Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/02/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Poor quality (bad alignment of oxygen atom, low resolution, pixelated), replaced by File:Structural formula of cyclohexyl isocyanate.svg. Leyo 09:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
this is not the right logo Mediakokic (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of deleted File:Østfold.jpg ("no source since 16 January 2019"). If the original could not stay, this has to got too. Jahobr (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Recreation of a file previously speedy deleted as missing permission — Racconish 💬 10:41, 27 February 2021
Это Портрет Абакара-Хаджи Акушинского, автор Тимур Кагиров, Абакар-Хаджи был мудиром.
Comment We do not need a description of the file but a permission of the painter. No indication of such permission at source. — Racconish 💬 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
my brother picture, so he is not interested Aliyimahammad (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
falsche Bezeichnung 213.162.80.32 11:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bad file name is no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader wish Ticket:2021022110005617 . --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The source (see https://archive.is/o8tf/image) says that the building was built in 1892, not that the photo is from 1892. There's also no CC license there, so that is bogus. Without any real information about the date and the author of this photo, the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 11:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
bitte aus familieren Gründen löschen 213.162.80.32 11:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
aus persöhnlichen gründen 213.162.80.32 11:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
aus persönlichen gründen 213.162.80.32 11:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was uploaded for testing. It violates my right to privacy. Firuze Nesibli (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was uploaded for testing. It violates my right to privacy. It is also an unused file. Firuze Nesibli (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Silinsin (delete). --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was uploaded for testing. It violates my right to privacy. It is also an unused file. Firuze Nesibli (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Silinsin (delete). --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was uploaded for testing. It violates my right to privacy. It is also an unused file. Firuze Nesibli (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING, the main subject in this photo is the packaging, which is too complex to fall below the threshold of originality. The details are neither minimal nor incidental, and is therefore an unacceptable derivative work.
ƏXPLICIT 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This photo is from 17 January 1972 and is not copyrighted. see Template:PD-old & Template:PD-Pakistan. Humancommons (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
dubious authorship (most likely the uploader does not have the right to give the image under the CC license) Khinkali (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Logo and promotional artwork for the Turl Street Arts Festival: unclear whether this was uploaded by a festival organiser formally releasing this artwork under a CC licence, or a random member of the public ("User:Wiki2900", no other edits, no name provided for the original artist of this work) bringing the wiki page up to date without thinking about copyright.
Lord Belbury (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cmsmusicbr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contribs to any wm project.
- File:Gaby Gabo Capa.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo Ensaio.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo capa singles.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo capa entrevista.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo EP.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo cd.jpg
- File:Gaby Gabo.jpg
Achim (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Südlohn am 18. Oktober 1987 - Sonderfahrt des Eisenbahnclub Stadtlohn mit Fahrzeugen der NIAG Moers.jpg
[edit]Copyright misunderstanding Hannsg.logitech (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright confusion Hannsg.logitech (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope image of an underage person. kyykaarme (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
évidement Arroser (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
suppression ? Arroser (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oui, delete per nom. --E4024 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
this picture is a duplicate. Jakob48 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected. --JuTa 04:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Low res photo from an uploader with a history of copyvios Ytoyoda (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Clear copyvio downloaded from this source:https://www.facebook.com/101320695147833/posts/151610603452175/.119.160.118.179 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, COM:COPYVIO. -- CptViraj (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sundarsonkarhariharpur (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This file had already been speedy-deleted per F10, re-upload. E4024 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shamsunnaharshila1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Bad image quality Derbrauni (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 01:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joel pacheco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal image.
Mitte27 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joel pacheco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s). Out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 00:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Used as a placeholder on enwiki's talkpage. No useful global contributions. Minoraxtalk 00:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
- File:Umut aleye bakıyor.jpg
- File:Umut manzara izliyor.jpg
- File:Umut foto cekiniyor.jpg
- File:Umut ormana gitti.jpg
- File:Umutun karnını doyurmaya gittiği resim .jpg
- File:UMUT SAYAN VESİKALIK.jpg
- File:BİTİŞ1.jpg
- File:Umut Sayan.jpg
Minoraxtalk 00:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 00:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
small, low res, unlikely to be own work Minoraxtalk 00:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MilanNarwade (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
- File:Milan Narwade.jpg
- File:Milan narwade.jpg
- File:Milan narwade pic.jpg
- File:Milan Pic shendra.jpg
- File:Milan narwade leni pic.jpg
- File:Milan Narwade pic .jpg
- File:Milan budhha leni pic..jpg
Minoraxtalk 00:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pernot laurent (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
- File:Laurent Pernot.png
- File:Chef Laurent Pernot.png
- File:Laurent Pernot (Paris).png
- File:Chef de cuisine Laurent Pernot.jpg
- File:Laurent Pernot (belle île).png
- File:Laurent Pernot (Grece).jpg
- File:Laurent Pernot (Italie).jpg
Minoraxtalk 00:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, apparent personal photo by non contributor. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hunterfelde (talk · contribs)
[edit]Used for self promo on enwp
- File:Hunter with a real wolf.jpg
- File:Hunter Felde .jpg
- File:Hunter Felde.jpg
- File:Hunter Felde posing with The Ringmaster at Queen Mary"s Dark Harbor.jpg
Minoraxtalk 00:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juan Fernando Aguilar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 00:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 00:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Used for promo on enwiki. out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TraxLegend (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 01:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angel El Siblani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 01:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ABUL FARAK MOLLA (FARAK) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photo(s), out of scope.
Minoraxtalk 01:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 01:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
out of scope Minoraxtalk 04:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
self promo on enwp Minoraxtalk 04:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No permission, see File:Sibtain Raza.jpg Minoraxtalk 04:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No permission, see File:Sibtain Raza.png Minoraxtalk 04:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This screenshot does not have any educational purpose, or any purpose in general. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:B5C6:2973:87ED:A9CE 06:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep I am working on a toolforge tool which can export pages as png files. This is an example image for the documentation -FASTILY 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This screenshot does not have any educational purpose, or any purpose in general. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:B5C6:2973:87ED:A9CE 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I am working on a tool forge tool which can export pages as png files. This is an example image for the documentation -FASTILY 01:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Personal file, serves no purpose. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:B5C6:2973:87ED:A9CE 07:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is the original, uncropped version of File:Will Guitar cropped.JPG (an in-use file on enwp). Retaining this is necessary to preserve attribution. -FASTILY 00:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:David auris villegas- biblioteca-virtual.jpg
- File:David-auris-villegas-twitter.jpg
- File:Auris enero 2019-señal-de-alerta.jpg
- File:Academia-david-auris-villegas.jpg
- File:David-auris-villegas-medium.jpg
- File:W. David Auris Villegas-Fandom.jpg
- File:Undiacualquier-david-auris-villegas.png
- File:David-auris-villegas-educacion.png
- File:David-auris-villegas-una-tarde-de-junio.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Non-free book cover.
- File:Como-redactar-articulos-cientificos-escritor-david-auris-villegas.png
- File:Cuentos-de-medianoche-escritor-david-auris-villegas.png
- File:Mañana-al-despertar-piensa-en-mí - David Auris Villegas.jpg
- File:Minicuentos-para-soñar-David-Auris-VIllegas.gif
- File:Estrategias-didacticas-de-comprension-lectora-para-la-vida.png
(｀・ω・´) (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Without exif information, it is unlikely to be uploader's own work.
(｀・ω・´) (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Paolo Paschetto
[edit]
Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2027: Paolo Paschetto (1885-1956)
- File:Doppiasoprastampa.JPG
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0299 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0302X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0304 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0306X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0308 pm B002b.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0309 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0311 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0312 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0313 pm B002b.jpg
- File:ITA 1944 MiNr0642 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0715 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1946 MiNr0719 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0718 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1951 MiNr0855 pm B002b.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Paolo Paschetto
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps by, Paolo Antonio Paschetto (1885–1956) who is attributed on some of these stamps are copyright until 2027.
- File:GNRItaly1943Michel3.jpg
- File:Isole-jonie.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr00313 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0299 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0302X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0304X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0306X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0308X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0309X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0311X pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0312 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1929 MiNr0314 pm B002b.jpg
- File:ITA 1943 MiNrMP05 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1944 MiNr0642 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1944 MiNr0646 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0306Y mt B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0675 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0679Y pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0679Z pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0680Z pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0687 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0691A pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0705 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0707 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0709 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0715 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1946 MiNr0719 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0718 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-AMG-VG 1945 MiNrTR09 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-AMG-VG 1945 MiNrTR10 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1947 MiNr0004 mt B002a.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1949 MiNr0094 pm B002.jpg
- File:MilitaryStampItaly1943Michel1.jpg
- File:StampZadar1943Michel1.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Alfredo Lalia
[edit] Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2042: Alfredo Lalia (1907-1971)
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0706 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0710 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0714 pm B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Alfredo Lalia
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps by, Alfredo Lalia (1907–1971) who is attributed on some of the stamps are copyright until 2042.
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0682 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0688A pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0697A pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0706 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0710 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1946 MiNr0686A pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0714 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1948 MiNr0696 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-AMG-VG 1946 MiNrTR25 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1947 MiNr0002 mt B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Photo taken of an image on the PC or TV screen. Probably, not own work. Yuraily Lic (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a useless personal photo by a probable vandal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a useless personal photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in COM:IRAN 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 21:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nepo Mall - Angeles City
[edit]This mall was opened in 2002 by Juan D. Nepomuceno Sons, Inc. ([1]). Freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law, and a need to authorize licensing from the architect is required.
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 29.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 30.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 31.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 32.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
- However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
- On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
- When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
- I am not 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
- It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Started of Mass Deletion, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
- If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
- Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
- As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Nomination, including your legal sayings are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in law and fact;
- Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
- Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Mirrored reply @Judgefloro: that's wrong. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention. Accordingly, all copyrights exist from the moment a building or sculpture becomes fixed (completed/unveiled). That is what is indicated at the Berne Convention, of which the Philippines joined in 1951. And take note, in their webpage IPOPHL still said that "Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit." It's still optional. And I believe that even courts will say that, because removing the attainment of copyright from the moment of creation and reistating formalities like you claim is equivalent to the country's breach of the treaty it joined in 1951 and our violation of WIPO agreements. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention, and hence all types of formalities like you claim have become optional. Instead of rants, just contact the copyright holders (the architects) and ask if they want and agree to license your images of their buildings under commercial licensing. See COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 12:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I apologize. I was wrong to upload this on midnight of last November 29 2020. This contains a rallyist's banner with underlying image of Pope St. John Paul II. There is no applicable FOP yet in the Philippines, and even if the copyright law amendment bill is now pending, this appears to be a temporal work and may not he covered (the proposed provision is based on Australian FOP and requires permanence). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 09:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Por motivos pessoais História do Porto (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Uso de imagem particular Lokal333 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep File cannot be deleted with the rationale provided above. A source should at least be specified. --Minoraxtalk 13:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. No source, no author. That way the file cannot stay in Commons. Taivo (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Já existe outra imagem Semelhante Larissa2024 (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:NewPoint Mall - Angeles City
[edit]This mall was opened in 2016 by Juan D. Nepomuceno Sons, Inc. ([2]). Freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law, and a need to authorize licensing from the architect is required.
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 01.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 02.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 03.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 04.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 05.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 06.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 07.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 08.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 09.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 10.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 16.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 17.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 18.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 19.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 21.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 22.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 23.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 24.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 25.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 26.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 27.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 28.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
- However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
- On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
- When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
- I am not 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
- It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Started of Mass Deletion, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
- If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
- Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
- As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Nomination, including your legal sayings are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in law and fact;
- Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
- Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: that's wrong. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention. Accordingly, all copyrights exist from the moment a building or sculpture becomes fixed (completed/unveiled). That is what is indicated at the Berne Convention, of which the Philippines joined in 1951. And take note, in their webpage IPOPHL still said that "Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit." It's still optional. And I believe that even courts will say that, because removing the attainment of copyright from the moment of creation and reistating formalities like you claim is equivalent to the country's breach of the treaty it joined in 1951 and our violation of WIPO agreements. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention, and hence all types of formalities like you claim have become optional. Instead of rants, just contact the copyright holders (the architects) and ask if they want and agree to license your images of their buildings under commercial licensing. See COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:03, 28
February 2021 (UTC)
- a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete concur with nomination provided. Markoolio97 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
OTRS needed Veverve (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Can be restored after permission is obtained via OTRS. --Mhhossein talk 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anonymous.543906 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos missing useful source information.
- File:Dick McGuire.png
- File:Terry Dischinger.jpg
- File:Ray-scott.jpg
- File:Richie.jpg
- File:Jim king.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Philippines, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirect should be deleted to give way for a deleted file on the same name (as a contingency measure in case FOP is now introduced here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- update: Last instance of use of this redirect, at "User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2015 May 28 06:00#TRAPICHON (49 edits)", has been fixed ("File:UP.jpg" ➡️ "File:UP nature.jpg"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Golden Profit Building Apalit
[edit]Freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law, and a need to authorizw licensing from the architect is required.
- File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 07.jpg
- File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 39.jpg
- File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 40.jpg
- File:9565MacArthur Highway San Vicente Sulipan, Apalit, Pampanga 41.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
- However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
- On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
- When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
- I am not 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
- It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Started of Mass Deletion, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
- If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
- Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
- As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Nomination, including your legal sayings are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in law and fact;
- Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
- Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Judgefloro: that's wrong. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention. Accordingly, all copyrights exist from the moment a building or sculpture becomes fixed (completed/unveiled). That is what is indicated at the Berne Convention, of which the Philippines joined in 1951. And take note, in their webpage IPOPHL still said that "Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit." It's still optional. And I believe that even courts will say that, because removing the attainment of copyright from the moment of creation and reistating formalities like you claim is equivalent to the country's breach of the treaty it joined in 1951 and our violation of WIPO agreements. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention, and hence all types of formalities like you claim have become optional. Instead of rants, just contact the copyright holders (the architects) and ask if they want and agree to license your images of their buildings under commercial licensing. See COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Concur with COM:FOP argument. Markoolio97 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 07:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that Time of India has licensed this as CCA Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Because the image quality is poor Keita.Honda (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by CptViraj at 09:45, 5 April 2021 UTC: G2: Broken redirect --Krdbot 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Exif info show this image original source is Google, obviously not upload own work. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Voy a subir otra foto mejor que ésta. Whoman99 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Photo dirti Whoman99 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Not dirty enough to justify deletion. If there’s a better one, lets have it first. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I see no reason to delete, but it is the uploader's request within the first week of upload; therefore it may be deleted. --E4024 (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Whoman99, por qué no olvida este tema y sigue subiendo otras fotos? Este pedido suyo va a tomar su tiempo, no repita su petición pf, solamente espere. Salu2. E4024 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload (nominated within 1 week). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It is offensive TessFontana (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep if we deleted images here cause it offended people, we would have nothing left. --Stemoc 10:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Interesting. What about my food pictures? Delete (not my food pics :) --E4024 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Metadata credits werner kuhnle Ytoyoda (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Cropped screenshot from a video game. – Rhain ☔ 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Photo taken of an image on the PC or TV screen, probably. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Commercial. E4024 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Commercial. E4024 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 14:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pont de Térénez (2011) 1
[edit]No FOP in France.
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (10).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (11).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (12).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (13).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (14).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (15).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (16).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (2).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (4).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (5).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (6).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (7).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (8).jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez.jpg
- File:Pont de Térénez - Pylône 3.jpg
- File:Pont de Térénez - Vue rive gauche.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez 2013-08-28 2019.jpg
- File:Pont de Térénez 53.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez vue ouest brume.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez.JPG
Thesupermat (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Commentaires
Ces photos présentent pour la plupart soit le pont vu de très loin (pour l'une ; éléments dans le paysage).. soit des éléments techniques et structurels (pas une sculpture ou une peinture décorative ou artistique, ni des photos prises de près montrant les boulons ou secrets de fabrication..) qui pourraient illustrer les articles de Wikipédia y afférents, et/ou le sujet de la photo est clairement un "chantier de construction" (ce n'est pas une oeuvre d'art terminée). Je pense que ces photos là (de loin et visiblement de chantier) peuvent être conservées.
Il n'y a pas de vue complète du pont, ou d'une partie de l'oeuvre achevée... (telle que voulue par l'architecte)...
Mais on pourrait juger que quelques photos sont trop proches de l'oeuvre finale imaginée par l'architecte, elles pourraient être supprimées ou conservées en attendant 70 ans après la mort de l'architecte (si commons existe encore alors) :
- Pont de Térénez.JPG
- Pont de Térénez 2013-08-28 2019.jpg
Sinon.. si l'on veut être plus royaliste que le roi.. tout supprimer, mais à ce compte, on va vider Wikipédia de ses illustrations être obligé - pour protéger le droit des designers et d'autres plasticiens créateurs - de supprimer toutes les photos de navires, avions, fusées, voitures et camions dont les dessinateurs/designers ne sont pas morts depuis plus de 70 ans (exemple : File:Festival automobile international 2011 - Mercedes CLS 350 - 02.jpg ou File:Festival automobile international 2011 - BMW Mille Miglia - 01.jpg et des dizaines ou centaines de milliers d'autres).
--F. Lamiot (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Bonjour, Effectivement, le manque de liberté de panorama est un problème en France. En attendant, ce type de fichier est régulièrement supprimé de Commons. Bonne fin de journée. --Thesupermat (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pont de Térénez (2011) 2
[edit]No FOP in France. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Viaduc de Millau for the eligibility of French bridges to be objects of French copyright. Also included are two images of the bridge during its final construction phases but have shown significant details (e.g. the towers).
- File:010 Térénez.jpg
- File:20110822 Pont de Térénez (9).jpg
- File:France Bretagne 29 PONT DE TERENEZ 01.jpg
- File:France Bretagne 29 PONT DE TERENEZ 02.jpg
- File:France Bretagne 29 PONT DE TERENEZ 03.jpg
- File:Pont de Térénez - Fnistère - France.jpg
- File:Pont de Térénez vue en hauteur.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pont de Térénez (2011)
[edit]The bridge was completed in 2011 by Charles Lavigne (1944–2005). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2076.
- File:Pont de Térénez 54.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez 56.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez vue courbure.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez vue est brume.JPG
- File:Pont de Térénez vue nord-est.JPG
A1Cafel (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:Pont de Térénez 56.JPG as de minimis, Delete the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
No EXIF + TR code; most probably not an "own work" as claimed. E4024 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: per the "withme" in the image, it is unlikely that this was taken by the uploader. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Scene from "Tales From the Clock Tower." Per derivative work unless I'm incorrect. BriefEdits (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Metadata says © Ke'er Orr all rights reserved Ytoyoda (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete unless Xenen1970 can take care of the procedures laid out at Commons:OTRS, particularly those stated at "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
grabbed from the web: http://infokult.al/tradita-historia-dhe-kultura-e-elbasanit-ne-tirane/ Albinfo (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
File:The fourth online lecture series was broadcasted from the University of Cambridge and the Universidad Nacional de Cañete to members of the public. - Webinar 4 Luis De Los Santos Valladares - Mag. Miriam Vilca Arana.png
[edit]Out of project scope. (｀・ω・´) (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PinkfongBabyShark (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaded the same day to Flickr and Commons, the fresh Flickr account has no other files since. The original source is not clear but it looks like Commons:Flickrwashing.
TFerenczy (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The building housing this consultancy is also the building of the NewPoint Mall of Angeles, opened in 2016 by Juan D. Nepomuceno Sons, Inc. ([3]). Freedom of panorama is not yet provided in the copyright law, and a need to authorize licensing from the architect is required.
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 16.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 21.jpg
- File:9848Santo Rosario Angeles City 23.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions in My Talk Pages by Herein Mass Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited a) Legal, b) Moral Reasons and in the c) LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia
- CONSOLIDATED Strongest CONTINUING Legal Objection Ever to the Non-Stop Mass Deletions Requests by herein Nominator: Counter-argument: the Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases which aimed for Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship; it was participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- The Supreme Court solely interprets the law when a ripe case reaches it via Stare Decision or Obiter Dictum;
- However, its S.C. Circulars and Memoranda especially En Banc is Law; it is not mere interpretation but obeying its Constitutional Mandate on its Judicial Supremacy; now, the MOMENT has come, UNPRECEDENTED that it was joined by Great Minds including the "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
- Your statement that "SC circular you're pertaining to cannot overwrite Sec. 172.2, xxx is highly misplaced and without any legal support; for the cited 2019 Circular never erased or even interpreted the law but it IMPLEMENTS it enumerating the Formal and Substantive Requirement;
- On your statement that my "your interpretation of the burden of evidence xxx", I submitted to the Commons Community my Legal Treatise, as User with One Vote, like anyone here, even if I am a Wikimedia Lawyer and Judge; for I hold that I leave the legal policies to foreign Wikimedia Lawyers to vote on Deletion and Non-Deletion;
- When a Nominator tags for Deletion, even say he or she is an administrator or mere user, as such, he or she cannot be the Prosecutor, the Arbiter, the Trial Judge and Justice who will decide on deletion or keeping; it would turn Commons to “Juez de Cuchillo” - “Law of the Knife”, a Juez de Cuchillo or moral farce, Censorship so to speak;
- I am 6 of Commons most active editor and uploader; but in my totalt al edit count: 1,700,373+ user has been on Wikimedia Commons for 13 years, 8 months and 2 days, I do Upload and few edits but ZERO tagging of Deletions; I leave that matter to Commons Community;
- It is a sad day for Commons if a) the Smart One b) a Check user previously on hold c) and now, a Starter of Mass Deletion Requests, flooding my talk pages with Mass Deletions on FOP:
- If you argue via discussion that I am legally wrong, my fish vendor and hired Trike Drivers joined many open mouths and told me this or that, but they do not have Evidence;
- Any one can cherry pick Commons Policies to tailormade their stance, however, the Supreme Court and the IPO et Bureau of Copyright already Spoke fully implementing the FOP rules on Copyright Infringement;
- As Legal Challenge, I demand you to Email the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights and submit all my Legal Contradictions to your Stance, put your cards on the table, since in the Webinar and Communications I had, they are open to Reply as Mandated by the Strict provisions of R.A. 6713, and then let the IPO and Bureau of Copyrights Rule as to Whose Legal Stance on FOP on Commons Uploading is Correct Mine or Yours; then and there, if it will say Delete, then I will appeal the matter to the IBP and or DOJ Secretary for final ruling; Commons is not in a hurry to Grant or Deny your Mass Deletions Request; Commons administrators do Balance the Rights of Commons, the benefits to the Cultural Heritage of Filipinos and the Commons Policies;
- I respectfully quote the following Verba and Important Notes of Commons Administrators on the matter:
- " Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?
- Vide: Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago of Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines. Letter to Intellectual Property Office (Philippines) IPO Director General Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) 6 pages Letter from Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. or User:Judgefloro regardings Commons:Freedom of panorama specifically Freedom of panorama Philippines Re: Request for a Definitive Opinion on Freedom of panorama concerning Wikimedia Commons Photography - Uploading - Publishing vis-a-vis the IP Code of the Philippines (Act No. 8293) (2015 Edition), Chapter VIII ("Limitations on copyright) which does not appear to make any exception for photographs of copyrighted works. This letter is mailed today via LBC mail as evidenced by Category:LBC Express receipts Very sincerely yours, Judgefloro 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator, I underscore, for clarity's sake - Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator are NULL and VOID ab Initio as they are a) Unlawful under Philippine Laws, and b) contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
- The Mass Deletion Requests by herein Nominator is a Virtual and Desperate Attempt to Erase Valued Images or Most Important Cultural Heritage Treasures of the Philippines from Commons Ownership without any Valid Legal Basis, but just mere copy paste citations or Provisos of Laws, without any Jurisprudential Support - to be specific - rather trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted ...
- In-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions;
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, your Mass Nominations for Deletions, including your legal sayings without any Jurisprudential either Phil or US are hereby DENIED with finality for utter lack of merit in Philippines Law and Fact;
- In line with foregoing Legal Discussions I humbly beg the Commons Community to Put on Hold and or DEFER Any and All Mass Nominations for Deletions of Herein Nominator; I humbly Suggest that Any User of Commons may Re-Nominate Objectively and in Line with the cited Legal, Moral Reasons and in the LIGHT OF the Universal Code of Conduct of Users inter alia;
- Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or delete; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
- Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objections EVER to the Requested Mass Non-Stop Deletions of herein Nominator and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Mirrored reply @Judgefloro: that's wrong. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention. Accordingly, all copyrights exist from the moment a building or sculpture becomes fixed (completed/unveiled). That is what is indicated at the Berne Convention, of which the Philippines joined in 1951. And take note, in their webpage IPOPHL still said that "Recordation or deposit of your works isn’t necessary but authors and artists may opt to execute an affidavit of ownership with the National Library or the IPOPHL for the issuance of recordation and deposit." It's still optional. And I believe that even courts will say that, because removing the attainment of copyright from the moment of creation and reistating formalities like you claim is equivalent to the country's breach of the treaty it joined in 1951 and our violation of WIPO agreements. We are a signatory to the Berne Convention, and hence all types of formalities like you claim have become optional. Instead of rants, just contact the copyright holders (the architects) and ask if they want and agree to license your images of their buildings under commercial licensing. See COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believed, I never filed or would ever file any Undeletions Requests, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the corridors of the DOJ, the IPO and or Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. COM:FOP unless proper OTRS is accomplished for this. Markoolio97 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Explicit. --Minoraxtalk 15:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
As per COM:ADVERT , self promotion Ts12rAc (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Création personnelle, version obsolète, remplacée par une image en .png Ursus (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Création personnelle, remplacée par une autre version en .png Ursus (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Textures stated to be from sketchpad 5.1, but there is no evidence of an accepted free licence on the licensing page or on the terms of service Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader's history of copyright violations. It's also difficult to read due to poor contrast choices. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:48, 18 April 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) 14:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Historical photo, likely not the uploader's own work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Clearfrienda (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of a cc license at source. artwork would need OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: low quality photo of domesticated rabbit. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_SvobodaNews.ru_(RFERL).jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_925-3208.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&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§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
No such flag in Germany. This is an incomplete rebuild of a commercial product [4]. Probably copyright infringement. The file is not used in any of the wikimedia projects. Please delete. Willi P (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Probably copyright infringement: [[5]]. The file is not used in any of the wikimedia projects. Please delete. Willi P (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I had replace the file with a existing flag (which is a monochrome version of the national flag) that you find in black and white photos. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- You still gave no reason for keeping those files on commons. They are not used in any of the other projects. Without colour most flags such as tricolour flags are of no use at all; they could easily be confused with other grayscaled flags of the same type. This is just not a private repository for your sketches. Willi P (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in unapproved draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PiątaKolumna (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
And who do you think posted it? --PiątaKolumna (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- You could upload photos in original camera resolution with EXIF to proof your authorship. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, what you mean. I don't understand. I am a LP fan, I collect those photos with all rights form y friends all around the world. They're given to my and I can do whatever I want do do with them, according to their words. LP fans are a global community and everyone wants to share their photos, so everynone can discover amaizing LP.
--PiątaKolumna (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
As per COM:ADVERT , self promotion Ts12rAc (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
COM:PORN 2A02:8108:50BF:C694:69D3:96EA:6E4D:FE1F 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Used to test VideoCutTool; Result - Works Well! Gopavasanth (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Game under copyright. Copyvio. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Game under copyright. Copyvio. 運動会プロテインパワー (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User talk:Jennilara580
[edit]OTRS agent (verify): I suspect a Flickr washing case. Even when in Flickr the files have a free license, these are almost the only files of the uploader- same who's editing the Wikipedia in Spanish article of the singer. Even when the customer says these are her own work, at least two of three look like professional work.
- File:Oliva sounds.jpg
- File:Oliva en un festival en Colombia.jpg
- File:Oliva Sesión de fotos solista.jpg
--Ganímedes (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope: Only used for advertising on an enwiki deleted user page. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 20:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bitlife
[edit]Screenshots of a copyrighted software program. Per Commons:Screenshots, they are considered to be under the copyright of the displayed content and are not an original work, and therefore these images are unsuitable for Commons due to the inherent copyright issues.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. The source is unlikely to be the Uploader as the file Summary says. Most likely the copyright rests with Kids II Inc. Certainly Current owners of the brand are Kids II Inc who bought the rights from Disney who in turn bought them from the originator, Julie Aigner-Clark. Although this logo seems to date from the Julie Aigner-Clark era, its is almost inconceivable that Disney did not buy all rights and copyright to all Baby Einstein creations and in turn passed them to Kids II Inc. Headlock0225 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
A cropped version of this photo was published here on February 25. In addition, it's small and lacks metadata. In my opinion, OTRS permission is needed. Ahmadtalk 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
propriété privée Skymill (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
photo d'une propriété privée prise depuis l'intérieur de la propriété sans autorisation Skymill (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Based on the sign, it looks like the private property is the pond beyond the fence. If not, and the porch is already private property, why would the sign be needed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pour accéder à la zone de prise de vue il faut entrer sur la propriété déjà signalée comme telle, ce panneau est un rappel des conséquences notamment en cas de noyade. Retrait à la demande du propriétaire. Skymill (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Est-ce que vous pouvez donner aucune preuve de celá? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- To get the answer to your question, just go there and see from the road the presence of the following signage: "Private property, entry prohibited to the public". Google maps even allows it and it is not up to the owner to prove anything. Of course, some people do not respect this notion of private property and violate the related fundamental right, but this right exists in France, it even constitutes article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. As a general rule, before publishing a file or taking part here, it would be relevant to know the subject in order not to harm others, no public necessity being legally found. Skymill (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not reasonable to ask me or the closing admin to travel to France and make a special trip to this location. How about if you link the coordinates on Google Maps that you believe these photos were shot from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Est-ce que vous pouvez donner aucune preuve de celá? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for a deletion given: No (obvious) copyright issue; personal rights not affected;. --Wdwd (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be a screenshot from the playstation game F1 2020. The image frame's name is F1® 2020_20210224170542.jpg. So it is a copyright violation. Bürgerentscheid (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Paintings by artist Odintsov. Term of copyright protection - 70 years.
- File:РыбакиКаспий.jpg
- File:Dvedevushki.jpg
- File:DVEdevushki.jpg
- File:Kontractanty.jpg
- File:KirovVAstrakhani.jpg
Maxinvestigator (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO UK. Minoraxtalk 00:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This IS NOT the onlyfans logo , is this , (Padlock on O)This file is only text. (Gotham lite & Marguerite fonts) .--EEIM (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah. Initially thought that the word "Fans" is handwritten. I shall withdraw this nomination. --Minoraxtalk
- @Minorax: Seems like it's only text. Feel free to return and remove nomination, if nothing more is added in the discussion.--Paracel63 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Below treshold, text only logo (not the real logo). --Elly (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Current logo is above COM:TOO UK --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
¿Delete OF and....keep OnlyFans?--EEIM (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The overwritten file was moved to File:OnlyFans text (2).svg. I have updated the link here. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Beyond COM:TOO UK. The design of "OF" is complex. --SCP-2000 16:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi @A1Cafel: This shot does have facebook metadata, it's true. The person who shot it uploaded it to facebook. But what matters is whether the person who took the shot has given permission for that image to be used under a creative commons licence and sent in the right permission to wiki. Happily, the person who owned the copyright has indeed sent in their permission. I believe all the right processes have been observed, even if there is a metafile with legacy information about its social media use.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Images with "FBMD" in Metadata indicate that they are first published on Facebook, then being uploaded to Commons. As such, OTRS permission or the original Facebook link is required as copyright verification. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Policy for that claim? Or are you just making that up (again). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata) on related issue. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Again, do you have any policy to back up your claim?, rather than an just a (particularly inconclusive) village pump talk thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I believe all that matters is whether the original owner of the image - TheBardofPeel - has given over permission so that the image is now under creative commons licence. This happened some time ago. Is the matter then resolved?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, do you have any policy to back up your claim?, rather than an just a (particularly inconclusive) village pump talk thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Facebook images (exif/metadata) on related issue. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Policy for that claim? Or are you just making that up (again). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Images with "FBMD" in Metadata indicate that they are first published on Facebook, then being uploaded to Commons. As such, OTRS permission or the original Facebook link is required as copyright verification. --A1Cafel (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader has been adding multiple blatant copyright violations here, so this should be assumed to be another one. I have just blocked them at En-Wiki for adding these images to various articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to fall under PD-textlogo; the sperm is likely complex enough to count as an original work due to the shading and complexity. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work of a menu stand containing potentially-cooyrighted underlying images of food (pizza, tumbler). DR was made in response to Judgefloro (talk · contribs)'s claim at this DR that there are many such instances on Commons and not only to the Philippine instance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps. This Serban Zainea stamp is copyright until 2061 Ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 19:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Photography of copyrighted content Cody escouade delta (d) 18:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Le contenu non libre de droit (les planches d'Hergé) est photographié de loin et très flou, et le sujet de la photo est plutôt le cahier en lui-même. Ça ne sauverait pas l'image de la suppression ? --Groupir ! (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- On ne peut utiliser l'argument de minimi dans ce cas-là, car même si l'image est floue, elle montre clairement une planche de Tintin dont l'utilisation n'est pas libre.
- (en): In that case there is no de minimi, even if the picture is not clear, it shows a work protected by a copyright.
- --Cody escouade delta (d) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. De minimis cannot apply if the main subject of the image is concerned. --Rosenzweig τ 15:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
South Carolina government is not federal and their works are subject to copyright. See w:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete
Neutral. No one is claiming this is a work of the South Carolina state government. In fact, the uploader seems to be claiming that the photographer was on the payroll of the Works Progress Administration, and thus a federal employee. But not enough source details are given to confirm this. Wikiacc (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC), changed 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC) - Keep. WPA is a Federal agency. I suggest, before anyone considers deleting the photo, contact the librarian for South Carolina State Library, South Carolina Public Library History, 1930 - 1945 collection and ask them to confirm that this photo is indeed by an employee of the WPA. Otherwise, assume the uploader is not lying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per the precautionary principle. Per [6], many of the photographs in the South Carolina Bookmobiles Collection (of which this photograph is a part) were taken by State Library field agents, so the photo was not necessarily taken by a WPA employee. --Rosenzweig τ 12:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photo(s), out of scope. Minoraxtalk 04:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
inferior duplicate of File:Bella Thorne March 18, 2014 (cropped).jpg Minoraxtalk 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, better crop available. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: could be PD-US-no notice, not renewed or similar, but there would have to be more context for that. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Author is unlikely to be dead for 70 years A1Cafel (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP. --Rosenzweig τ 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: if this is from 1966 as claimed it is obviously not in the PD. --Rosenzweig τ 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I doubt this is "own work" as claimed. An extract of this painting is available at Facebook [7] since July 2023, so this is apparently someone else's work, which would make the file a copyvio that should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 09:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Denmark for art. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete No COM:FOP Denmark for anything other than buildings. -M.nelson (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
this is wrong picture ... this is not گیاه کما یا زو Hamid Soufi (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:COURTESY - uploader's own request 1 min after uploading; file is unused. BTW @Hamid Soufi you can request deletion of your own uploads within 7 days with {{Db-self}}. -M.nelson (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
VOA credits to "web screenshot", not VOA-produced. Previously published elsewhere before VOA, incl. [8] AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
https://gdb.voanews.com/F2F3919E-6684-4A10-B168-E8EFB2207E64_cx0_cy4_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg is now watermarked "Web screenshot", so this photo is not VOA-produced. I couldn't find the VOA article where this photo was sourced from, nor could I find previous publication. It looks like this may be a screenshot from a video. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The source page has been moved to https://www.azadliq.org/a/1845682.html. Azadliq.org is a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty site, and the photo is watermarked RFE/RL. RFE/RL works are protected by copyright, unlike Voice of America works. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
_SvobodaNews.ru_(RFERL).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_SvobodaNews.ru_(RFERL).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
And also:
The license pasted into {{Attribution}} and provided at https://pressroom.rferl.org/use-our-content#terms is not a free license, because it prohibits derivatives and restricts commercial use. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Erro. Não é Évora mas sim Elvas Armendes67 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Certo. As minhas desculpas, vou corrigir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armendes67 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion, please use {{Rename}} instead. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: and renamed. --Rosenzweig τ 08:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Was the specific TOO concern the beacon/candle flame in the D of the lefthand portion of the logo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant, File:University of North Dakota Logo.svg. Please nominate that file if it is felt that it is above TOO. --Ellywa (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete Corrado Mezzana's work is copyright for 70 years pma and are copyright until 2023: see Italian stamp designer death dates per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps. Ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2023. --Rosenzweig τ 10:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Clear derivative from id:Berkas:'Dharma Jala Prajatama'.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Author has clearly said in the source that it is derived from id:Berkas:'Dharma Jala Prajatama'.jpg. He has said that it is converted by him in vector graphics. --Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 02:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- That makes it a copyright violation. See COM:DW. You can't just copy someone else's work and claim it as your own. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't know how Indonesian TOO rule is defined, can anyone please answer this topic? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The original image on id: has been deleted without motivation it seems. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia only state symbols are free of copyright. It is not clear whether this image a from the Indonesian Government, so deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arah_angin_dalam_derajat.png Indah Sasmita Octavia (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- What's the reason for the deletion request? (I'd say "Mengapa mahu pulas?", but "pulas" is probably not the word you use for delete.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense NMW03 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is about a soldier who was recently killed in action, please be respectful. --E4024 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: The problem is that Azerbaijan doesn't have a Commons-accepted FOP, their FOP is for non-commercial purposes only. Also the badge might be fairly complex, unless it's indeed {{PD-AZ-exempt}} we wouldn't keep so because of meeting TOO. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am only disturbed about the wording, and not familiar nor interested with the rest. Imagine this was about your brother... --E4024 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Upload his photo then. Without badge please.--NMW03 (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am only disturbed about the wording, and not familiar nor interested with the rest. Imagine this was about your brother... --E4024 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @E4024: The problem is that Azerbaijan doesn't have a Commons-accepted FOP, their FOP is for non-commercial purposes only. Also the badge might be fairly complex, unless it's indeed {{PD-AZ-exempt}} we wouldn't keep so because of meeting TOO. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The latest version has the badge cropped. The versions with badge will be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. still copyrighted, so has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Picture token in Argentina, not PD-Italy Caulfield (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Caulfield: {{FoP-Argentina}} applies or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: According Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina, for photographic works, the duration of the right of ownership shall be 20/25 years from the date of first publication. It is not clear when this photo was published for the first time. I could not find it on http://www.radiocorriere.teche.rai.it/Search.aspx. But the duration of copyright is soo short, the image dates from 1950, so the can be maintained imho. --Ellywa (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I am the author and request speedy deletion of this image under G7 Tibetan Thangka Painting (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- As the image is uploaded 8 years ago the rationale is not sufficient. --Achim (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:COURTESY. Image is not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
No FOP for temporarily art in the Netherlands, only for permanent art JopkeB (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This photo is taken 30 years ago, it are only a few posters on a metro station. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright lasts at least 70 years, not 30. JopkeB (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is it art? It's more an opinion that this is art, than a fact. Are you searching for things you can nominate to delete? Not my hobby.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I leave the judgement about this matter to a moderator. JopkeB (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is it art? It's more an opinion that this is art, than a fact. Are you searching for things you can nominate to delete? Not my hobby.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright lasts at least 70 years, not 30. JopkeB (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep IANAL, but where does it say it is temporary? This seems fairly permanent, and everything can be viewed as temporary. Zanaq (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I will shortly be asking for permission from RET. see: OTRS RET reclame?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete temporary location of posters/advertisements in public space. FOP is not applicable. Permission should be obtained from both artists (drawing and text) or from RET if copyright is contractually handed to RET. Elly (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Ticket:2021032910007162 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ticket:2021040210003893 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 17:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- These tickets do not show that the copyright holder agrees with publication. Ellywa (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- FOP in the Netherlands does not apply to posters (think of the elections posters we have to delete again every time) and the posters here are too visible to not be considered the main object in the photograph. Therefore, and also per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle because of the VRTS tickets linked, the file will be deleted. Ciell (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per reasons explained above. --Ciell (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused file and not complying with Fair Use terms Jelican9 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Presumably copyrighted logo; no evidence of CC license. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion the photo is out of project scope. We have better photos in category:Nature of Colonia Tovar and category:Views of Colonia Tovar. Taivo (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No objections after all these months. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from modern art. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete DW of the artworks. -M.nelson (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This file is Acd Chemsketch's screenshot. Acd Chemsketch is non-free software. Therefore, I suggest it will be deleted. Commons:Screenshots Uncitoyen (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like this one is freeware version mentioned here. LuCKY 💬 ✒️ 📂 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Lucky. The freeware version that you don't need to pay to use. But the software isn't open source software. As written, it is non-free software with the copyright holder is ACD. ACD/LABS™ SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT Terms of use Uncitoyen (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete freedom of using for a specific purpose does not mean other uses are also allowed. It seems that this is a derivative (screenshot) of a work that is not under an open license. Wostr (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot doesn't show anything proprietary, but it is also an unused image of a plain pull-down menu, little educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BossTurtle07 (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Yuraily Lic (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused JPEG version of Old Nestlé logo.svg MB-one (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Not only per reason given above; furthermore, the file is a copyvio so that logo was released in the 1980s, source: Here. The SVG file is going to be nominated for deletion as well. Fma12 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete I think this is the rare case where the logo is actually above the threshold of originality. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
,_Bestanddeelnr_925-3208.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bestanddeelnr_925-3208.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo is from 17 January 1972 and is not copyrighted. see Template:PD-old & Template:PD-Pakistan. Humancommons (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
,_Bestanddeelnr_925-3208.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep If it is not copyrighted, why did you nominate the file for deletion? Licences can be adjusted, but we only delete files when they ARE copyrighted and non-free. Apart from that, how do you know that this photograph was first published in Pakistan? It comes from the Dutch national archive so it could as well have been taken and published in the Netherlands. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep See the link to the file in the Dutch national archive: under the Direct Download-button, it says: "You can copy, modify and distribute the image, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."Jeff5102 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeff5102's link: "Copyright Holder: Nationaal Archief, CC0" -M.nelson (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
,_Bestanddeelnr_925-3208.jpg){kind=link}
Adil Kullanım çerçevesinde yüklenmesi gereken bir hükümet kurumu logosu yanlış lisanla yüklenmiştir. UcuncuUlus (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyrighted logo. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Adil Kullanım çerçevesinde yüklenmesi gereken bir hükümet kurumu logosu yanlış lisanla yüklenmiştir. UcuncuUlus (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyrighted logo. No COM:TOO Turkey so erring on the side of caution. -M.nelson (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The original File:А. Сиваева на акции «Доброта растопит лед».png was deleted: "No permission since 26 July 2018". If this decission was propper the JPG version ha to go too. (Source says:"Фото получено мною лично от автора" (GoogleTranslate: "Photo received by me personally from the author")) Jahobr (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - "Photo received by me personally from the author" is not sufficient; we need the photographer to explicitly release the photo under a free license, ideally through COM:VRT. -M.nelson (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The 3 sources were deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Орден За Храброст. If this was the propper decission, this File must go too. Jahobr (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - if sources are copyvio, this DW is too. -M.nelson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2of3 sources were deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Орден За Храброст. If this was the propper decission, this file must go too. Jahobr (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - if sources are copyvio, this DW is too. -M.nelson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The 2of3 sources were deleted Commons:Deletion requests/Орден За Храброст. If this was the propper decission, this file must go too. Jahobr (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination - if sources are copyvio, this DW is too. -M.nelson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Giuseppe Mazzini on stamps
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply. These stamps, attributed on the stamps to Vittorio Grassi, (1878–1958) are copyright until 2029.
- File:ITA 1922 MiNr0157 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1922 MiNr0158 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1922 MiNr0159 pm B002a.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Geni (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright infringement, no realistic source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep below COM:TOO Italy and COM:INUSE.Jonteemil (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This file was deleted in 2018 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Parma AC 2000-01.png and then restored in 2020. Pinging Taivo, Sealle, and Ruthven. -M.nelson (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Appears to be below the level of originality of the examples at COM:TOO Italy thus not copyrightable. -M.nelson (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: way below ToO in Italy (PS: "revenge" DR by a user blocked for uploading unfree files). Ruthven (msg) 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's a 1940 photo. What's the issue? Did 20th Century Fox renew its copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet either of the conditions of its current license {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Is there any reason to believe that the copyright was not registered or renewed? -M.nelson (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of M.nelsen, also COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soyhenryorozco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Declaro que los archivos acá expuestos son de mi entera autoría y que por ende poseo los derechos morales e intelectuales para hacer uso de ellos en internet; asimismo, declaro que se encuentran protegidos por una licencia de Creative Commons la cual permite a los usuarios hacer uso libre de los contenidos, siempre y cuando estos no representen retribución económica ni aprovechamiento ilicito del material.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyhenryorozco (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unused photos of a non-notable individual (appears to be the blogger behind https://blogs.eltiempo.com/periodismodeblog/) -M.nelson (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of M.nelson. The photos are not used on the projects and are portraits of a relatively unknown person. The photo’s can therefore be considered as not realistically useful for an educational purpose and should be deleted according to COM:SCOPE. When an article about the blogger appears on the projects the photo’s can be undeleted. However the uploader should proof he is the holder of the copyright per COM:EVID. --Ellywa (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Secretary Blinken Delivers Remarks to the Media on His Virtual Trip to Mexico and Canada.jpg
[edit]
Messed up uploading, RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomUserGuy1738 I see you reverted some changes, it looks now like a correct upload of the Flickr photo - is there still any reason to delete it? -M.nelson (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- If no response to above then Keep - don't see any reason for deletion. -M.nelson (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- If no response to above then
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per comment. --Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, no realistic source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- still wondering about what a "realistic source" is... a source is clearly mentioned and the design is PD. So, what's the point? --Vale93b (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep below COM:TOO Italy and COM:INUSE.Jonteemil (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Jonteemil - below Italy's threshold of originality. -M.nelson (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per comments and COM:TOO Italy which gives similar examples of this logo which are OK. --Ellywa (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, no realistic source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok... and whe're some concrete evidence of this (alleged, up to this point) infringement? — danyele 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete - No concrete evidence, but the angle of view and colour/quality are reminiscent of a TV feed rather than someone's own photo. -M.nelson (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark M.Nelson. The image is from 2002, but even then the digital camera's were better then this. --Ellywa (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
这画像是现代人故宫博物院朱雅娟画的，所以侵犯版权。 渣七爱上蓝屏小仆女 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- + File:朱由检.jpg.same image--shizhao (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Author is 朱雅娟, is living. see [9]， [10] and zh:Topic:W4ulh8yxv99buzos--shizhao (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete both files per the comments above - appears as though the artist is still living, so still in copyright per COM:CHINA. en:Chongzhen Emperor uses this photo and credits "Zhu Yajuan in the Palace Museum in the early 1990s" with a reference: [1]. -M.nelson (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Guiseppe Rondini
[edit] Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2026: Guiseppe Rondini (1881-1955)
- File:ITA 1934 MiNr0501 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1935 MiNr0532 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1935 MiNr0533 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1935 MiNr0534 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0547 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0548 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0549 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0550 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0551 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1936 MiNr0247 pm B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Guiseppe Rondini
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. Eritrea was under Italian rule during the time the Eritrean stamps were issued. These stamps by Guiseppe Rondini, (1881–1955) who is attributed on the stamps are copyright until 2026.
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0547 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0548 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0549 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr0550 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1936 MiNr05551 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA ERI 1933 MiNr0206 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA ERI 1933 MiNr208 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA ERI 1936 MiNr0247 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA LIY 1939 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1933 MiNo0210 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1933 MiNr0204 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1933 MiNr0205 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1936 MiNr0244 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-ERI 1936 MiNr0248 pm B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - not yet 70 years p.m.a. -M.nelson (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be undeleted in 2026.. --Ellywa (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. Eritrea was under Italian rule during the time the Eritrean stamps were issued. These stamps by Guiseppe Rondini, (1881–1955) who is attributed on the stamps are copyright until 2026. Ww2censor (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - not yet 70 years p.m.a. -M.nelson (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be undeleted in 2026.. --Ellywa (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Torches on stamps of Italy
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps by Paolo Antonio Paschetto (1885–1956). who is attributed on the stamps, are copyright until 2027.
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0690A pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0692A pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0700 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1946 MiNr0684 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1946 MiNr0693 pm B002b.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0702 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNrTR013 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-AMG-VG 1946 MiNrTR16 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-AMG-VG 1947 MiNrTR13 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1947 MiNr0013 mt B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - not yet 70 years p.m.a. -M.nelson (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be undeleted in 2027.. --Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Renato Garrasi
[edit] Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2061: Renato Garrasi (1915-1990)
- File:Francobolli colonie.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0560 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0561 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0562 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0564 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0565 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1937 MiNr0566 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNrGM008 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1948 MiNr0747 pm B002.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Renato Garrasi
[edit] Delete Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps by Renato Garrasi (1898-1990), however some sources say he died in 1954, either way his stamps are copyright until at least 2025 but possibly until 2061.
- File:Fronte100lire.JPG
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0683 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0694 4St pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0694 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0701A pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1945 MiNr0703 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0698 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0B27 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1947 MiNr0B28 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1948 MiNr0747 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1948 MiNr0763 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA 1948 MiNr0765 pm B002a.jpg
- File:ITA 1949 MiNr0BZ9 pm B002.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1947 MiNr0007 mt B002.jpg
- File:ITA-TR 1949 MiNr0086 pm B002a.jpg
Ww2censor (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - not yet 70 years pma. -M.nelson (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be undeleted in 2061.. --Ellywa (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The text depicted here has been authored in 1974 (as shown). Possible violation literary copyright. Yasu (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Question Is the text below or above the Japanese threshold of originality? Someone who can read and understand the text should decide this. --Rosenzweig τ 14:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Yasu and Miya: , could one of you consider this image and close the request? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning towards Delete. The date seems 1974, likely the author of the informational board is not yet dead for more than 70 years. Also, there is no commercial freedom of panorama for all non-architectural works in Japan by living or recently-deceased sculptors, muralists, authors of public texts, etc.. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP around textual complexity and creativity of sign text. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- ↑ Zhang Dexin (張德信), Tan Tianxing (譚天星). Chongzhen huang di dai chuan (《崇禎皇帝大傳》). Liaoning Education Press, 1993.