCrusher said, was unveiled in 2005. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brustige-file (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own works, small - no useful metadata. Two seem to be from same event.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, is small and looks cut out from a background. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Professional studio shot, dubious own work at this quality level. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Downloader2282 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work. Single topic gallery. Variable colors, white balances, sharpness. Mostly smaller than Standard Facebook Sizes and qualities. Likely harvested from all over the internet, COM:COPYVIOs
- File:BA5gwoC6Ung.jpg
- File:SzJwvga G 4.jpg
- File:L-29A Delfin.jpg
- File:L-39C Albatross AF-703.jpg
- File:Socol 300.jpg
- File:Aero L-159A.jpg
- File:SB7L-360.jpg
- File:KAI T-50 Golden Eagle.jpg
- File:Su 25 of the iraqi air force.jpg
- File:Mi-18.jpg
- File:Mi-35M.webp
- File:Mi-28 NE.jpg
- File:Aermacchi MB.339C.webp
- File:MIG-29UB 501 ERITREA 2.jpg
- File:Su-27 of the eritrean air force.jpg
- File:Mi-24 Belarusian Air Force.jpg
- File:ZKYjgw9dTUM.jpg
- File:BL-QwALs5ks.jpg
- File:Jb9DF7vMKDs.jpg
- File:ATVswj2CuAM.jpg
- File:DnS4H-ZAnuE.jpg
- File:Mi-26 .jpg
- File:HUJfsms9FDE.jpg
- File:D4chxE868xk.jpg
- File:PFcT3BYOQp0.jpg
- File:IMw5EuSFkWk.jpg
- File:3-GYUPTl8rs.jpg
- File:Mi-8T of the Montenegrin air force.jpg
- File:DL-X xVQKZE.jpg
- File:Mig 21 Lybyan.jpg
- File:Su 24 libyan air force.jpg
- File:Ethiopian MiG-23.jpg
- File:UqH5BUdRpfA.jpg
- File:Su-25 Air Force of Azerbaijan.jpg
- File:EIKspNcCN2E.jpg
- File:AS.332 Super Puma Uzbekistan Air Force.jpg
- File:Mi-24 Uzbekistan Air Force.jpg
- File:L-39 Uzbekistan Air Force.jpg
- File:Msmp7Z2OTT8.jpg
- File:ENr6CJjU0AgsXbE.jpg
- File:Bgk839ho1eU.jpg
- File:QdUAb59qP k.jpg
- File:K1TwDFdM8T8.jpg
- File:Su 30 Armenia Air Force.webp
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Aise hi poetry part 2.pdf
- File:Mahakaali ..sirf mahakaali.pdf
- File:Set of poems .. aise hi.pdf
- File:Text Book Analysis- Together with social science --CCM Practical.pdf
- File:Rewrite of mphil dissertation 2004.pdf
- File:BG pg 1.jpg
- File:BG pg 2.jpg
- File:MSc OR project 2002-- Inventory.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Very poor quality, all blurry.
- File:My shaft 04.jpg
- File:My shaft 05.jpg
- File:My shaft 02.jpg
- File:My shaft 03.jpg
- File:My shaft 01.jpg
Achim (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, image is a Chronik Fiction television promotional ad used without proper attribution or licensing. Nickelpro (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete . Unattributed use of publicity material for webseries Le Coroner - see title image at IMDB: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9445678/ --Qwfp (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lancelot89 (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Habertix (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
© Михаил Воскресенский https://nn.by/?c=ar&i=186474 Alex omen (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
© Leith Aboufadel https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-launches-strikes-east-lebanon/ Alex omen (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
copy from https://arabic-military-army.yoo7.com/t3463-topic Alex omen (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
copy from https://uapress.info/ru/news/show/104101 Alex omen (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
copy from http://vestidosaaf.ru/2018/10/26/8517/ Alex omen (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Lack educational use.
- File:Hollow bricks from Ngai Hing Mansion.jpg
- File:73BEC4A0-C394-4F75-A481-516C557NGAIHINGMANSION.jpg
SCP-2000 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
May have come from social media - see https://wearemitu.com/entertainment/jenni-rivera-death-threats-interview/ Larry Hockett (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
FBMD = Instagram/Facebook download Ytoyoda (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"FBMD" in metadata = Facebook/Instagram download Ytoyoda (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adam Rocky (talk · contribs)
[edit]Other versions were already published elsewhere on the web ([1], [2]). Unlikely to be own work, premission needed.
~Cybularny Speak? 18:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
advertisement Ahmetlii (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is an old photo of Tim Brade Art ingram (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, we do not delete files for being "old photo". If you really want to get this file deleted, show us that it has copyright problems (for example presence in an internet site before being uploaded here). --E4024 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
OPEN DATA M.Faroy Fernandes (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per user request, not in use, likely to be out of COM:SCOPE. --Ahmadtalk 23:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Minor age in the picture. No permission index — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herdispute (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The person in the picture doesn't want it here 177.139.17.47 02:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
the person is using this image for racist purposes 2804:14C:156:8DE9:E445:166D:F21A:28BE 05:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I do not see any reason here for deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- Keep, I see no indication to think that this adult-looking woman is in any way "a minor". Furthermore, while I am against discrimination based on features in which a person has had no choice in acquiring them or changing them, even if someone were to use this image to promote "racism" Wikimedia Commons allows for any image to be used however the re-user wants, personality rights is one thing, but then the legal responsibility is against the misuser, not the original image. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. As others have pointed out, this is not a reason for deletion. I added {{Personality rights}} to the page. --Ahmadtalk 23:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo out of scope Drakosh (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. JIP (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 23:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Image under copyright 37.173.199.4 14:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 11:29, 3 Februar 2021 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: what new could be added to existing collection of explicit materials? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Used for promotion by banned user on eswiki. MexTDT (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Favor de borrarla. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoughness (talk • contribs) 08:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted with agreement of uploader. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Página de redirección a archivo renombrado. No es necesaria. DPC (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is unlikely to be the work of the uploader as claimed. AFBorchert (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Clearly scanned from printed source, not original photograph. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
clear copyright violation. It's their new social media profile image: https://www.facebook.com/TheUsed/photos/a.10150090631125041/10157853608855041 and the other two platforms Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It cannot even be claimed that it was was uploaded here first as https://twitter.com/SPIN/status/1226013033975205889 lists February 2020 as the date of the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 12:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
All pictures are not likely to be own work, most missing EXIF, with one of them a straight-up game screenshot, this map has multiple hits through Google Image search.
- File:Cities skylines zoning screenshot.jpg
- File:נתיבי נדידת העגור האפור.jpg
- File:סלמנדרות חוצות.png
- File:צילום אוויר עכו.png
- File:Platyceps sinai.jpg
- File:1שממית ערבה.jpg
Techyan（Talk） 18:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Redundant to other images. We've already had File:Instagram icon.png & File:Instagram logo 2016.svg.
Larryasou (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo out of scope Drakosh (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
personal use and useless for wikipeida Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I could not find a certain source of this, but many internet source use the same layout and setting of this. I assume, that it is a copyright violation Mosbatho (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal photos, not in use.
- File:Oso Mugroso4.JPG
- File:Oso Mugroso3.JPG
- File:Oso Mugroso.JPG
- File:Oso Mugroso5.JPG
- File:Oso Mugroso2.JPG
Smooth O (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo with no indication of importance. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I honestly forgot I ever uploaded this, I support deletion. Nicereddy (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image. TheImaCow (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I don´t want it anymore my photo on the internet 177.139.82.183 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Info Unused image. Poorly categorized. There is no Wikipedia article about the subject. Deletion also requested in ticket:2021012610010943. If nobody opposes the image can be removed per courtesy. Ankry (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Alaa :)..! 13:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Unused poor quality photo of people with no indication of importance. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. This image has no use. JIP (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
advertisement Ahmetlii (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 14:07, 17 Februar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): https://www.google.com/search?tbs=simg:CAQSrwIJ_1KNEAV4f_1ScaowILEKjU2AQaAghCDAsQsIynCBo6CjgIBBIUkg2GBukMkDiIEIQKxx_1UCp0npwoaGmSFhUqeQHCZ1oKojm1TwvYmZjvz61EUAZQvIAUwBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBA9i6KgMCxCd7cEJGrgBCiIKDnNlbmlvciBjaXRpemVu2qWI9gMMCgovbS8wNG43Z21nCh4KC3RyYWRpdGlvbmFs2qWI9gMLCgkvYS82cDRxdzkKMQodcmVsaWdpb3VzIGNlcmVtb25pYWwgY2xvdGhpbmfapYj2AwwKCi9tLzBoZ3M5NHcKJwoUcG9ydHJhaXQgcGhvdG9ncmFwaHnapYj2AwsKCS9tLzBjaG1sOQoWCgNvbGTap --Krdbot 02:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Toiletenthusiast (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two fictional election result maps uploaded in 2019, one of which is now inaccurate for the 2020 election, which has passed. Unused, possible copyright violations if they're edited versions of other maps, out of scope if they're not based on any meaningful data.
Lord Belbury (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Depiction of the results of an imaginary future election. COM:NOTUSED, no educational purpose. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Four more similar maps from this user at File:2024ElectoralCollege.svg, File:Harris v Trump Alt History.jpg, File:Alternate Election Night 2016 - Made by me.png and File:Screenshot1 TP.png. All unused, and unclear what point is being made or what original maps these were modified from. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ashton3012 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photoshops of unidentified faces onto File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg and File:George-W-Bush.jpeg. Unused and out of COM:SCOPE.
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I created this crop, but it now appears that Josh Wood probably isn't notable, so it's not required. --ghouston (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be derivative of a photo of Xi Jingping which is uncredited. Does not meet the PD tag applied to it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by JuTa at 22:13, 24 Februar 2021 UTC: Source of derivative work not specified since 15 February 2021 --Krdbot 02:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Appears to be derivative of a photo of Xi Jingping which is uncredited. Does not meet the PD tag applied to it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by JuTa at 22:13, 24 Februar 2021 UTC: Source of derivative work not specified since 15 February 2021 --Krdbot 02:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Added to wrong page Beever and Struthers (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: User talk pages dont get deleted by documentaion reasons. --JuTa 13:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
解説板が写っておらず、新たに「渋沢平九郎自決の地」（夏）をアップロードしたため 麦茶が好きな人 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: CC licenses are not revocable. --Yasu (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The church was completed in 2000 by architect Sofroniusz/Dmytro Dmytruk (1940–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and they can be undeleted in 2091 A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement of Arco Editorial LTDA https://revistaprojeto.com.br/acervo/a-mostra-arquitectura-actual-brasilena-promovida-pelo-cayc-e-revista-projeto-na-semana-de-arquitetura-em-buenos-aires-1983-por-ruth-verde-zein/ Sorocabano 32 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 22:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The church was completed in 2000 by architect Sofroniusz/Dmytro Dmytruk (1940–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and they can be undeleted in 2091 A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The church was completed in 2000 by architect Sofroniusz/Dmytro Dmytruk (1940–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and they can be undeleted in 2091 A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
The church was completed in 2000 by architect Sofroniusz/Dmytro Dmytruk (1940–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and they can be undeleted in 2091 A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
No free image – symbol of Italian football club Torino FC. Pit rock (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Promotional use MexTDT (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: also a derivative work issue. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Timișoara Orthodox Cathedral
[edit]The church was completed in 1946 by architect Ioan Traianescu (1875–1964). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright terms of the country lasted for 70 years, and they can be undeleted in 2035.
- File:Catedrala Mitropolitana "Sf. Trei Ierarhi" Timisoara.jpg
- File:Catedrala Mitropolitana din Timisoara.jpg
- File:Catedrala Mitropolitana Timisoara noapte.jpg
- File:Cathédrale .jpg
- File:Intare in catedrala metropoliatana - panoramio.jpg
- File:Metropolitan Cathedral - Timisoara - Romania.jpg
- File:Temišvar, Rumunija 10.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are scans of press publications without any bibliographic information which would allow us to determine their copyright status. Instead they are claimed to be the uploader's work which they are obviously not. The attached Creative Commons license tags are likewise bogus.
- File:La Banque Joseph J. Le Grelle.jpg
- File:Il lance un journal sous les tropiques Le Nouvel Economiste 1976.jpg
- File:Missions économiques organisées par Bernard Le Grelle en Corée et aux Philippines.jpg
- File:Bernard Le Grelle, "vendeur" de gouvernement.jpg
- File:Profession Lobbyman de Bernard Le Grelle.jpg
AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Ticket:2021012710007651 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 02:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Profession_Lobbyman_de_Bernard_Le_Grelle.jpg” under ticket:2021012710007651. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert Author of the book gave permission, I think that last one should be kept. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: I disagree and I have posted a comment to the ticket outlining why. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert Thanks, I follow your argument. I have withdrawn the permission tag, written to the client, and invited him to present his arguments here on this page. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert Thank you everyone, here are my arguments:
- @AFBorchert Thanks, I follow your argument. I have withdrawn the permission tag, written to the client, and invited him to present his arguments here on this page. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: I disagree and I have posted a comment to the ticket outlining why. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert Author of the book gave permission, I think that last one should be kept. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Regarding the File:La Banque Joseph J. Le Grelle.jpg : This file represents an article published in “La Métropole Financière” a supplement of La Métropole (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_M%C3%A9tropole) on the 22nd of June 1938 (83 years ago) The articles about the Belgian Banks in the supplement were not signed.
- Delete Author unknown, work created less than 100 years ago, hence possibly still copyrightet. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- (2) For File:Il lance un journal sous les tropiques Le Nouvel Economiste 1976.jpg : As associate editor (deputy publisher) of the journal and responsible co-editor, I have the permission to publish this article which appeared in No.5 of the Nouvel Economiste on November 10, 1975 and is part of the journal's archives.
- Keep Following your argument. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- (3) File:Missions économiques organisées par Bernard Le Grelle en Corée et aux Philippines.jpg : The two pictures were taken by me Bernard Le Grelle. I'm also the author in my capacity as deputy director of the Nouvel Economiste and director and organizer of the design with the flags (public domain) symbolizing the mission.
- Keep If you made the photos, of course you may publish them.
- (4) File:Bernard Le Grelle, "vendeur" de gouvernement.jpg : Article published in La Libre Belgique On Feb 7th 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Libre_Belgique) : Bernard Le Grelle interviewed by Dominique de Montvallon. In this case, should I get the authorization of the journalist?
- If the journalist was an employee of the paper, the copyright should be with the paper. Best is probably to enquire them. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- (5) Finally, for File:Profession Lobbyman de Bernard Le Grelle.jpg : In France, the author's rights revert to the author after 20 years (except republication etc) in any case I have recovered the rights to Hachette. The book was published in 1988, 32 years ago.
- I am not convinced. You may have author's rights on the text, but I doubt that this includes the design on the cover. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention. 00:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 07:11, 2 February 2021|Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Jean-Jacques Gueman
- @AFBorchert Hello, Did you have time to review the arguments? Thanks Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Jean-Jacques Gueman
Deleted: still no OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos, paintings, documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:List of Participants ANPA Board meeting in Monaco, 1984.pdf
- File:Ordre des chevaliers-corsaires du Bailli de Suffren.pdf
- File:University of St.Gallen - Law and Lobbying, from Legal to Regulatory Affairs.pdf
- File:Le Cercle des Trente.pdf
- File:Honorary Captain of the Forbes Highlander.jpg
- File:Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Diploma (Bernard Le Grelle).pdf
- File:Master project - Bernard Le Grelle.pdf
- File:Funeral card of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1963).jpg
- File:Diploma of Bachelor in Economic, Social and Political Sciences of Saint-Louis University (Bernard Le Grelle).pdf
- File:Bernard Le Grelle - Diploma of Our Lady College.pdf
- File:From Antwerp to Kathmandu.pdf
- File:Willy De Clercq, Deputy Prime Minister, Lou De Clerck and Bernard Le Grelle.jpg
- File:Bernard Le Grelle, Malcolm Forbes and Alain Poher, President of the French Senate in 1980.jpg
- File:Comte Adelin Le Grelle (1898-1973).jpg
- File:Sint Annaland Estate in Vught (The Netherlands).jpg
- File:Castle of Presseux.jpg
- File:Lydie et Alice, les deux filles d’Edmond Le Grelle et de Bathilde de Wael.tif
- File:Eulalie Cambier.jpg
- File:Marie-Thérèse Cambier.jpg
- File:Hughes Le Grelle.jpg
- File:Château d'Engismont.jpg
- File:Château de Morckhoven.png
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @EugeneZelenko,
- I can try to do my best to add additional information but most of the files have been reviewed and accepted by OTRS. Some pictures are old or the author is dead for more than 70 years so they are in the public domain. Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed header. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the following
The nominator should really be doing this work, not just nominating dozens of images, some of which are obviously PD. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- File:Funeral card of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1963).jpg (no copyright notice)
- File:Marie-Thérèse Cambier.jpg (1826)
- File:Diploma of Bachelor in Economic, Social and Political Sciences of Saint-Louis University (Bernard Le Grelle).pdf (ineligible for copyright)
- File:Comte Adelin Le Grelle (1898-1973).jpg "PD-EU-no author disclosure"
- Delete the following
- Keep Eulalie Cambier.jpg.
- Its author was Nicaise de Keyser, who died more than 70 years ago.
- Keep also File:Marie-Thérèse Cambier.jpg.
- Its author was Barthélemy Vieillevoye and died in 1855.
Deleted: per nomination, deleted those images which appeared to young to be in PD. Kept those images where the author died more then 70 years ago. And kept per RAN the funeral card of John F. Kennedy. --Ellywa (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The church was completed in 2003 by Cordoș Dorel. There is no freedom of panorama in Romania, permission from him is required A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, unfortunately. --rubin16 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP UAE. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep General skylines. Burj Khalifa is de minimis--A1Cafel (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis for anything protectable as an architect's copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Since there is no focus on any individual building, the de minimis rule applies. --De728631 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
origin souce:[3], Copyright notice: [4]. Non-free image. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Speedy delete as an unfree (and potentially copyvio) image: licensing terms in the link provided by -akko reads: "All images on PNGHUT are user generated/uploaded. By default, images are only available for Personal Use. Commercial Use is not allowed. PREMIUM members can request Commercial Use rights from uploaders via the user contact form. This is often granted but not guaranteed." Fails commercial requirement at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)- Keep Delete Uploaded to Pixabay June 28, 2013, therefore it's under Pixabay's pre-2019 licence, which was CC0 and thus acceptable here. See [5] and even (with a huge great banner on the image already) see Category:Unreviewed files from Pixabay. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Please check again, the upload date of Pixabay is 2016. So origin source is pnghut. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry - my mistake. Didn't notice your first link wasn't to Pixabay. If the issue is non-Pixabay original sourcing, then yes, that's a delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not a free image. --De728631 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
The church was completed in 2003, there is no freedom of panorama in Romania, thus permission from the architect is needed A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --De728631 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Artist es:Aristene Papi died in 1954, less than 70 years ago. Wikiacc (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is also unclear whether Papi who was a sculptor created this image himself. --De728631 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:UP1017 Paul Moody.jpg Gourami Watcher (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --De728631 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Very small image of a non-notable person. No educative value. (not the Indian actor of the same name) Richard Avery (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, too small to be of any use. JIP (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Out of project scope. --De728631 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
This cover is made by illustrator and painter Jan Sluijters who died in 1957. His work is still copyrighted in 2021 Ecritures (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Support - this image should be speedly deleted (copyvio). Gouwenaar (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gouwenaar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the illustrator Jan Sluijters died in 1957. See "Een halve eeuw wielersport" "Auteursrechtelijk beschermd. Op dit object rust auteursrecht" ("Copyright protected. Copyright rests on this object. ") Mdd (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This file was uploaded 21:02, 14 December 2016 and only yesterday we presumed the illustrator was Jan Sluijters, see this discussion on my talk page. It really got wired when Gouwenaar explained he had contacted the nl:Koninklijke Bibliotheek, and Ecritures an hour later explained:
- (NB not reacting with my professonial account) Both the cover (drawn by Jan Sluijters) and texts (written by George Hogenkamp) are still under copyright. Jan Sluijters died in 1957; George Hogenkamp celebrated his 80th birthday in 1955. The scan/picture of the cover should be removed since it is copyrighted for another seven years. Which pictures digitally cut out of this book have been uploaded to Commons? Ecritures (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- This makes me wonder if this is the official response of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek? Is Ecritures authorized to speak for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek? And if so could the Koninklijke Bibliotheek add this data to the "gebruikersvoorwaarde" here? This would have saved us all the effort here, and will save others similar copyright confusion.
- I have no doubt this file was uploaded in good faith by @Nicola: four years ago, and the book itself doesn't mention the illustrator by name. There is just a tag in the illustration itself and our original interpretation. Secondary sources are inconclusive and as I said, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek doesn't mentions it.
- As I explained before in similar matters, I think in these complicated matters, we should not jump to conclusion and speedy delete at once. There is also the open question whether or not the template:PD-US license applies here. -- Mdd (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The KB warns explicitly "Copyright protected. Copyright rests on this object.", that is includes the cover drawn by Jan Sluijters (1881-1957). Copyvio means speedy deletion. Gouwenaar (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I know there is a fundamental right here to question speedy delete request. However, this seemed to be denied with you last edit. Now before the history is made invisible let me recall:
- 11:41, 26 January 2021 Gouwenaar talk contribs 1,650 bytes −224 copyvio = speedy deletion Tag: Undo
- 10:22, 26 January 2021 Mdd talk contribs 1,874 bytes +224 This file does not qualify for speedy-deletion and a regular deletion request will be started. Tag: Reverted
- 08:05, 26 January 2021 Gouwenaar talk contribs 1,650 bytes +324
- 22:59, 25 January 2021 Ecritures talk contribs 1,326 bytes +220 Nominating for deletion
- Also let me recall there is no additional argument in the additional 08:05u speedy delete request:
- {{copyvio|1=the illustrator Jan Sluijters died in 1957. See [https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/view?coll=boeken&identifier=MMKB02A:000030321:00001&objectsearch=wielersport "Een halve eeuw wielersport"] "Auteursrechtelijk beschermd. Op dit object rust auteursrecht" ("Copyright protected. Copyright rests on this object. ")}}
- -- Mdd (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I know there is a fundamental right here to question speedy delete request. However, this seemed to be denied with you last edit. Now before the history is made invisible let me recall:
- The KB warns explicitly "Copyright protected. Copyright rests on this object.", that is includes the cover drawn by Jan Sluijters (1881-1957). Copyvio means speedy deletion. Gouwenaar (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- NB not reacting with my professonial account: means NO I was in that case reacting as a Wikimedian. There seems no confusion possible; I spoke on my personal account. This is a very clear case of copyright violation; the maker Jan Sluijters died in 1957. According to the law the copyright will expire in 7 years. Copyright violation means speedy deletion. Ecritures (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, if this is so where is the formal response of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, and who did Gouwenaar contact? And why the sudden rush if there is no formal response by the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. -- Mdd (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Gbawden. --De728631 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused blurred photo of unidentified location. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused simple logo of probably non-notable company. Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 10:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Michael Heisenberg (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos are from this Flickr profile (https://www.flickr.com/photos/phillherold/), and photos are copyrighted. No permission.
- File:PHIL L. HEROLD & FRANZ BECKENBAUER 2008.jpg
- File:PHIL L. HEROLD & AEROSMITH 2014.jpg
- File:PHIL L. HEROLD & SNOOP DOGG LIVE ON STAGE.JPG
Smooth O (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Low resolution, common meme subject, unlikely to be original work. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Low resolution, common meme subject, unlikely to be original work. chnnnnnnnnnnnndourunrun 03:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope BlinxTheKitty (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Gbawden at 09:41, 3 Mai 2021 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) --Krdbot 13:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Picture is no longer up to date; 1&1 Versatel headquarters is now at another location in Düsseldorf Anna 1&1 Versatel (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. In my opinion the file is not own work, but violates copyright of unknown photographer. I'll delete also file:Hauptverwaltung 1&1 Versatel.jpg, because its author and copyright holder is Berndt Fotografie Köln. These are the user's only uploads. Taivo (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
double file Jelican9 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Dupe is File:Sadik altincan.jpg with better resolution. Replaced use on Turkish WP. Elly (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
_Parliament_2021.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Parliament_2021.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
_Parliament_2021.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
_Parliament_2021.svg){kind=link}
COPYVIO LD (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader claims that the map is based on Open Street Map and the website states that their flight database comes with a {{ODbL}} licence. However, there is no reliable information about this combination of the altitude track and a supposedly free map. De728631 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Watson Island John Doe S.S.jpg Gourami Watcher (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The annotation in this one is much clearer than in File:Watson Island John Doe S.S.jpg where it is blurry. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept per De728631. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Laserpekare as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Seems to be some sort of advertisment, not used in any project
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused logo. Unknown gymnasium. No educative value. Richard Avery (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Unexplained and unused diagram. no educative or exemplar value. Richard Avery (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ich habe einen Fehler entdeckt Ludwig Bickel (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, prompt uploader request (wow are we backlogged). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
_7.jpg){kind=link}
Screenshot of a newspaper; many copyrighted content is visible. It is quite doubful that the uploader has created any image visible on this "paper" Mosbatho (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, DW. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot of a newspaper; many copyrighted content is visible. It is quite doubful that the uploader has created any image visible on this "paper" Mosbatho (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot of a newspaper; many copyrighted content is visible. It is quite doubful that the uploader has created any image visible on this "paper" Mosbatho (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot of a newspaper. The photo has a distinct copyright notice. Mosbatho (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Fake licence, see https://www.awardslondon.com/%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0/ or http://www.zhar-ptica.com/actors/catalog/aktrisy/egorova-irina/ Bilderling (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused text document. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as unused and redundant. Can just as easily be replaced with actual text. JIP (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect information Kavelgrisen (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Although some incorrect information has been found, it seems to me that it should be possible to correct it without too much work. I do not have the sufficient sources to do it myself though. I would suggest adding an explanation informing of the incorrect parts until it has been fixed rather than deleting it. Rasmus 28 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted It's been over 6 months, no efforts seems to make hypothetical corrections. Unused, not in category tree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Single upload, proffesional photo, no original author or permission. Smooth O (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, apparent CV. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
No exif info, seems not own work (｀・ω・´) (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, also no evident in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused logo of non-notable company (not mentioned in en.wiki), out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
An unexplained image of ordinary trees. No intuitive educational value. Richard Avery (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, also zero information on location. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Some images in the montage was deleted A1Cafel (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, the majority of the images in the montage had been deleted, better to start fresh. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Pido disculpas, me he equivocado en la carga de la fotografía, procedo a borrarla y cargarla nuevamente con los datos correspondientes. Gracias por entender. Filántropo del arte (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Pido disculpas, me he equivocado en la carga de la fotografía, procedo a borrarla y cargarla nuevamente con los datos correspondientes. Gracias por entender. Filántropo del arte (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Doubtful such logo (whom is likely a trademark) is under an CC Copyright BlinxTheKitty (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It has an incorrect license; this image certainly falls under {{PD-textlogo}}. Although, a better crop of the image should be grabbed, assuming it is indeed the correct 2019 Comcast logo. Pbrks (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a much better logo for Comcast and this is simply a bad cropped PNG (you can see the cuts on some of the edges) comcast did not even change or rebrand in 2019 either making the title misleading as the last logo change was in 2012, this same user uploaded a couple other fake logos from what i seen --BlinxTheKitty (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, false license, no fixes made, etc per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Photo from a video or TV program, India Vision logo is visible. Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- it is true. it is taken from the ccTv of the hall.if it violates the rule can be deleted --Dvellakat (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, DW, uploader concurs. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This logo seems surpass threshold of originality, ¿Actually does it? (Note: In use) Sr. Knowthing (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted likely, and false license claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andreeamoisescu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Commons is not a repository of personal photos. No activity from uploader besides these images: m:Special:CentralAuth/Andreeamoisescu
- File:Balaceanu-Marta.jpg
- File:Balaceanu. Marta.jpg
- File:Balaceanu- Marta.jpg
- File:Balaceanu .Marta.jpg
- File:Balaceanu Marta.jpg
Gikü (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted badly blurred image without evident compensating importance or uniqueness. Unused. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
naakt foto van een persoon Raouldemanager13 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any use for this image. It has the wrong white balance, and it's so hopelessly grainy that any attempt to fix the white balance would cause the grain to pretty much destroy the image. The image is not used anywhere and is not really that large. There are far better images of jars of honey already on Commons. JIP (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, very bad quality image of very common object (with troll description). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Obviously a professional studio photo and not a selfie (uploader = person in the picture, according to her user page on the German WP). The picture is from her website, and I seriously doubt that her photographers are aware of any CC licensing. 217.239.5.93 23:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Upload was done by a new user, I will help her to get the permissions from the photographer (which is, IMHO. the more constructive approach than filing a deletion request). --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- The photographer refused to give the permissions. Please delete this file. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation, artist died in 1976; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Habe gar nicht gewusst, dass es sich um einen "modernen" Künstler handelt, die alten gefallen mir sowieso besser.Paebi (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation, artist died in 1976; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; per COM:FOP Switzerland, "It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27". --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a better version in PNG at File:MERS health advisory poster.png — Mr White 11:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mr White as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: MERS health advisory poster.png
Converted to regular DR, per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Studioflorianmehnert (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images have transmission data which indicates they were harvested from another website prior to upload here. Also, artwork!
- File:Forest Protocols (Waldprotokolle).jpg
- File:Drogerie-der-freiheit.jpg
- File:Videoprojektion FREIHEIT 2.0.jpg
- File:Leitsystem Freiheit2.0.jpg
- File:Freiheit 2.0 Tracking App.png
- File:Refugee Stack.jpg
- File:Art experiment "11 Days".jpg
- File:Art experiment "11 Days" screenshot.jpg
- File:Menschentracks-totale.jpg
- File:Menschentracks-Installation.jpg
- File:Florian Mehnert.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Do I understand something wrong here? Me, the artist,Florian Mehnert I´m not allowed to upload the upstanding photos, to give them free for usage?
- @Studioflorianmehnert: Please sign your comments by typing four tilde characters
~~~~. This will add a timestamp and your username. The problem seems to be that these images were published before at your website without a free licence. In this case our rules require that we get a confirmation by email from the copyright holder. This is so because we cannot verify your identy through your Wikimedia account, and in the past we have had too many cases of identy theft were uploaders claimed to be photographer X while they were not. Alternatively you may grant a free licence for each of those photos at your website. That would in fact be much faster and easier for all parties involved. De728631 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused and undescribed image of a non-notable person. No educative value. Richard Avery (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus qu'elle circule sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The file is being used in the French Wikipedia and the licence is irrevocable. Courtesy deletions are usually only done in the first week after uploading an image, but this was uploaded in 2016. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per User:De728631. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
File:Vieux tours 1 rue des Cordeliers, maison noble XVe siècle en brique recouverte d'un enduit.jpg
[edit]
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no longer qualifies for courtesy deletion, licence is irrevocable, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no longer qualifies for courtesy deletion, licence is irrevocable, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no longer qualifies for courtesy deletion, licence is irrevocable, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no longer qualifies for courtesy deletion, licence is irrevocable, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo of green cylinder with no indication of importance. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep photos of rather generic objects are of potential use. 3 relevant categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Image add no value to any of the added categories, and doesn't even belong in some of them. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.38.198 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Abdullah8031
[edit]- File:Chandpur Commuter 01.02.2017.jpg
- File:Sagarika Express at Shahtoli Railway Station, Chandpur.jpg
- File:Shahtoli Railway Station.png
- File:Sagarika Express train leaving Chandpur.png
Reasons for deletion request -- Author's request.Abdullah8031 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of low-res personal images. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Spam. See en:User:News of cool. Un assiolo (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Spam. See en:User:News of cool. Un assiolo (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private video hosting. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I had hoped to use this file at Basque Shepherd Dog, but noticed that it was uploaded from this source, where it is clearly marked CC BY-NC-SA. I don't read Basque, please excuse me if I've made some mistake here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Image credited to Sheryl Percy. Likely promotional. No indication the uploader is the copyright holder or a properly authorized representative. GMGtalk 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Unused, unsourced table, temporarily transformed into a wikitable until sources are provided: ro:Câine#Speranța de viață Gikü (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gikü:
Sursa poate fi vazuta aici. https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/health/how-to-calculate-dog-years-to-human-years/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelinaSas (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC) https://www.insidescience.org/content/large-dogs-age-faster-die-younger/953 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/829192v1.full.pdf+html Am indicat-o atat pe blogul meu, cat si pe pagina wikipedia. https://vienela.ro/varsta-cainilor-in-ani-omenesti-noua-formula-din-2019/ Tabelul a fost creat in paint, insa wikipedia nu mi-a permis sa il urc, asa ca l-am pozat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelinaSas (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Am folosit datele din tabel pentru a crea unul nou, caci era/este necesar pentru vorbitorii de limba romana. Din acest motiv am si scris articolul Vârsta câinilor în ani omenești pe blogul meu, in limba romana. https://vienela.ro/varsta-cainilor-in-ani-omenesti-noua-formula-din-2019/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvelinaSas (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC) EvelinaSas (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mosbatho as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image is a cropped version of this picture on GETTY IMAGES Larryasou (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept :It was confirmed to be own work, which was cropped from File:Keith Brown SNP Conference 2.jpg.--Larryasou (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Larryasou, so, we can assume for sure that User:ScottishPolitico is "Jane Barlow". I appreciate that we could keep this photo because having such good photographs on Commons is great. --Mosbatho (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mosbatho: It's not that..., but I think they are not the same picure. --Larryasou (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I see, that's your reasoning. Thank you for your response. --Mosbatho (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment @Larryasou: I'm afraid I'm not Jane, its just a similar photo. I just wanted to add some better photography of some Scottish politicians. --ScottishPolitico (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: This was the actual logo when the file has been uploaded (2011). I suggets to rename to avoid confutions with the current logo. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Kept: We keep obsolete logos for historical use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This version of the logo is outdated 95.192.184.230 15:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Elly (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Files related to Zoe Longfield
[edit]All of the following were uploaded in January '21 to en:Wikipedia by Susieall2012 as her "own work", and then moved to Commons. Currently each is used within the en:WP draft "Zoe Longfield", about an artist who, according to Susieall2012, died in 2013.
- File:Zoe Longfield, Untitled, 1949.jpg, a painting by Longfield
- File:Zoe Longfield, Untitled, 1948.jpg, a painting by Longfield
- File:Zoe Longfield, Untitled (Gray and Yellow Painting), 1949, Oil paint on canvas.jpg, a painting by Longfield
- File:Zoe with paintings, c. 1948.jpg, a photograph showing Longfield, circa 1948
- File:Zoe young.jpg, a photograph showing Longfield, circa 1950
,_1949,_Oil_paint_on_canvas.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Longfield can't have uploaded the files posthumously; therefore the paintings are not Susieall2012's own work (as understood hereabouts).
The photographers are unidentified. It's conceivable that they're self-portraits, but I doubt this. If still alive, the photographer(s) would now be in their mid-eighties, at least -- more likely, closer to a hundred. Most Wikipedia editors are much younger; I doubt that the photographs were Susieall2012's work.
I can make a similar comment for
- File:Handbill for the Metart Galleries, 1949.jpg (advertising a show by Longfield)
but as it's a typographical design I think that the current copyleft license could be replaced with {{PD-ineligible}}. However, as I'm not well-informed about such matters I have not added any template or other message to the page, and I'll leave a change of template (or other action) to somebody more knowledgable than I am.
Reading between the lines here and there, I wonder if Susieall2012 might indeed possess the copyright to Longfield's work (if not to others' photographs of her). With this possibility in mind, I asked her on 18 January: no response yet. --Hoary (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- (1) I've explained matters to the uploader. (2) Rather than {{PD-ineligible}}, perhaps {{PD-text}}? (For what little it's worth, my own feeling is that a lot of work went into the design and its execution, that it easily passes the threshold, and therefore that neither of these templates would be applicable. But I understand or misunderstand that US copyright law is curiously unimpressed by exercises in typography. Somebody more knowledgable than I am should decide.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update: The uploader has changed the description of File:Handbill for the Metart Galleries, 1949.jpg, saying that it's PD. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I am the sole executor/trustee of Zoe Longfield's estate (there are no heirs) and I own copyright for the following images (photographs as well as the pieces photographed):
-Zoe Longfield, Untitled, 1948.jpg (photographed by me) -Zoe Longfield, Untitled (Gray and Yellow Painting), 1949, Oil paint on canvas.jpg (photographed by me) -Zoe Longfield, Untitled (Red and Blue Painting), 1949, Oil paint on canvas.jpg (photographed by me)
I own the copyright to these photographs of the artist; photographers unknown:
-Zoe Young.jpg (photographer unknown) -Zoe with paintings, c. 1948.jpg (photographer unknown)
The following is in the public domain:
-Handbill for the Metart Galleries, 1949.jpg (scanned by me)
Susieall2012 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Susieall2012: In such cases our rules require that we get a permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Susieall2012: you say "I own the copyright to these photographs of the artist; photographers unknown". I don't know how it's possible for somebody to own the copyright of photographs when that person doesn't know who took the photographs. If you and I happen to meet somewhere, we get on well, you take photographs of me, and you send me prints (or indeed JPEGs), the copyright to the photographs remains yours, not mine, unless perhaps you explicitly pass the copyright to me. (Or anyway this is what I believe; I'm open to being corrected.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Copyright is not held by the subject in the photo, but by the original photographer. So, unless you happen to have written contracts wherein the copyright for the portrait photographs was transferred to Zoe Longfield, these two cannot be restored without permission from the photographers or their heirs. The photos of the paintings are mere reproductions of the original artwork and do not qualify for a copyright of their own though. Still, we would need to verify your legal position regarding Longfield's estate. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader did not take action according the VRT procedure. Deleted all per nomination. The poster is imho not below TOO, deleted per COM:PRP. The paintings are cleary copyrighted and can be undeleted in 2084. The photographs might be in PD then as well, who knows… . --Elly (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
je suis l'auteur de cette image DESPREZ37 et je ne veux plus la voir circuler sur internet Desprez37 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:COURTESY. --Elly (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a replication of an entire logo. Flames and a stroked B (neither of which is identical to the original) do not an entire complex logo make. David Fuchs (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Partial logo can also be copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Japan. This is considered above Threshold of Originality. --Elly (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; artist Pius Eichlinger died in 2014; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 001.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 002.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 003.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 004.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 005.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 006.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 007.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 008.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 009.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 010.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 011.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 012.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 013.jpg
- File:Kreuzweg St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 014.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Da im Inneren eines Gebäudes nach deutschem Recht niemals FoP gilt (§ 59 dUrhG), ist dieser Löschantrag fehlerhaft gestellt und zurückzuweisen.
- Since FoP never applies inside a building under German law (§ 59 dUrhG), this request for deletion is incorrect and must be rejected. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in churches in Germany per COM:FOP Germany. Can be undeleted in 2085.. --Elly (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:St. Peter (Oberhaunstadt)
[edit]copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Glasfenster - Innenraum.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 008.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 009.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 011.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 014.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 015.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 016.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 018.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 020.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 023.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 024.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 026.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 027.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 029.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 030.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 031.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 032.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 033.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 034.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 035.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 037.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 042.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 043.jpg
- File:St Peter - Oberhaunstadt 044.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Soweit sich dieser Löschantrag auf das Innere eines Gebäudes nach deutschem Recht bezieht, gilt niemals FoP (§ 59 dUrhG). Der Löschantrag ist fehlerhaft gestellt und zurückzuweisen.
- Try to keep these. These images seem to be part of a larger series trying to give an impression of the whole church. In this sense and context the windows and other art could be considered 'de minimis'. Please be more aware of the context, of the complete series. Though single images can be replaced, as long as church is not demolished, deleting any images from such series severely damages the original intend of the photographers to cover the many aspects of their subjects. At the same time these images are just "quotes" needed to tell and illustrate a bigger story and should be kept. Peli (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. No FOP in churches in Germany per COM:FOP Germany. Some could be kept as the artwork and architecture are considered de minimis. --Elly (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Edgar Schlubach
[edit]Artworks of de:Geert Edgar Schlubach (died 2003). No permission.
- File:Akelei (Schlubach).JPG
- File:Am Hafen 2.JPG
- File:Am Hafen.JPG
- File:As (Schlubach).JPG
- File:Berlin 1932 (Schlubach).JPG
- File:Caféplantage in Pensamiento 1934, 20,7x26,9.jpg
- File:Forio.JPG
- File:Gewinnzahl.JPG
- File:Hafen.JPG
- File:Hochhaus-Kollage.JPG
- File:Im Liegestuhl.JPG
- File:Inaudible.jpg
- File:Indio2.JPG
- File:Kaminzimmer Les Gauchers.JPG
- File:Kollage 1957.jpg
- File:La Trainera.JPG
- File:Le point bleu.JPG
- File:Le Sucre.JPG
- File:Pause (Schlubach).JPG
- File:Septe.JPG
- File:Vogue (Schlubach).jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Smooth O (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Edgar Schlubach ist am 12.12.2003 kinderlos verstorben und hat mir alle die vorgenannten Bilder und Bildrechte vererbt. --Elmar Nolte (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Elmar Nolte: you can follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the images can be undeleted. Otherwise they will be undeleted in 2074.. --Elly (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.38.198 12:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. 176.59.38.198 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC) This photo was taken by me in Moscow — Preceding unsigned comment added by J26tigam (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment or take action according the VRT procedure. --Elly (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary stained glass window (church built in 1963); no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Da im Inneren eines Gebäudes nach deutschem Recht niemals FoP gilt (§ 59 dUrhG), ist dieser Löschantrag fehlerhaft gestellt und zurückzuweisen.
- Since FoP never applies inside a building under German law (§ 59 dUrhG), this request for deletion is incorrect and must be rejected. BR, Asurnipal (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: the stained glass window is small in this image. Considered De Minimis. Warning template added as the image should not be cropped. --Elly (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; altar and stained glass windows by Günther Zeuner who died in 2011; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Landau in der Pfalz, inner view of the St.Mary´s Church.jpg
- File:Landau Marienkirche09.jpg
- File:Landau-Marienkirche-Ambo-02ASD.jpg
- File:Landau-Marienkirche-nave-02ASD.jpg
- File:Landau-Marienkirche-nave-03ASD.jpg
- File:Landau-Marienkirche-Nave-04ASD.jpg
- File:Landau-Marienkirche-sanctuaire-01ASD.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dein Ruf ist Dir schon vorausgeeilt, ebenso Deine Unkenntnis des deutschen Rechts. Da diese Bilder Teil eines Gesamtbildes sind, deren Inhalt nicht urheberechtsgeschützte Bestandteile sind, ist Dein Löschantrag unzulässig und mE auch missbräuchlich. Denn das ist Dir sehr wohl bekannt. Ich werde daher die entsprechende Konsequenz ziehen.
- Your reputation has already preceded you, as does your ignorance of German law. Since these pictures are part of an overall picture, the content of which is not protected by copyright, your request for deletion is inadmissible and in my opinion also improper. Because you know that very well. I will therefore draw the appropriate conclusion.
Hallo, ich möchte nicht unhöflich sein und weiß, dass viele Deiner Entscheidungen richtig sind. Was das betreffende Bild anbelangt, liegst Du aber offensichtlich daneben. Daher bitte ich Dich, Dich mit den rechtlichen Dingen im Urheberschutz vertraut zu machen und den Löschantrag zurückzunehmen. Ansonsten könntest Du auch alsbald Bilder löschen lassen, die die Kirchen von außen zeigen, weil die Bleiglasfenster auch da zu sehen sind, vielleicht ist das auch schon vorgekommen. Kümmere Dich bitte darum, wann geschützte Objekte als unbedeutendes Beiwerk auf den Bildern zu klassifizieren sind. Setzt Du Dich immer wieder darüber hinweg und erreichst auch die Löschung, bleibt nur das Mittel, diese Bilder immer wieder erneut ins Netz zu stellen, bis Du mit dem Stellen von missbräuchlichen Löschanträgen müde wirst. Für wirkliche Verstöße gegen das Urheberschutzgesetz gilt das natürlich nicht ! Grüße --Dguendel 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- +2 zu Asurnipal und Dguendel. Löschantrag zurückweisen, das findet doch gar keine Grundlage im deutschen Urheberrecht. Dem User Martin Sg. wäre wirklich mal zu wünschen, dass ihm jemand in das deutsche Urheberrecht eine Grundlageneinführung gibt, damit er hier nicht so viele sinnlose Löschanträge stellt. Nur in Wikipedia nachsehen, ist wirklich viel zu wenig bei dieser komplexen Materie. Gruss, Rikki Mitterer (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wenn Ihr Eurer Sache so sicher seid, dann müsste auch Gebäude wie Museen, öffentliche Sammlungen, Kirchen oder Verwaltungsgebäude sind nicht „öffentlich“ im Sinne des Gesetzes, und daher fallen Fotografien von Werken, die in ihrem Inneren ausgestellt werden, nicht unter § 59 Abs. 1. FOP-DE (Abs. 3, Schluss) umgehend korrigiert werden, nicht? Martin Sg. (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- +2 zu Asurnipal und Dguendel. Löschantrag zurückweisen, das findet doch gar keine Grundlage im deutschen Urheberrecht. Dem User Martin Sg. wäre wirklich mal zu wünschen, dass ihm jemand in das deutsche Urheberrecht eine Grundlageneinführung gibt, damit er hier nicht so viele sinnlose Löschanträge stellt. Nur in Wikipedia nachsehen, ist wirklich viel zu wenig bei dieser komplexen Materie. Gruss, Rikki Mitterer (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hier verläuft in der Diskussion etwas verquer. Es geht nicht darum, ob Museen, Verwaltungen oder Kirchen öffentliche oder nicht öffentliche Gebäude sind, sondern darum, ob unter das Urheberrecht fallende Objekte fotografiert und veröffentlicht worden sind. So hat man in der Category:Stained glass windows of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Reims Fotos von Glasfenstern von Marc Chagall veröffentlicht, was sicherlich nicht rechtens war. Ist aber die gesamte Innenansicht von Kirchen im Bild, und irgendwo im Hintergrund befindet sich ein geschütztes Objekt sozusagen zufällig nebenbei, kann das nicht der Grund eines Löschantrags sein. Martin muss § 57 des Urheberschutzgesetzes beachten. Was dann rechtens ist, unterliegt hier einem gewissen Beurteilungsspielraum. Martin sieht das viel zu restriktiv. Wie im vorliegendem Fall wurde überhaupt keine Beurteilung vorgenommen und einfach losgezuschlagen. Das ist rechtsfehlerhaft, und das sollte sich die Wikimediagemeinschaft nicht gefallen lassen. Wir sollten dabei aber auch nicht vergessen, dass das Suchen von Verletzungen des Urheberrechts, wenn es sachgerecht erfolgt, auch in unserem Interesse ist. Keiner kann daran interessiert sein, irgendwann einmal von einem Erben eines kürzlich verstorbenen Meisters aus Gehässigkeit verklagt zu werden, oder der Abmahnindustrie Verschub zu liefern. --Dguendel 07:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hallo Martin Sg.. Ich schildere Dir mal, wie ich die Sache faktisch und rechtlich sehe und verstehe in einfachen Worten. Dies ist keine juristische Expertise. Du kannst mir gerne auch nachweisen, dass ich völlig daneben liege. Also, der Eintrag zu § 59 dUrhG wird von Dir zitiert, aber falsch verstanden. Diese Bestimmung nach § 59 dUrhG ist hier gar nicht anwendbar. Du zitierst hier auch wieder aus Wikipedia, ohne Dich mE mit dem Urheberrecht selbst auseinanderzusetzen. Es steht auch in der von Dir verlinkten Wikipedia-Seite drin: „Gebäude wie Museen, öffentliche Sammlungen, Kirchen oder Verwaltungsgebäude sind nicht „öffentlich“ im Sinne des Gesetzes, und daher fallen Fotografien von Werken, die in ihrem Inneren ausgestellt werden, nicht unter § 59 Abs. 1“ . Also, § 59 dUrhG bzw. die Panoramafreiheit ist nicht auf Kirchen anzuwenden, weil diese nicht „öffentlich“ bzw. „nicht öffentliche Plätze“ sind. Was ja eigentlich vom Wortlaut her schon eindeutig ist. Dennoch stützt Du Deinen Löschantrag auf „no freedom of panorama“, obwohl es Dir eigentlich klar sein müsste, dass dies ganz einfach falsch ist.
- Auch in dem ganzen Absatz, den Du zitierst, geht es nur um öffentliche Plätze etc. Du zitierst also schon hier etwas, das gar nicht anwendbar ist. Steht auch klar in § 59 im ersten Satz drin: „Werke, die sich dauerhaft auf öffentlichen Straßen, Wegen oder Plätzen befinden …“. Wenn Du Dich mal wegwendest von der Zitierung von Passagen in Wikipedia zur rechtlichen Seite des Problems, dann wirst Du feststellen, dass Deine Rechtsansicht nicht vom Urheberrecht gedeckt ist. Die erste Frage lautet, wo ist das Kunstwerk? Es ist in einem Gebäude. Es zählt hier nicht die Panoramafreiheit. Also muss eine anderer Regelung gelten als § 59 dUrhG (siehe unten) Die zweite Frage: hat der Eigentümer des Gebäudes eine Einschränkung der Fotografiererlaubnis gemacht. Dies kann ich Dir mitteilen, nein, denn es war nichts offen ersichtlich in der Kirche. Die dritte Frage ist dann: was macht Wikipedia mit diesen Fotos. Für was sind diese in Wikipedia enthalten? Gilt eine der vielen Ausnahmen im dUrhG? Dazu ist es erforderlich, dass Du zuerst § 11 des dUrhG heranziehst. „Das Urheberrecht schützt den Urheber in seinen geistigen und persönlichen Beziehungen zum Werk und in der Nutzung des Werkes. Es dient zugleich der Sicherung einer angemessenen Vergütung für die Nutzung des Werkes“. Es geht also im Kern des § darum, dass der Urheber sein Werk grundsätzlich versilbern kann. Das ist der Kern des ganzen Schutzgedankens des UrhG. Wikipedia hindert ihn daran nicht, im Gegenteil. Durch die ehrenamtliche und unkommerzielle Tätigkeit der Wikipediafotografen etc. und Wikipedia in einer Enzyklopädie kann/können in vielen Fällen das Werk/die Werke eines Künstlers erst bekannt werden und für ihn ein wirtschaftlicher Nutzen beginnen. Es ist also grundsätzlich durchaus im Interesse eines Künstlers, in Wikipedia gelistet zu werden. Und dann kommt noch Artikel 51 dUrhG zur Anwendung. In Wikipedia werden diese Fotos zur Illustration von Artikeln verwendet. Das bedeutet, hier greift nicht Artikel 59 dUrhG, sondern Artikel 51 dUrhG. Nach Artikel 51 dUrhG ist die „Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Wiedergabe eines veröffentlichten Werkes zum Zweck des Zitats, sofern die Nutzung in ihrem Umfang durch den besonderen Zweck gerechtfertigt ist. Zulässig ist dies insbesondere, …“. „Von der Zitierbefugnis gemäß den Sätzen 1 und 2 umfasst ist die Nutzung einer Abbildung oder sonstigen Vervielfältigung des zitierten Werkes, auch wenn diese selbst durch ein Urheberrecht oder ein verwandtes Schutzrecht geschützt ist“. Diese Ausnahmen rechtfertigen jedenfalls auch die Verwendung dieser Bilder in der Wikipedia im Rahmen eines Bildzitates (im vorliegenden Fall als kleines Bildzitat, weil das urheberrechtlich geschützte Werk nur ein kleiner Teil des Ganzen ist). Nun kommt noch die nächste Prüfung: wie sieht es aus, wenn Wikipedia diese Bilder auch anderen über das Internet zur Verfügung stellt, Gilt das dann auch? Nun, ganz einfach zu beantworten, das interessiert Wikipedia gar nicht. Commons ist primär für Wikipedia als unkommerzielle Bildquelle da. Sekundär ist es auch ein historisches, nicht kommerzielles Archiv für Bilder. Denn Wikipediafotografen und Wikipedia dokumentiert ohne Gewinnabsicht. In Sprache, Bild, Ton etc. Und diese Dokumentation ist auch ein wichtiges Element der Speicherung diser Bilder auf Commons. Dies unterscheidet die Commons-Sammlung ganz wesentlich auch von kommerziellen Anbietern, die Bilder publizieren, damit sie jemand kauft. Nimmt jemand aus Wikipedia etwas heraus, um es für sich selbst privat oder kommerziell zu nutzen, hat er oder sie die Einhaltung des Urheberrechtes selbst zu klären. Es ist dies derselbe Fall, wie wenn jemand mit Zustimmung eines Künstlers sein Werk im Internet publiziert (und dafür zB bezahlt) und ein anderer nimmt das Bild dann einfach von dessen Webseite und verwendet es selbst (ohne zu bezahlen) Das interessiert denjenigen, der das Bild vom Künstler „gekauft“ hat überhaupt nicht, denn er hat es ja vertragskonform, verwendet. Ditto ist dies bei Wikipedia zu sehen. Wir stellen Bilder (u.a. auch im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Ausnahmen nach § 51 dUrhG) für unsere Artikel zur Verfügung, wenn es wer anders nimmt, muss er eben dafür sorgen, dass er das Urheberrecht einhält. Dass auch Wikipedia eine ganz besondere Stellung im Nutzen für die Allgemeinheit einnimmt, ist glaube ich allen bekannt. Dazu gehören natürlich auch die Bilder etc. Auch andere Biliotheken und Archive publizieren urheberrechtlich geschützte Bilder, meist indem sie auch angeben, dass bei einem bestimmten Bild keine freie Lizenz vorliegt. Dies hindert aber die Publikation an sich nicht. Denn es ist dies von historischem Interesse der Allgemeinheit. Also Du siehst, die Speicherung auch von Bildern mit Werken darauf, die eigentlich und grundsätzlich unter den Urheberrechtschutz fallen, wie Kirchenfenster etc., ist in Wikipedia ohne weiteres möglich. Denn dies ist eine Enzyklopädie. Ein Werk für die Allgemeinheit, geschaffen von der Allgemeinheit und frei nutzbar für jedermann.
- Lies auch mal nach: Schranken des Urheberrechts. Zu diesem Zweck hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber nämlich die §§ 44a bis 63a des UrhG geschaffen. Du kannst Dich noch weiter einlesen (aber vorsicht, da sind alle Worte wichtig, nicht etwas "überlesen"!): de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Urheberrecht und vor allem beachte, das diese Bilder auf einem amerikansichen Server liegen und nicht auf einem deutschen. Das verkompliziert bzw. teilweise vereinfacht die Sache auch.
- Natürlich gibt es da auch noch viele Graubereiche und wir müssen uns von der Rechtsprechung sicher noch überraschen lassen in Details. Denn gerade im Urheberrecht sind sich viele Juristen selbst nicht einig. Daher ist es auch mit Vorsicht zu betrachten, wenn in einem wissenschaftlichen Kommentar eine bestimmte Meinung vertreten wird, die ist oftmals nicht verallgemeinerbar. Das dies für einen Nichtjuristen uU schwer verständlich ist, ist leider Faktum und kann ich auch nicht ändern. Diese Graubereiche sind jedoch für Dich keine Rechtfertigung für irgendwelche Löschanträge. Denn diese Urteile greifen erst dann, und Wikipedia muss erst dann handeln, wenn ein Urteil wirklich vorliegt und konkret aussagt, was falsch ist. Dann kannst Du hier wiederkommen und Löschanträge stellen und es wird sich auch keiner dagegen wehren. SG Asurnipal (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hallo Asurnipal, hatte einen Volkshochschulkurs vor 10 Jahren besucht und muss nun feststellen, eine Nachschulung wäre dringend erforderlich gewesen. Ich werde Deinen Artikel genau prüfen und denke, das tut auch Martin, so dass er und wir zukünftig zum Nutzen für Wikipedia und nicht zum Schaden tätig werden. Ohne vorliegenden Gestzestext frage ich an, ob das, was für Glasfenster gilt auch Gemälde anwenbar ist. Aus meiner Sicht darf man zwar in der Galerie beispielweise Gemälde von Pechstein fotografieren (wenn kein Hausverbot) die aber auch nicht bei Wikipedia veröffentlichen. In den Commons Categoryseiten wird man darauf energisch mit großen Rotbuchstaben hingewiesen. Ich veröffentliche viele im Ausland aufgenommene Bilder. In Schweden gilt auch die Panoramefreiheit. Das dortige höchste Gericht hat entschieden, dass trotzden keine neueren Denkmäler im Außenbereich in den sozialen Medien (Facebook u.a.) veröffentlicht werden dürfen. Wikepedia warnte seine Nutzer, das gälte auch für Wikipedia. Da bleibt zukünfig wohl noch viel zu klären. Gruß, --Dguendel 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hallo Dguendel. § 51 dUrhG gilt für jedes Bildzitat. Falls in Museen, Ausstellungen, Präsentationen etc. jedoch ein Fotografier- und/oder Publikationsverbot besteht, kann diese gesetzliche Ausnahme nicht in Anspruch genommen werden. Dann ist es eben nicht möglich, das Bild rechtskonform hochzuladen. Ich frage selbst auch bei jedem Museum etc. im In- und Ausland nach, bevor ich Bilder mache und bislang habe ich noch jedesmal das o.k. bekommen. Manchmal eingeschränkt, aber die sind nach meiner Erfahrung eigentlich immer sehr froh, wenn ihre Einrichtung dokumentiert wird. Ab und zu muss ich die Bilder vor der Publikation in WP übersenden und nochmals von der Museumsleitung etc. freigeben lassen. Das ist aber ja kein Problem, dauert eben etwas. Und bislang wurde diese Freigabe von der Museumsleitung auch hier bei WP noch immer akzeptiert. Es ist dies ja für alle ein Gewinn. Für das Museum Werbung und kostenlose Dokumentation und Archivierung bzgl. einer Ausstellung, für den potentiellen Künstler ebenfalls kostenlose Werbung und für Wikipedia auch ein „Gewinn“, weil wir für unsere Artikel Bilder etc. zum Dokumentieren haben. Also, einfach fragen, das ist wirklich das einfachste. Da ich auch immer mit meiner Frau gemeinsam für WP fotografiere, habe ich auch automatisch jemanden als Zeugen dabei, für diese Freigabe.
- Die Gesetze und Rechtsprechung sind natürlich in jedem Land anders und diese wechselt auch dauernd und teilweise überraschend. Deswegen ist es auch so wichtig, nicht den Eintrag in Wikipedia heranzuziehen und zu vertrauen und auf Grundlage dieser einen Löschantrag zu stellen, sondern jedesmal nachzuprüfen, wie ist die aktuelle Rechtslage tatsächlich. Was heute gilt, kann morgen schon "Altpapier" sein, wie dies ja schon der Staatsanwalt Julius von Kirchmann 1848 festgestellt hat: "Drei berichtigende Worte des Gesetzgebers und ganze Bibliotheken werden zu Makulatur". Dies gilt noch viel mehr für die Rechtsprechung, die sich bei einer Neubesetzung eines Senates bereits maßgeblich ändern kann bzw. innerhalb verschiedener Senate eines Gerichtes unterschiedlich sein kann.
- Und wir sind bei WP auch nicht irgendwer. Wir sind das weltgrößte gemeinnützige Archiv für eine Enzyklopädie und die Menschheit, welches von Ehrenamtlichen erstellt wurde und nicht staatlich ist. Das sollte schon etwas stolz machen und gibt uns auch eine gewisse Sonderstellung im Vergleich zu anderen Enzyklopädien (meist Verlage) und Einrichtungen, die oft gewinnorientiert sind oder nur kleine Bereiche abdecken. Und wir sind auch Bewahrer von Informationen. So habe ich z. B. mit meiner Frau die Exponate im Top Mountain Motorcycle Museum vor dem Brand umfassend dokumentiert und kann diese Oldtimer-Motorräder nun, nachdem das Museum am 18. Januar 2021 abgebrannt ist und viele der einzigartigen Exponate unwiederbringlich zerstört sind, diese der Nachwelt zumindest als Bilder erhalten. Und die Museumsleitung war hocherfreut, als wir uns gemeldet haben und hat einer Publikation schon längst zugestimmt.
- Dein Beispiel von Schweden kann ich nicht nachvollziehen, weil ich dazu keine vertiefenden Informationen habe. Ob und inwieweit dies zutrifft, und ob Wikipedia wirklich mit facebook-Veröffentlichungen im Sinne dieser Richterspruchs vergleichbar ist, müsste vertieft geprüft werden. Was ich sicher sagen kann, dass auch hier bei WP sehr viele Leute was schreiben und vor was warnen, ohne Juristen zu sein und ohne einen oder besser mehrere Juristen aus dem betreffenden Land zu befragen. Oftmals sind die Informationen auch einfach alt und werden nicht aktualisiert. Dass es dann zu Fehlinterpretationen kommt, ist ja logisch. Oftmals wird auch nur ein Beitrag aus irgendwelchen Zeitungen als Beleg herangezogen. Im Endeffekt bezieht sich dann eine solche Warnung in WP darauf, was ein Journalist in einem Land in irgendeiner Form verstanden hat. Dass Journalisten nicht alle in juristischen Dingen bestens ausgebildete Fachleute sind, ist glaube ich bekannt. Fachleute sind nicht einmal alle Juristen. Wir sollten mE einfach mal aufhören, dieses wichtige Thema vom Hörensagen und auf solche fragwürdigen Quellen zu stützen und vielmehr vor Ort Leute suchen, die hier helfen können. Das gilt nicht für alle Länder, aber leider viel zu viele. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Anwendbarkeit des UrhG bei Glasfenstern in Kirchen| Richtig ist, dass nur in Österreich Bilder von Glasfenster formal nicht unter das UrhG fallen. Darauf kommt es bei den zum Löschen voergesehenen Bildern aber nicht an. Das UhhG ist deshalb geschaffen worden, um Künster nicht um Einnahmen aus der Verwertung ihrer Objekte zu bringen. Die Einahme der Künstler bestand aus der Rechnung, die sie dem Kirchenamt gestellt haben. Gesetze haben einen Zweck, nämlich den Schutz des Künstlers. Da dieser keinen weiteren finanziellen Nutzen aus seinen Werken ziehen kann, entfällt der Schutzzweck des Gesetzes und dieses soll daher nicht angewendet werden. Da in den Kirchen meistens moderne Fenster und ggf. Kerzenleuchter herumstehen, verhindert die bei der Wikipedia z.Z. angewandte Praxis faktisch das Veröffentlichen von Fotos von Kirchenräumen, verhindert Wissensverbreitung und schädigt u.U. sogar den Künstler, der durch die Verbreitung seiner Werke bekannter werden könnte. Außerdem schafft das Frust und führt dazu, dass sich weitere User von Wikipedia abwenden. Damit geht es nämlich schon spürbar bergab. Ich bitte, das mal zu verinnerlichen !!! --Dguendel 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination deleted 4, kept 3 because these are considered De Minimis. Template added to the file pages. As an admin I have to act according COM:FOP Germany, please discuss the general guideline there, to change it if the community agrees. --Elly (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RZuo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of the claimed youtube-cc licence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JW3HcU9bo Genium (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a screenshot of a video produced and published by Red Hat on May 9, 2018 under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. So I think it is not necessary to provide the Youtube link provided by this template as suggested by RZuo. Genium (talk)
- afaict:
- screenshot comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JW3HcU9bo
- author (copyright holder) of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JW3HcU9bo is Red Hat.
- (at 18m23s of the video you can actually see the video is cc-by-nodev -> Delete)
- Red Hat is not the same as the Public Lab.
- the Public Lab is not the copyright holder of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JW3HcU9bo , so https://publiclab.org/licenses doesnt apply.--RZuo (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- at 18m23s of the video you can actually see the video is 'cc, not cc by-nc-nd !
- Red Hat Open Source Stories: The Science of Collective Discovery, May 9, 2018 : cc means : « This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. »
- And they add the following notice : «Specific works on this site may be released or dedicated under different licenses, but only if such alternatives are clearly indicated by their authors.» which is not the case. Genium (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- afaict:
Hey, this file is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Qbrt (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I checked the source of the image, this youtube film. At 18.23 it shows this symbol, File:Cc-by-nd icon.svg
Files uploaded by Camiloeditor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work, single upload, no original source and permission.
Smooth O (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't varify the original source of the photo. The picture is availble in many sites. Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Single upload, no EXIF data, looks like a screenshot. Smooth O (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. uploader did not comment. --Elly (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
_LE_GRELLE_et_ctesse_(G%C3%A9rard)_LE_GRELLE_n%C3%A9e_Annette_van_Lancker.jpg){kind=link}
_LE_GRELLE_et_ctesse_(G%C3%A9rard)_LE_GRELLE_n%C3%A9e_Annette_van_Lancker.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a painting which most likely is not the work of the uploader. No information is provided regarding the copyright status of the painting. AFBorchert (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: old painting in PD. --Elly (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No information is provided regarding the copyright status of the depicted stained glass. AFBorchert (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: stained glass window in public domain. --Elly (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No information is provided regarding the copyright status of the depicted coat of arms. AFBorchert (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert Information has been added, please check. The author died in 1861, so this work is in the public domain. Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly PD-old, I was so bold to remove the delete request from the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Elly (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No copyright status is provided regarding the depicted stained glass windows. AFBorchert (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: windows are in PD, but I suspect the photo is made by somebody else. Deleted per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No information is provided regarding the copyright status of the depicted coat of arms. AFBorchert (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: old design of family weapon, PD-art license added. --Elly (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This photo of fr:Maxime Le Grelle was surely not taken in 2020 as claimed. It appears likewise unlikely that this is the original work of the uploader. AFBorchert (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not comment. VRT procedure is required. --Elly (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Really in Egyptian public domain??
The file is an audio performance of Allahu Akbar, which it's composition and lyrics was done by 2 Egyptians in 1954-1955 (Also refer to the corresponding English Wikipedia article). As per Template:PD-Egypt (B), an Egyptian work is only in U.S. public domain if it is published before 1926 or author died before 1946, in which the notation of the song fails. The file is therefore locally copyrightable, and won't be in U.S. public domain. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Template:PD-US-not renewed is only applicable to U.S. works (or explaining why the work is in U.S. public domain), and doesn't contain an appropriate local (Egyptian) copyright template.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of Croatia
[edit]Per: COM:CUR Croatia
Smooth O (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo of fr:Ferdinand Le Grelle who died in 1895. This is surely not the work of the uploader as claimed. Nor was this photo taken in 2020. No information is provided regarding the copyright status of this photo. AFBorchert (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: photo is in PD, made before 1895. Other license added on file page. --Elly (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Some images in the montage was deleted A1Cafel (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative work of copyrighted elements. --Elly (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ivory Coast A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The architect of this work, w:Pierre Fakhoury, is still alive. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Elly (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
дубль File:Менделеев в Аремзянке, 1899.png Леонид Макаров (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion per COM:DUPE. Photo is editted and changed in color. --Elly (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Unknown copyright status. The file was originally misidentified (what it depicts was thought to have not existed after 1923), but now we just know that it is before 1946, which isn't good enough. WT79 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Kerr, Stuart & Co locomotive Princess was built in 1900 and scrapped before 1931, as shown in en:Campbeltown and Machrihanish Light Railway. Locomotives are often photographed directly after being commmissioned, and - at least - it looks still young on this photo. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ooops: Now I see that it might be another loco at all. The renaming procedure was apparently hampered by a gap before the brackets. I could find the reference that is mentioned in the renaming request. As it appears to be another loco, I have removed from the article. If it was built in 1902, it has been most likely been photographed and published before 1926. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, because the photo was taken on the Snailbeach Rly (according to the source) we know it must have been taken after 1923 (when the loco arrived there) and before 1946 (when the loco was last used). It is not likely to be from the later years, as there was usually not as much traffic then as is portrayed, but we don't know. I'm not an expert on that railway; maybe if there's someone who is they could identify its age more accurately, but I'm assuming copyright to be on the safe side. WT79 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ooops: Now I see that it might be another loco at all. The renaming procedure was apparently hampered by a gap before the brackets. I could find the reference that is mentioned in the renaming request. As it appears to be another loco, I have removed from the article. If it was built in 1902, it has been most likely been photographed and published before 1926. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion, can be undeleted 2067, 120 years after the photo was taken, on the safe side.. . --Elly (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; artist Gretler died in 2018. Martin Sg. (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Martin Sg.: Gretler is not the artist (he was born 1937), only the collector. The picture is dated 1900! Please withdraw the deletion request. Thank you --Hadi (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- sorry. error. just undid the deletion request. Martin Sg. (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: mistaken nomination, DR closed without further action. --Elly (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
If I understand the license information correctly, the uploader is claiming that this is a photo of a photo. It's not clear to me who the author of the original photo is. The license claims that the original is in the public domain, but according to the chart in the license template that would only be true if it was from 1955 or earlier. According to the description, this photo is from 1977. Mo Billings (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Elly (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; artist died in 1976; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Glasmalerei Evangelium und Offenbarung Johannis (Max Hunziker 1960-61) 01.jpg
- File:Glasmalerei Evangelium und Offenbarung Johannis (Max Hunziker 1960-61) 02.jpg
- File:Glasmalerei Evangelium und Offenbarung Johannis (Max Hunziker 1960-61) 04.jpg
- File:Glasmalerei Evangelium und Offenbarung Johannis (Max Hunziker 1960-61) 06.jpg
- File:Glasmalerei Evangelium und Offenbarung Johannis (Max Hunziker 1960-61) 07.jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in churches in Germany per COM:FOP Germany. Can be undeleted in 2047.. --Elly (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation, artist died in 1976; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-20-38 ShiftN.jpg
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-21-04.JPG
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-21-12.JPG
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-21-20.JPG
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-23-00 ShiftN.jpg
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-09-10 16-24-20.JPG
- File:Zürich - Wollishofen - Alte Kirche IMG 0676.JPG
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination deleted most, one could be kept because the windows are de minimis. De minimis template added on file page. --Elly (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)