Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/03/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
There was an error in the file Bola Opaleke (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: G7: Author requests deletion with 7 days. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Google Play 2016 icon.svg}} Haideronwiki (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as retracted by nominator. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Alvianaruri7 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense by an Android app user. --Achim (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. This photo has copyright issues. The photographer does not approve sharing this photograph. KillaDesignOffice (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlike to be own work. Long time online picture. No EXIF. Sturm (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination obvious copyvio uploaded as own work. See here, for instance. -- Darwin Ahoy! 14:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope self promotion Lotje (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Billinghurst at 07:56, 28 März 2021 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) --Krdbot 14:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ImageRoul.jpg Ngnotue (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded a photo taken by someone else. Please delete this. ArtistAmyKarle1 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Gross, obscene, graphic, blood-and-gore, whatever you want to call it, this doesn't belong here. 192.196.218.215 21:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: I reported this to WMF T&S but there was no action so far. I expected this to be handled before more attention was drawn to it. There seems to be a user in serious psychological distress and I hope they can get help. Meanwhile, this image should be promptly deleted for the protection of the uploader. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)- Delete The editor stated he was upset with being blocked on several different Wikipedias. Whether or not the photo is genuine, it should be deleted and I'm surprised it hasn't been yet. Liz (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, should be noun inflection of German Wiktionary: Kindheitstraum (without double-'t'), correct spelling already exists, file isn't needed. Jeuwre (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, should be noun inflection of German Wiktionary: Kindheitstraum (without double-'t'), correct spelling already exists, file isn't needed. Jeuwre (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, should be noun inflection of German Wiktionary: Kindheitstraum (without double-'t'), correct spelling already exists, file isn't needed. Jeuwre (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, should be noun inflection of German Wiktionary: Kindheitstraum (without double-'t'), correct spelling already exists, file isn't needed. Jeuwre (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, should be noun inflection of German Wiktionary: Kindheitstraum (without double-'t'), correct spelling already exists, file isn't needed. Jeuwre (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
misspelled, see kiffen, all its inflections are spelled with double-'f' Jeuwre (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Reinhard Kraasch at 19:36, 28 März 2021 UTC: Uploader wish --Krdbot 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; most likely license violation due to copied fragments from non-cited sources (the valerate part is blurry whereas the ammonium cation is quite sharp in resolution). Replaced by File:Ammonium-valerate-2D-structure.svg as high-quality vector version. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Image is useless. I needed it for my presonal page, but I don't use it anymore. HenrikBaun (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Speedy (selfie). Uploader may have productive contributions, but photo is out of scope. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment it is in use so scope is not an issue. --MGA73 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)- Delete In use in a wikidata entry created by uploader but it's for a YouTube channel that has < 2k subscribers so I doubt COM:EDUSE. The collage medium makes it difficult to verify copyright. Seems promotional to me. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Speedy (selfie) Uploader may have productive contributions, but photo is out of scope. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of scope. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: screencap of a website. lots of photos and difficult to ascertain copyright status of all of them. Per https://www.eso.org/public/copyright/, ESO works are CC-BY-4.0 unless otherwise noted. However, this does not apply to the YouTube interface. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This photo was part of a mass upload and while I am sure I did first exclude all these collages b/c it's hard to verify their copyright status against COM:DW this one evidently fell through the cracks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alashuly group (talk · contribs)
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Denniss as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: self-promotion/advertizing, not used anywhere --Denniss (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC). Not quite blatant promo.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Unfree architecture: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ayala Museum and COM:FOP Philippines. Unfree because its architect is still alive. Restore only if FOP is introduced here officially and formally. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Matlin (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Photo of a male running on the beach that is edited, which reduces potential COM:EDUSE cases. Would fit in Category:People running in water but is pretty blurry relative to those photos. BriefEdits (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Title card for unknown show. Per COM:NOTUSED and COM:EDUSE. BriefEdits (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saltrabook (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saltrabook (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Occup Med Study Plan Universidad de Panama April-June 2017.png
- File:Time table OM teaching UP.png
- File:Module scheme 9 weeks.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saltrabook (talk · contribs)
[edit]imagevios again, false "own source" claims
- File:Tractor remolque.png
- File:Top Loader container.png
- File:RTG Rubber tyred gantry crane.png
- File:Reach Stacker.png
- File:Montacarha de 30 toneladas para carga suelta.png
- File:Montacargas.png
- File:Grúas porticas.png
- File:Empty Container Handler Panama Port 2021.png
- File:Área de reefer Puerto Panama 2021.png
— Draceane talkcontrib. 07:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is an representational image of the real way how the pilgrims or hikers actually travel to Kedarnath temple.This image is used to signify the real cloths,looks of real indegeneous indians who actually visits the temple. It is a very generalised picture of how the average indian looks and appear when they visits this shrine. For any doubt regarding above given info you can verify yourself using YouTube clips of this place. I am the uploader of this image and I don't know who is the person in this image but when I VISITED Kedarnath I realised this look is IDEAL to represent and understand real look of pilgrims who visits here at Kedarnath. This image is very ideal to use to represent " hikers or pilgrims who visits Kedarnath". Even after understanding above information,if anyone is having any objection you can raise request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHUBHANSHU AGRE (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo, source? — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 08:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Headless image of an unidentified person, out of project scope Kotivalo (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama for 3D artworks in Vatican City and Italy (COM:FOP Vatican/COM:FOP Italy) M.nelson (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw; re-nominated in mass deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sfera con sfera, Vatican City. -M.nelson (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: procedural close. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Derivative works: images of food and an illustrated menu ad.
- File:02514jfKenny Rogers Roasters restaurants in Bulacanfvf 02.jpg
- File:02514jfKenny Rogers Roasters restaurants in Bulacanfvf 03.jpg
- File:02514jfKenny Rogers Roasters restaurants in Bulacanfvf 23.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:The Food Taste of Kozhikode.pdf
- File:Sakshi Article for prevention of suicides -Revised & final cut (2)-converted (1) (1).pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As per COM:ADVERT , self promotion Ts12rAc (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Only used on userpage, user's only contribution to Wikipedia has been creating said userpage where he quotes himself 5 times. Catlemur (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
she is a notable person, not categorized, insufficient description Ezarateesteban 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
álbum cover, must be not a free artwork Ezarateesteban 18:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Personal artwork; out of scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - also previously published in Facebook. --E4024 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Apparently a studio photo of an actor who died in 1992. Unlikely to be "own work" as claimed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, size, no exif Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Single item gallery. E4024 (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KunstKonst (talk · contribs)
[edit]All non-free licenses, non-commercial or no derivatives.
- File:KBGF.064192.jpg
- File:Jämtrallyt 1964 Saab 96.jpg
- File:Saab 99 Brochure JLMR 28360 BROSCHYR.jpg
- File:Saab-Sonett-JLM Hlg15461 1 Fordon.jpg
- File:KBGF.063928.jpg
- File:SuM-foto027494.jpg
- File:SuM-foto020487.jpg
- File:NMA.0033947.jpg
- File:NMA.0032569.jpg
- File:OLM-2003-41-510.jpg
- File:91625 nomu photo NMA0043354.jpg
- File:Finnjuhl 001.jpg
- File:NMA.0078674.jpg
Dylsss (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! All of the above-mentioned files (except from File:Finnjuhl 001.jpg) derive from https://digitaltmuseum.se/ or https://jlm.kulturhotell.se/ and can be used by following the license Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA), please check e. g. the source for photo File:KBGF.064192.jpg here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KunstKonst (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that license CC-BY-NC-SA is not compatible with Commons. Dylsss (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! All of the above-mentioned files (except from File:Finnjuhl 001.jpg) derive from https://digitaltmuseum.se/ or https://jlm.kulturhotell.se/ and can be used by following the license Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA), please check e. g. the source for photo File:KBGF.064192.jpg here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KunstKonst (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bonadea as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.opindia.com/2021/03/zomato-founder-deepinder-goyal-statement-fight-instagram-hitesha-chandranee-kamaraj-delivery-agent/. Metadata says taken 28 March, referenced article is 12 March. Author has already done something similar for other image upload. Seems to be part of a paid contribution article creation at English Wikipedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also noting that the subject is clearly notable, just the circumstance is unusual. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: I got this image from Open Magazine. They mailed me this picture. They are the people who took this photo. What I did here is just uploaded it. What's wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Puzzle (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Go to COM:OTRS please. --E4024 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://circus.nandemo.gr.jp/sakuhin/dc2/index.html Thibaut (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Below COM:TOO. --Thibaut (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)- Keep same opinion as Thibaut120094 --31NOVA (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Thibaut (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: under COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.zipairtokyo.com/ Thibaut (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Below COM:TOO. --Thibaut (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.vanilla-air.com/ Thibaut (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.skymark.co.jp/ Thibaut (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are below COM:TOO_Japan. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.flypeach.com/ Thibaut (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Text logos are below COM:TOO Japan. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyviol. Dipralb (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, poor quality, looks like a screenshot. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
www.desgnlife.vn (copyrighted) Username is similar but a nickname does not mean much. OTRS required. E4024 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission, likely to be copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
www.desgnlife.vn (copyrighted) Username is similar but a nickname does not mean much. OTRS required. E4024 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no permission, likely to be copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Taken from Facebook. E4024 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
www.desgnlife.vn (copyrighted) Username is similar but a nickname does not mean much. OTRS required. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ao ngu than tay chen.jpg, for better comprehension of how we treat nicknames. E4024 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission, likely to be copyvio. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
www.desgnlife.vn (copyrighted) Username is similar but a nickname does not mean much. OTRS required. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ao ngu than tay chen.jpg, for better comprehension of how we treat nicknames. E4024 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: likely to be copyvio: http://www.saigonaodai.net/shop/ao-dai-5-than-truyen-thong/. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover Mạnh An (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. MarioGom (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, book cover, no permission. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not certain this meets the 20-year threshold for PD in Italy. The site has copyright notices for 2013 and no indication that the image was taken pre-2001. On top of that, it's watermarked all to hell, so it's hardly suitable for our purposes anyway. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It has a newer version VictMak (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not used, uploader request. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not PD-art, it is not a 2D piece of art and a shadow is cast. Dylsss (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. License is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which is not compatible with use on Wikimedia Commons. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Again: The artist passed away in 1980, so his paintings are still copyright-protected ({{PD-Italy}}). The contributor needs to claim his/she is the copyright holder. Most of the files are from the artist's website and its subpages.
- File:Copertina il pittore dell'anima.jpg
- File:Candidato politico caricatura.png
- File:Scena di danza olio su tela.png
- File:Pianoforte olio su tela.png
- File:Donna venezuelana.png
- File:Aida pastello.png
- File:Tony New York.png
- File:Tony Pileggi 17.jpg
- File:Tony .png
- File:Tony Pileggi.png
- File:STRISCIA I PICOLNI.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 12:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo, source? — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Janseva Mandal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Artfanatic99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DavidTEKO95 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:"Ibrahim Jabbar"
[edit]copyrighted paintings (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mehmoonifinal2.jpg).
- File:Hasht-Behesht Palace ney and Tar.jpg
- File:Painting santur.jpg
- File:Painting tar.jpg
- File:Painting ney.jpg
- File:Kemancha-pers.jpg
- File:Miniator hotel shah abbas deevar.jpg
- File:Kamancheh player (by Ibrahim Jabbar-Beik).jpg
- File:Persian art collage.jpg
Hanooz 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is a logo to a recent (in copyright terms) television show and I don't think it fails the threshold of originality. At any rate the "own work" and CC license are definitely not something the uploader can assert. Purplewowies (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, non-free, wrong tags, probably fails TOO (arguably similar originality as en:File:BP Helios logo.svg). MarioGom (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Aminkhan47 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Support Nice rationale. Approve. --Jeromi Mikhael Asido Sagala (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Speedy (selfie) and the most recent rationale was: }}== {{int:filedesc AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It's at the very least an original work without any indication of authorship and at most a logo that is COM:NOTUSED and has questionable COM:EDUSE. — BriefEdits (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we need this? E4024 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
File page blanked by original uploader, assuming to be a request for deletion. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- File page blanked by original uploader, assuming to be a request for deletion. Naomi Wiehe (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- reclose. --Minoraxtalk 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
2D artworks (mural-type artworks of some sort). No applicable FOP in the Philippines. Also, these are probably temporal and maynot be eligible for future Philippine FOP.
- File:JfHapag2826HiyayBulacanfvf 09.JPG
- File:JfHapag2826HiyayBulacanfvf 10.JPG
- File:JfHapag2826HiyayBulacanfvf 11.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee Pulilan Junction
[edit]COM:Derivative work: a) illustrated tarpaulin. No licensing permission from the graphics artist/ad-production company. b) an advert with illustrations of Jollibee characters. May also fulfill COM:ADVERT.
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 05.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 06.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 07.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 35.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 36.jpg
- File:4090Pulilan Junction Maharlika Highway 06.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jollibee Pulilan Junction
[edit]Sculptures, but there is no Freedom of Panorama. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jollibee (character) for prior deletion request. The Jollibee figure on the rooftop is a balloon, and not a permanent fixture (even absent in extant Google Street Views) so not eligible for future Philippine FoP if introduced here.
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 28.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 33.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 38.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 39.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 44.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 45.jpg
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 46.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 24.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 30.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 31.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 32.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Unused image showing an advertisement. COM:ADVERT, COM:NOTUSED, and no forseeable use. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 2-dimensional artwork of Jollibee dancing. No applicable FOP in the source country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also the ff.
- File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 18.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 46.jpg
- File:3988Jollibee Pulilan Junction 47.jpg
I'm not sure if the ff. two are borderline (de minimis) cases: File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 17.jpg and File:3938Jollibee Pulilan Junction 19.jpg. Pinging A1Cafel whom I recently sought another opinion for de minimis cases. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all. No COM:FOP Philippines and no COM:DM (located in the center, obviously the purpose of taking the photo)--A1Cafel (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Jollibee statues. No applicable freedom of panorama, and may also fulfill COM:CHARACTER.
- File:09976jfMaharlika Highway Plaridel Bustos Bulacan Provincial Road Baliuag Pulilanfvf 03.JPG
- File:09976jfMaharlika Highway Plaridel Bustos Bulacan Provincial Road Baliuag Pulilanfvf 05.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:33, 5 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) 15:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Flag of Albania (1946–1992).svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
copyrighted © Iconic Images Limited AwkwardChester (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
IMHO webgrab, size, and overall looks like a commercially produced advertising photograph. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal file? E4024 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by YasNoMaybe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Appears to be out of scope, possibly even F10.
- File:Just Fine Album Cover.png
- File:Happy By The SeaSide Cover.png
- File:Gonna Be Ok? Cover.png
- File:YasNoMaybe.png
- File:My Headache Cover.png
Zppix (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal file (F10). E4024 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rolo Mai as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Imagen sin permiso aparente de Jacqueline Fresard, autora de la portada.
Too simple. Keep. E4024 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originaölity. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Danski454 as no permission (No permission since) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As the uploader has stated, at User talk:Artem.G, the Maxar website here says (emphasis added): "The imagery in the Image Gallery on the Website is available for use subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The license is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. Under the terms of this license, you may use images from the Gallery for any purpose, so long as you properly attribute the image to DigitalGlobe, Inc."
So presumably that would mean a user would have to "attribute the image to DigitalGlobe, Inc." wherever it appears in any article(s), or indeed on Wikipedia Main Page?
The image source, however, is given as Twitter. Does that make any difference? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it suffices to simply provide the abbtribution in the image's description rather than in every article it appears.Tvx1 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- So you mean just on Commons at the upload page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's a leftover of the old DigitalGlobe image gallery. It doesn't apply to Maxar images, they just forgot to cleanup their ToU. The image should be deleted, sorry. vip (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- So you mean just on Commons at the upload page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. The ToU is only for the website, not for the Twitter account. SCP-2000 15:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Maxar website TOU grants a CC license only to photos in the website image gallery. This license does not extend to photos posted by Maxar to twitter. —RP88 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
not in use, he is a notable people? Ezarateesteban 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
من تغییر عقیده دادم، نمیخواهم دیگر برای همه قابلمشاهده باشد. Hassiibb (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: CC licenses are irrevocable. --Hanooz 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The file is an satellite image of Australia, which is a derivative work of combining NASA's The Blue Marble (which is of course PD) and a real-time infrared image courtesy of the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Meanwhile, the Bureau of Meteorology didn't state whether these images are free in terms of COM:L. As we don't know if the infrared image are licensed under Template:GJSTU-2.0 (only images published on their official website are explicitly licensed), the file may be copyrighted and unfree. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
InfoAlso per the BOM's copyright notice, only materials that are explicitly mentioned to be licensed under Template:Cc-by-3.0-au are licensed so, which is of course not the case for this file.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Double-checking this with BOM and NASA now. --Uploader, Gryllida (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Info on the source page, there is a dropdown list mentioning infrared grayscale and infrared Zehr enhanced. This image is using none of the two views provided by the Japanese body.
2401:4900:50A1:1610:E1E4:7081:71CB:E58B 04:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 08:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio : https://www.facebook.com/Officialdouzi Lagribouille (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Superwavelet (talk · contribs)
[edit]Potential copyvio. Low image resolution or missing exifdata. Uploader has uploaded copyvio images before. COM:OTRS permission is needed.
SCP-2000 03:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Because there is a problem with Japanese copyright law Kaidog (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan for 2D-art. --MGA73 (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Box on right, lack of metadata indicates a screenshot of something. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
ambigious author&source info ("Google Crome" , "Dont know") . Moreoverː stock company's watermarkː Dreamstime visible in the middle of the picture. Danger of copyrigts violation. Oo91 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete The given arguments are quite clear, moreover the quality of this picture is inferior.--Telford (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
File:MODFireShot Capture 662 - Verushka Lieutenant-Duval - Membres - Université d'Ottawa - uniweb.uottawa.ca.pdf
[edit]Screenshot of a copyrighted page: https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/members/4287 Trizek from FR 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 18:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
既に必要性の無い画像 WXYZ-origin (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: CC licenses are non revocable. --Yasu (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
モザイクをかけた状態で再度UPする予定 WXYZ-origin (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Claim that the copyright is with the portrayed person is dabated Mussklprozz (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Details
Uploader claims in Ticket:2021032410001622 that “the photograph was taken professionally by a hired photographer and the copyright passed by operation of law. Under Singapore copyright law, in such circumstances, the holder of the copyright is the person who commissions the photograph rather than the photographer. Please see the following excerpt of s30(5) Copyright Act 2006 of Singapore:
(5) Subject to subsection (4), where — (a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and (b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement,
the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, except that if the work is required for any particular purpose, that purpose shall be communicated to that other person and that other person shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
You may confirm this at this link.
Gan Siow Huang owns the copyright as she commissioned this photograph. She has approved its release, and is in cc.”
However an internal discussion within the OTRS team came to the conclusion that we still need evidence by written conveyance that there was an agreement.
--Mussklprozz (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Under Singapore copyright law, it is the person who commissions a photo, and not the photographer, who is automatically entitled to the copyright. Regardless, there is an OTRS consensus requiring that the photographer of this image gives evidence of the transfer by written conveyance. With respect, this is not workable. Ownership is a legal concept, and the law recognises the purchaser of the commissioned photo as owner. In these circumstances, a written conveyance by the photographer is a legal absurdity because the photographer cannot give up something they do not have. It is sufficient that the person who commissioned the photo is willing to release the rights. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- While voting on discussion about own uploads is curious, I doubt this is the right venue to discuss whether a specific OTRS permisssion should be accepted or not. The right venue is either internal OTRS discussion or COM:VPC. I suggest closing this as invalid. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I echo Ankry's position that this file should be procedurally closed. However, should that not occur, Delete per COM:PCP. Unless OTRS receives evidence of an agreement, we cannot and should not host this image. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nat, just to say that COM:PCP cannot apply here. The copyright holder (the person who commissioned the photo) has released the rights. The issue is that OTRS wants evidence of a conveyance from the photographer, who under Singapore law is not and has never been the copyright holder. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- And we need evidence. None has been provided. This would be as simple as asking the photographer to confirm via OTRS that they were commissioned by the subject or the subject needs to send a copy of the agreement. Absence of such means we delete per COM:PCP. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I concur this opinion. By default, the author is the copyright holder. If an exception applies, we need some evidence for this. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ankry, the author is not the copyright holder by default. This is what I'm trying very hard to get across. The default owner of the copyright of a photograph is the person who commissions it. The evidence for this is s30(5) Copyright Act 2006 of Singapore. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- For most works, the author is the copyright holder. This is the default. Commissioned works are an exception to the default. And we need an evidence that a work has been commissioned rather than otherwise. Or do you suggest that non-commissioned works are considered an exception is Singaporian copyright law? Ankry (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- You are correct to say that commissioned photographs are an exception to the rule on photographs. But what kind of proof is reasonable to ask for? It is most uncommon to have written rather than oral agreements for photographs, unless it is part of a major studio shoot. Even if such an agreement existed, how could we establish that it was for this particular image and not any other? The standard of proof in COM:PCP is that photographs are deleted if there is significant doubt about their freedom. Can it be reasonably believed that this photo was taken gratuitously? It is obvious from the image that it was taken in a professional setting - it is the archetype of a studio photograph: professional attire, solid colour backdrop. There is no indication that it was taken in a public place or a casual setting, where the photographer may well have taken it casually and in a personal capacity. The person releasing the rights is the subject of the photo. What reason is there to doubt her claim that the photograph was paid for? There is of course the remote possibility that this photo was taken for free, or even casually. But the chances of this are so low that I cannot see how it meets the threshold for significant doubt. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- For most works, the author is the copyright holder. This is the default. Commissioned works are an exception to the default. And we need an evidence that a work has been commissioned rather than otherwise. Or do you suggest that non-commissioned works are considered an exception is Singaporian copyright law? Ankry (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ankry, the author is not the copyright holder by default. This is what I'm trying very hard to get across. The default owner of the copyright of a photograph is the person who commissions it. The evidence for this is s30(5) Copyright Act 2006 of Singapore. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I concur this opinion. By default, the author is the copyright holder. If an exception applies, we need some evidence for this. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete because a careful reading of Singaporean law, combined with COM:PCP, requires us to delete unless proper documentation is provided. There is no evidence that the photo is a commissioned work. And even if we have that evidence, Singaporean law is quite clear that the photographer "shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work". We have no evidence that the copyright holder has duly informed the photographer and that the photographer has elected not to restrain publication on Commons. In this case Singaporean law forces us to require two releases, not just one. Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I must also say, I am curious what happens if a photographer in Singapore is commissioned to photograph a group of people rather than just one (for example, paid specifically to take a picture of an audience at a concert, or a multi-family wedding photo). Who owns the copyright then? Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Anachronist, the additional case you talk about is an exception which applies only when the purchaser has specified a particular purpose for the work. The effect of saying "prove to me that you are entitled to this s30(5) presumption" is to say "you are not entitled to this presumption", because the proof (a written agreement) displaces the presumption entirely. It is for someone challenging the purchaser's copyright to prove that the commissioned photograph was purchased and rights given for one purpose and that only. As a Ministry of Law report on the Copyright Act makes clear, when someone purchases a photograph, they are entitled to assume that they and not the author have all the rights to it.
- Secondly, how does this work with COM:PCP? The standard specified in COM:PCP is "significant doubt". Every comment here, including yours, has extended this to "no doubt", which is what you would have if there was a written contract. The Ministry of Law report says exactly this too: a written contract in every case is ideal, but s30(5) exists precisely because it is not always done. It creates a presumption in favour of the purchaser. As regards PCP, "doubt" suggests to me (with no expertise in Commons rules) a starting presumption of freedom, where doubt has to be added on until it crosses the "significant" threshold. One would have to point to an alternative possibility for this photograph having copyright vest in someone else that casts significant doubt on the uploader's claim. I reached out to the subject, a holder of high political office in Singapore, for a photo of her for her Wikipedia page. She sent one. It looks it was taken in a studio. I cannot see how anyone honestly believes that there is significant doubt that it was a photo she paid for. No one has tried, instead relying on overly restrictive constructions of Singapore law and PCP.
- To your final question, the answer is the person who paid for it. If there are multiple people who paid for it, then the law likely imposes a constructive trust, giving beneficial interest to those who paid for it in proportion of their payments. In such a case, it would be make more sense to enshrine the agreement in a written contract. You refer to this in your edit summary as "absurd": it is no more absurd than, in US law, where three painters collectively make a single painting.
- I also want to explain my vehemence in defending this photo. The Singaporean Wikipedia community has been trying for years to get photos of Singaporean politicians to put onto their Wikipedia articles. I managed to get some politicians to submit some. The politicians don't care if the photos are on Wikipedia or Wikimedia or not, certainly not enough to hunt down who took one photograph from their photo bank of thousands of photos which are used in big banners all around the country. Wikimedia itself has no interest in whether the photos reach Wikipedia or not. The ones who suffer are members of the small community of editors like me, and the audience of Singapore-related Wikipedia articles. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- The reasons for my "significant doubt" about the image permission are described quite adequately in my comment, so it should be obvious why I feel COM:PCP applies. Your interpretation of the law is not at all clear to me from a straight reading of the text of the law. And PCP definitely applies if there is no consensus about the meaning, we take the safest course and delete it. Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Anachronist, this is a technical legal discussion and so requires legal reasoning, which I can't fully explain here. For one, the point that requiring a contract renders s30(5) otiose is a standard type of argument used in courts when dealing with questions of legislative construction, resting on the legal principle that the legislature did not intend to pass a provision bereft of meaning. I get that this is a significant departure from the position in US copyright law, which Wikimedia is used to, and that everyone is uncomfortable with it, and so prefers to wish it away. Wikimedia can keep or discard whatever it likes, but the effect of this, of course, is to disprivilege content from Singapore and to impoverish the English Wikipedia. If there are any lawyers (copyright lawyers or otherwise, but ideally copyright lawyers) among Wikimedia admins, this would be a great time for them to weigh in. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly an interesting topic that deserves broader participation. I have linked to this discussion at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Hopefully others will weigh in. The point of COM:PCP is to err on the side of caution, and admittedly my caution has roots in my American perspective. Anachronist (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly an interesting topic that deserves broader participation. I have linked to this discussion at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Hopefully others will weigh in. The point of COM:PCP is to err on the side of caution, and admittedly my caution has roots in my American perspective. Anachronist (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Anachronist, this is a technical legal discussion and so requires legal reasoning, which I can't fully explain here. For one, the point that requiring a contract renders s30(5) otiose is a standard type of argument used in courts when dealing with questions of legislative construction, resting on the legal principle that the legislature did not intend to pass a provision bereft of meaning. I get that this is a significant departure from the position in US copyright law, which Wikimedia is used to, and that everyone is uncomfortable with it, and so prefers to wish it away. Wikimedia can keep or discard whatever it likes, but the effect of this, of course, is to disprivilege content from Singapore and to impoverish the English Wikipedia. If there are any lawyers (copyright lawyers or otherwise, but ideally copyright lawyers) among Wikimedia admins, this would be a great time for them to weigh in. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- The reasons for my "significant doubt" about the image permission are described quite adequately in my comment, so it should be obvious why I feel COM:PCP applies. Your interpretation of the law is not at all clear to me from a straight reading of the text of the law. And PCP definitely applies if there is no consensus about the meaning, we take the safest course and delete it. Anachronist (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Question A read of the applicable law s30(5) requires us to establish the following facts:
- The person/party who/which commissioned the photo
- The purpose of the photograph
- Are there prior communications with respect to the above? I am assuming that the text above is only what OTRS have received so far.
- Despite Gan being cc-ed in the email, has she (or any other person who is empowered to respond on her behalf and cc-ed similarly as well) replied in the ticket, or given approval somewhere else that is not in the ticket? The principle of 'silence is consent' is not automatically applicable in every legal contract, even in Singapore's context (https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/can-silence-amount-to-acceptance-of-a-contract/). Robertsky (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Robertsky Gan's media aide is releasing the rights on her behalf. She is authorised to represent Gan, but we've cc'd Gan anyway, for the OTRS team's reassurance. I am informed that no purpose was specified for the photograph, so that the rights should have passed to Gan in their entirety. I'm not sure what reasonable evidence I can ask for of this. Nat suggests that we contact the photographer and ask them to confirm. We don't know how to find the photographer (this is one photo from a photo bank), nor can we compel the photographer to issue this confirmation even if we can find them. The assumption when the photo was taken was that the rights passed to Gan, and that was enough for them. Gan's team is not invested enough in a Wikipedia photo to go on a hunt for the photographer. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep. After explanation from Kohlrabi Pickle. 1. Permission is given by a representative of Gan. 2. By being part of Gan's (or her office's) photo bank, thus purpose can be assumed for publicity and general purposes. 3. It is a commissioned photograph, by explanation from Koh, which makes the ownership of the photo belonging to Gan. Singapore's national IP office also stated clearly in their own handouts on the ownership of commissioned photos. See page 8 of https://www.ipos.gov.sg/docs/default-source/resources-library/copyright/copyright-infopack_updated-oct-12.pdf. Robertsky (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Robertsky Gan's media aide is releasing the rights on her behalf. She is authorised to represent Gan, but we've cc'd Gan anyway, for the OTRS team's reassurance. I am informed that no purpose was specified for the photograph, so that the rights should have passed to Gan in their entirety. I'm not sure what reasonable evidence I can ask for of this. Nat suggests that we contact the photographer and ask them to confirm. We don't know how to find the photographer (this is one photo from a photo bank), nor can we compel the photographer to issue this confirmation even if we can find them. The assumption when the photo was taken was that the rights passed to Gan, and that was enough for them. Gan's team is not invested enough in a Wikipedia photo to go on a hunt for the photographer. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment. In the interests of full disclosure, I invited three members of WikiProject Singapore on the English Wikipedia to share their views, including Robertsky. One of the remaining two is a legal academic, and I thought he is better placed than I to interpret and explain s30(5). The other was involved with trying to get access to photos of Singaporean politicians before me and I thought they could add a useful policy perspective on this discussion. A more senior editor on the English Wikipedia has informed me that this may be considered cross-wiki canvassing. I did not realise this and I am sorry. I will not do it again. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Kohlrabi Pickle has failed to mentioned that a message was also placed on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore about this, which through there I would eventually reply to here anyway, as I am an active participant of the WikiProject and somewhat active here by extension of chasing after copyright materials placed on en.wp articles. Robertsky (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: still no OTRS confirmation. --JuTa 06:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded a photo taken by someone else. Please delete this. ArtistAmyKarle1 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- please delete this file, I accidentaly uploaded this photo that someone else took from an exhbition that my artwork was in. Igbofur (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, thanks for your attention to this Igbofur. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 15:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This mural in Manila's Metropolitan Museum was first unveiled in 2010.[1] While it is now permanently stored inside a museum, there is no freedom of panorama yet in the source country. Many of the artists of the Anting-Anting group cited at the above websites are still alive, and [2] mentions the copyright status of their works as still in copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 11:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Added a better photoquality of the bus OliverZenglein (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Checking Category:Wagen 207 (bad cat name, btw) this photo seems to be pretty unique. Nominator shouls always indicate the name of the better photo which would replace this one, too, and all these related DRs should have been bundled in a single one. (And my vote is the same for them all, too.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tuvalkin. --Green Giant (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A better image resolution were uploaded with following picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wagen_207@Hauptbahnhof-ROB_am_05.11.2020.jpg) OliverZenglein (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Both photos are useful and they are not absolutely equivalent: Same bus, yes, but on different locations, rotes, dates et c.. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a better photoquality of the bus OliverZenglein (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a better picture quality of the bus on 2020-12-04 OliverZenglein (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tuvalkin Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wagen 207@Stadthalle am 02.07.2020 Richtung Nilkheim.jpg. --Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A better image resolution were uploaded with following picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wagen_205@Hauptbahnhof-ROB_am_04.12.2020_3.jpg) OliverZenglein (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a better photoquality of the bus OliverZenglein (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a better picture quality of the bus on 2020-12-04 OliverZenglein (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Good enough. Warn the user not to open DRs one after the other. --E4024 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per E4024. --Green Giant (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A better image resolution were uploaded with following picture (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wagen_205@Hauptbahnhof-ROB_am_04.12.2020_1.jpg) OliverZenglein (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep Identical reason as the previous requests above. No need to waste time on repeated requests. Protect the file page, and warn the user not to repeatedly open more DRs for the same reason. Remember, once published under a Creative Commons licence, it cannot be revoked (even by deleting it). --Stylez995 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Added a better photoquality of the bus OliverZenglein (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tuvalkin Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wagen 207@Stadthalle am 02.07.2020 Richtung Nilkheim.jpg. --Green Giant (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary downsizing and converting into another format from original. Replaced with correct format and size: File:Big Ben cropped.jpg/ Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Personaly I will not miss it. It was User:King of Xavier that made it for at template. --MGA73 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it free to upload from that site? E4024 (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No CC license found on subjects Twitter account. --Green Giant (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Files found with 158454960@N02
[edit]- File:武林書畫院淨蓮堂，杭州西湖紫竹園.jpg
- File:Wulin Academy of Arts - Wulin Academy Nanshan Campus, 2006.jpg
- File:Israeli student studying Chinese painting at Dongtian Studio in Wulin Academy of Arts, 2002.jpg
- File:Wulin Academy of Arts.png
- File:Wulin Academy of Arts - Dazhen Institute of Chinese Studies(DICS), 1996.jpg
Potential flickr-washing - user has at least one upload of an institutional logo, the others are from various dates and cameras. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Potential flickr-washing - user has at least one upload of an institutional logo, the others are from various dates and cameras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbuck (talk • contribs) 2021-03-23T21:27:35 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfree monument: the sculptor w:Eduardo Castrillo died in 2016 (50+1=2067 which is when the monument will fall in public domain). Restore only when freedom of panorama is introduced here officially and formally. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Bonifacio Shrine in Manila and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kartilya ng Katipunan “The Life and Heroism of Gat Andres Bonifacio” Monument and Mural (Mehan Garden, Ermita, Manila). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This modern building was designed by w:RTKL Associates. There is no commercial FOP in Indonesia, and permission from the architectural firm's successor, w:CallisonRTKL, is required. See also the November 2018 statement of Creative Commons Indonesia which upheld the no FOP status and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/01#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:An-Nur Great Mosque should be focused by professors in this grey area, which didn't change the no FOP consensus here. Like what CC Indonesia said, a law change will change that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
com:Flickrwashing [3] Hanooz 09:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Much older copies elsewhere than Flickr. --Green Giant (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Old version of the logo 136.158.35.174 10:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: We don’t delete older versions. However this file has another problem. --Green Giant (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FocalPoint as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: PROCESSED IMAGE, INTRODUCING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE from the real image, shown in File:St Andrews castle stone 1.jpg - note the tail of the lion. No educational value. I allow discussion for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem was pointed out by Actia Nicopolis in File talk:Stone carving,Saint Andreas fortress, Preveza, Greece.jpg. I cannot see why we should keep this image, since we have the real thing. --FocalPoint (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
To reain, but with the note that is has been processed
[edit]I understand that the image is not really necessary as "there is the real thing", as Focal Point mentioned correctly.
But if you think it should remain, as a processed image, I have no objection.
In any case, though, it has to be noted that the image has been processed in a way that distorts the real image in some respect.
You could see the real image in this photo.
Actia Nicopolis (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Per FocalPoint. --Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia Ashishkumar468 (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Author requested deletion of selfie. --Green Giant (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, stolen from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANDIwuHYBKY&ab_channel=YOUNGMULTI%26YFL (at 2:30) Grafferrtt (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope:Self-created artwork without obvious educational use+Self-promotion of the uploader's imaginary Online "Company" ชาวไทย (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
حق نشر Hassiibb (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
حق نشر Hassiibb (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
من تغییر عقیده دادم، نمیخواهم دیگر برای همه قابلمشاهده باشد. Hassiibb (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
حق نشر Hassiibb (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
من آن را به اشتباه آپلود کردم Hassiibb (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
حق نشر Hassiibb (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
حق نشر Hassiibb (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
من آن را به اشتباه آپلود کردم Hassiibb (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
من تغییر عقیده دادم، نمیخواهم دیگر برای همه قابلمشاهده باشد. Hassiibb (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
University logo, shouldn't be CC-licensed. Looks like a higher resolution of http://polisma.ac.id/v/arti-lambang/ but no indication of being freely licensed ...Kenrick95 02:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Mistaken information. Rifle is neither a US service rifle nor a MK12 Rifle Variant. No such rifle as a west coast MK12 ever existed. Additionally rifle pictured does not have a full auto/burst capability and is therefore likely a civilian AR15. 2601:940:8101:1190:ED56:10DA:152:F778 02:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. Use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
does not represent any educational or educational value since the organization has existed for less than 3 years. the organization was a kind of quasi organization.--Ayratayrat (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
the author declares that a mistake has been made in the drawing. please delete the picture.--Ayratayrat (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Code_1.53.2_zh_CN.png and developer statement SCP-2000 03:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see no graphic work that is above COM:TOO. And if you can find anything on the page that you think is creative then I would say that it is COM:DM. The only thing I would think twice about is File:Vscode_screenshot.png. --MGA73 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Visual Studio Code 1.53.2 zh CN.png was closed as keep by User:Taivo. --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per User:MGA73 and previouse DR. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivated work - photocopy from photo create before 26.IV.1991. Микола Василечко (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
not notable. out of com:PS. Hanooz 09:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sphere within Sphere New York
[edit]- File:Bronzeskulptur "The Sphere within a sphere" des Italieners Arnaldo Pomodoro - panoramio.jpg
- File:Plaza at the United Nations Headquarters, New York City - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sculpture outside the UN, NY, NY.jpg
- File:Sculpture, UN Building (2110903159).jpg
- File:Sphere within Sphere.jpg
Photos of a sculpture in New York. Copyright belongs to the living sculptor en:Arnaldo Pomodoro; no Freedom of Panorama for 3D artworks in the US (COM:FOP US). --M.nelson (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't like this, but can't argue that it's not a sculpture, even if it's in a public outdoor plaza. So I don't feel that I can make any argument against deletion, other than disagreement with this strict interpretation of copyright law. Sincerely always, unitof (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If we do not know even the country, then the photo is out of project scope. Kollimali is not mentioned in en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (no hits even on WD). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as Dw no source since (dw no source since)
The photographed object is a utility item ordered via the Internet: A toiletry bag for children.
Unfortunately, I could not find the dealer anymore.
Questions:
- Is this a copyrighted work of art?
- What criteria have to be used to decide this?
F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Yes it is a copyrighted design, needing permission from the designer. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
National anthem of protostate (d:Q15402214). Not self-created. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Uploader is not the copyright owner, used for vandalism/personal attack. Catlemur (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
www on the file. E4024 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Noah Irtu Rodríguez (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
- File:María Luisa Faneca (PSOE de Huelva).jpg
- File:Compromiso-por-isla-cristina-150x150.jpg
- File:Jenaro-orta-web.jpg
Didym (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unreliable uploader, all other uploads were proven copyvios. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Redirect orfano Massic80 Contattami 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 126.209.54.101 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.strike-the-blood.com/imgs/logo.png Thibaut (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Below COM:TOO. --Thibaut (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per Thibaut, COM:TOO Japan is very high. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 14:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The 007 logos are beyond COM:TOO UK where 007 is originally made in UK. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Ditto for:
--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I have deleted more than 20 images of this same stadium by this same user as copyright violations; they were taken from varous websites and social media with false licenses. I haven't found this one in a reverse image search but strongly suspect it is the same case. Website resolution. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, stale no counterarguments or objections -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of DC Comics' "Flash" character, if not a direct copy of an image of it. In either case, it would be infringing on the copyright of the original character design. Seraphimblade (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a Brazilian governement work, being published by a commercial newspaper in 1978, i.e. not in public domain. ━ GHMF (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also File:Gustav Franz Wagner - Jornal do Brasil (cropped).jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 11:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Move to enWiki, deWiki, or ptWiki - probably meets fair use guidelines and is a very important image, but doesn't belong here as it isn't free. Schetm (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Google 1998 logo.png}} Haideronwiki (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Requires regular DR, per Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> PNG). --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cancelled deletion request. Haideronwiki (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This Image is GIF and Already had an SVG 2001:8F8:1E23:6CEC:1DA:F0B8:CC14:5053 16:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We do not delete raster images just because there are now also vector versions available. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It's PNG and already has SVG 2001:8F8:1E23:6CEC:1DA:F0B8:CC14:5053 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We do not delete raster images just because there are now also vector versions available. --Rosenzweig τ 11:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Taken from someone's facebook page. E4024 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, I suspect that the uploader is a part of the Việt Phục (越服, "Vietnamese Glory") movement, doing research brought me here, the uploader is a company called "Designlife Việt Nam" (note that company accounts are allowed on Wikimedia Commons as the Swiss National Library edits here). They also uploaded "File:Ao vien linh mau xanh.jpg" with metadata and as it uses both the same model and style as is known from this company I am doubtful that they are not the author, but will do additional research. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also found on the web before it was uploaded here. --Rosenzweig τ 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo, and as such requires a license from the photographer since COM:PD-art only covers faithful reconstructions of 2D-artworks.
Found due to Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-Art review. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bonjour, si le problème vient de la licence, est ce que ça convient si je mets plutôt Template:PD-old-assumed ? Tiraden (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP (unclear who the photographer is). --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Denmark, there's no freedom of panorama in Denmark for murals and the photo violates artist's copyright. Taivo (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article discusses the controversy surrounding this mural, which is why the mural is included as a picture in the article. The photo is taken of a public space, and is freely available to the public. The above copyright argument is specious. As for Denmark allegedly prohibiting murals, um, not true. But even if a country prohibits murder, wikipedia is still allowed to write articles about murders.
- One wonders if it's the same group of people who defaced the mural that is now trying to take it down from Wikipedia too. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- OMG. I just read COM:FOP Denmark, and it specifically allows this sort of mural and the reproduction thereof. Please do not make frivolous challenges. They waste everyone's time. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @GetSomeUtah: Which part of "
Not OK for any public art still in copyright" is unclear to you? Did you see photo with disappeared little mermaid? Taivo (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - @GetSomeUtah: Also, why don't you agree to crop the mural on it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GetSomeUtah: Which part of "
- OMG. I just read COM:FOP Denmark, and it specifically allows this sort of mural and the reproduction thereof. Please do not make frivolous challenges. They waste everyone's time. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![175 File:Young Multi Klip Utworu ,,Toast".jpg](#File:Young_Multi_Klip_Utworu_,,Toast".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§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}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1996.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![12:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/03/28#c-Grafferrtt-2021-03-28T12:21:00.000Z-File:Young_Multi_Klip_Utworu_,,Toast".jpg){kind=link}
![11:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/03/28#c-Green_Giant-2021-05-17T11:28:00.000Z-File:Young_Multi_Klip_Utworu_,,Toast".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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Actually nothing will remain. The mural with dove in center is copyrighted and graffiti below is copyrighted as well. Taivo (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Complex UK logo, no evidence uploader is copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
copyvio : https://www.facebook.com/Officialdouzi Lagribouille (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Probably uploaded by the same person, but is out of COM:SCOPE. Delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. found here. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sfera con sfera, Vatican City
[edit]3D sculpture in Vatican City, created by the living sculptor en:Arnaldo Pomodoro. No Freedom of Panorama for 3D artworks in Vatican City (COM:FOP Vatican/COM:FOP Italy).
- File:"Звезда смерти" ватиканской военщины - panoramio.jpg
- File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio (38).jpg
- File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio (63).jpg
- File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio - Laci30 (1).jpg
- File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio - Laci30 (3).jpg
- File:00120 Vatican City - panoramio - Laci30.jpg
- File:11708 - Vatican - Cortile della Pigna (3481624831).jpg
- File:11709 - Vatican - Cortile della Pigna (3482438208).jpg
- File:11713 - Vatican - Cortile della Pigna (3482438956).jpg
- File:6 Musei Vaticani.PNG
- File:Arnaldo Pomodoro Sphere Within Sphere (5987260300).jpg
- File:Escultura moderna - Flickr - teclasorg.jpg
- File:Giardino della Pigna - Vativano - panoramio.jpg
- File:Il giardino dei musei vaticani 037.jpg
- File:Il Globo di Arnaldo Pomodoro nei musei Vaticani e, sul retro, la Cupola di San Pietro. - panoramio.jpg
- File:Inside Musei Vaticani (492464192).jpg
- File:Jardines del vaticano.JPG
- File:Neglected Pomodoro, Vatican (2995180594).jpg
- File:Outside pieces photo-11.JPG
- File:Outside pieces photo-12.JPG
- File:Outside pieces photo-15.JPG
- File:Outside pieces photo-16.JPG
- File:Outside pieces photo-17.JPG
- File:Quartiere XIV Trionfale, Roma, Italy - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Sfera con sfera - Cortile della Pigna (Città del Vaticano) 2.JPG
- File:Sfera con sfera - Cortile della Pigna (Città del Vaticano).JPG
- File:Sfera con sfera by Arnaldo Pomodoro, Cortile della Pigna, Vatican, Rome, Italy.jpg
- File:Sfera con sfera by Pomodoro in the Cortile della Pigna, Vatican City, Rome.jpg
- File:Sfera con sfera by Pomodoro.JPG
- File:Sfera con Sfera detail.jpg
- File:Sfera con Sfera 天球套天球 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sfera con Sfera.JPG
- File:Sphere Within Sphere 球中有球 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Vatican City Exterior - panoramio.jpg
- File:Vatican Museum Courtyard - panoramio.jpg
- File:Vatican Museums 2011 5.jpg
- File:Vatican Museums outside.jpg
- File:Vatikan Museum - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Vativan Museums 2011 4.jpg
- File:Watykan03(js).jpg
- File:Weltkugel - panoramio.jpg
- File:Zerborstene Weltkugel - panoramio.jpg
- File:Скульптура вращающийся шар - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Скульптура вращающийся шар - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sphere Within Sphere by Pomodoro in the Cortile della Pigna, Vatican, Rome (2016).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){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}
_2.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}
M.nelson (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work copyvios (CC/PD images violated artist Arnaldo Pomodoro's copyright, and still living sculptor [b. 1926]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Well, some of these photos, e.g. File:Vativan Museums 2011 4.jpg and File:Vatican Museums 2011 5.jpg, show larger views of the surroundings and Pomodoro’s sculptures are only (relatively) small parts of these photos. Maybe we could/should keep these photos per de minimis? --Aristeas (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept 5 that can be considered as DM. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Berrely as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, copyrighted logo from [4]. PD in the US, no information on TOO in Bulgaria AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
![[4]](https://www.vivacom.bg/web/files/resources/1/image/thumb_217x0_vivacom-logo-small.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination and remark. --Ellywa (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Music and lyrics are still copyrighted. 沈澄心✉ 01:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fails WMF's recommendation from lawyer here: COM:ART#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?: Anything that could cast a shadow is excluded. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Magog the Ogre Not sure what the issue is here. From what I can see, the image is under PD-US-Gov? Shotgunscoop (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The photo contains an item which is 3-D enough to cast a shadow. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I assume the uploader, who did not comment alas due to inactivity, might have made this photo. But to avoid all potential problems, I cropped the shadow, so a flat piece of textile remains. As far as textile is flat. Also paint is not flat.... so kept the image without the 3D effect. --Ellywa (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert as Noncommercial (Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0). Sourced to https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw175546/Sir-Alan-Cuthbert-Maxwell-Burns, which indicates it was created by the Lafayette company in 1928. If we assume that it was published soon after it was created, this image would be PD in the UK because {{PD-UK-unknown}} (only human authors count, not corporate authors). It would have entered the public domain in 1998, which is after the URAA date of 1996, so copyright protection was most likely restored in the US. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Based on Commons:Hirtle_chart, the US copyright of this image would expire in 2024 per above. The UK copyright expired after the 1996 URAA, which added US copyright tenure as well. Therefore, while it's PD in the UK, it's not yet PD in the US. Therefore, it can be restored in 2024. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and undelete 2024. .. --Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Dong Hwa University
[edit]According to {{GWOIA}}# Related Items, the logo is not within the scope of this license.
- File:NDHU Logo+Title.png
- File:NDHU LOGO.svg
- File:Chasslogo.jpg
- File:National Dong Hwa University.svg
Larryasou (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
These two files could be altered into PD License.
Decasurger (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- PD what?--Larryasou (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
These two files are eligible for PD-logo.
That is, what kind of Calligraphy is copyrighted is really controversial.
Nowadays, there are many Calligraphy font generator services, many of which provide more than 40 types of Calligraphy font.
These two files don't reach the threshold of originality to be copyrighted as a human sentiment effort reaching the height of Creativity.
Decasurger (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, what kind of calligraphy do you think is copyrighted? The first one looks like an artificial work. --Larryasou (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- As description from the page, it's a 王羲之字體, which is the font widely spotted in calligraphy generator services. This is not the thing reaching the threshold of originality to be copyrighted as a human sentiment effort reaching the height of Creativity, cause 王羲之 has died over thousands of year. --Decasurger (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Keep File:NDHU LOGO.svg only and Delete the others, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Taiwan. --Wcam (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK.
Kept: two kept, one deleted, per consensus and summary of Wcam. --Ellywa (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
tidak digunakan di halaman mana pun N219 (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, translate: not used on any page. That is not a reason, image might be educational useful and is therefore within COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
non-free license, not used in any page Natsukusha (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
not used, copyright font Natsukusha (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep While a font can be copyrighted, there has been no evidence presented that this font is copyrighted. The image has been released under a free license, and the uploader has made corrections, showing that they are the creator. Only 25% of all images are ever used. --RAN (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
License from the source is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, date required verification to proof PD status A1Cafel (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unknown author, unkown publication date and sources gives NC licence. --Ellywa (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also deleted Akhundov Garden and Zinovyeva Street (cropped).jpg, cropped version. Ellywa (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
License from the source is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, date required verification to proof PD status A1Cafel (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, unknown author, unkown publication date and sources gives NC licence. --Ellywa (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
own work? Then it's a fake. Also see user talk page Lesless (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyrighted, deleted per COM:PRP, uploader did not comment, has a fairly large history of deleted files. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
own work? Then it's a fake. Also see user talk page Lesless (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyrighted, deleted per COM:PRP, uploader did not comment, has a fairly large history of deleted files. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
own work? Then it's a fake. Also see user talk page Lesless (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyrighted, deleted per COM:PRP, uploader did not comment, has a fairly large history of deleted files. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
own work? Then it's a fake. Also see user talk page Lesless (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyrighted, deleted per COM:PRP, uploader did not comment, has a fairly large history of deleted files. --Ellywa (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
another version is available (lossless compression, smaller file) Avayak (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for removal stated here, this proposal contains no link to any exact duplicate. Similar images are not a reason for deleting. The only similar image has different composition (is cropped, the URL adress line is missing). --ŠJů (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I consider this image, not used on the projects as COM:REDUNDANT. --Ellywa (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from TV translation. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hochlader offensichtlich nicht mit Urheber identisch, hier liegt eindeutig eine Fehllizenzierung vor denn neben der Tatsache , dass der Hochlader und der Urheber nicht identisch scheinen, ist auch unwahrscheinlich dass der angegebene Urheber wirklich der Urheber ist, denn er soll auch der Abgebildete sein - und das ist wohl kein Selfie!? Lutheraner (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @M. Siegbert: you can follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the photographer to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image can be undeleted. Please remember the person of the photo is probably not the photographer/copyright holder. --Ellywa (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if is it copyvio or it is actually under PD-CzechGov. I think that Android and Chrome interface should be cropped. Patrik L. (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Patrik L.: I cropped the image to resolve the potential copyvio. --Avayak (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Avayak: Also interested in this. --JeremySil (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Patrik L., Avayak, and JeremySil: Uhm… are you sure that just the URL adress line has such thershold of originality that have to be removed? I can see only simple entries in simple typeface and simple geometrical shapes and colors in the removed top bars. Just deleting the URL adress can be considered a violation and damage. The whole page has obviously no ambition to be considered a creative work, by graphics as well as by the text. The bars and miniature icons are "de minimis", however, removing them will devalue the entire screenshot and disrupts its context. I propose to restore the original version. Copyright should be not interpreted and applied in this absurd way. --ŠJů (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- As I wrote above "I think that Android and Chrome interface should be cropped." Patrik L. (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Patrik L., Avayak, and JeremySil: Uhm… are you sure that just the URL adress line has such thershold of originality that have to be removed? I can see only simple entries in simple typeface and simple geometrical shapes and colors in the removed top bars. Just deleting the URL adress can be considered a violation and damage. The whole page has obviously no ambition to be considered a creative work, by graphics as well as by the text. The bars and miniature icons are "de minimis", however, removing them will devalue the entire screenshot and disrupts its context. I propose to restore the original version. Copyright should be not interpreted and applied in this absurd way. --ŠJů (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Avayak: Also interested in this. --JeremySil (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Deleted the uncropped and possibly copyrighted version. --Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
unnecessarily, copyvio of interface, is not own work Patrik L. (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Patrik L.: I edited it and uploaded a new version without interface. Hope it is fine now. --JeremySil (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Use this:
|
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information.
|
--Luhačovice 2021 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The failure message as well as the simple adress bar with miniicons obviously doesn't meet threshold of originality. Restore the original full version before cropp. The URL adress is indispensable part of the context. --ŠJů (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: cropped version is only plain text. The uncropped version shows a copyrighted favicon, there it has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Curator Ricardo Barreto and Artist Amy Karle at FILE Electronic Language International Festival 2017 São Paulo Brazil.jpg
[edit]
wrong image uploaded ArtistAmyKarle1 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:COURTESY. --Ellywa (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Logo Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think it's close to textlogo. If not, delete. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep @Hedwig in Washington: You're free to close this and change the licensing if you'd like. I was just changing the speedy tag to the appropriate maintenance via VFC. 1989 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This is not purely a text logo, and from Belgium/Prague/various EU countries, so probably copyrighted within Europe. Therefore it has to be deleted. Website says Copyright © 2021 EuChemS • All rights reserved. --Ellywa (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Logo Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment IMHO textlogo with three simple geometric shapes. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hedwig in Washington: You're free to close this and change the licensing if you'd like. I was just changing the speedy tag to the appropriate maintenance via VFC. 1989 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: simple text logo, uploaded by the organization with free licence. --Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
West Midlands Police is a British police force under the auspices of the Home Office and therefore its work (presumably) falls under Crown Copyright, with such works requiring release under the Open Government Licence (OGL) for them to be freely reusable. Since WMP's Flickr page does not indicate that any OGL licensing is in effect, shouldn't the absence thereof take priority over Flickr's CC licensing? Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @Dvaderv2: you can change the licence on the file page. Whichever licence is correct, the image can be maintained. --Ellywa (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
West Midlands Police is a British police force under the auspices of the Home Office and therefore its work (presumably) falls under Crown Copyright, with such works requiring release under the Open Government Licence (OGL) for them to be freely reusable. Since WMP's Flickr page does not indicate that any OGL licensing is in effect, shouldn't the absence thereof take priority over Flickr's CC licensing? Dvaderv2 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @Dvaderv2: you can change the licence on the file page. Whichever licence is correct, the image can be maintained. --Ellywa (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims "vrijwillig ontvangen van de acteur, dus zonder copyright" (voluntarily received from the actor, so without copyright). Altough the uploader means well and the actor too, this isn't how copyright works. Copyright is owned by the photographer and not the portrayeed. We need permission from the copyright holder that the photo can be published under a free license (through OTRS).. Mbch331 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader did not take action or commented. --Ellywa (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
original deletion was Marking as possible copyvio because Between 35:25 and 39:16 the video contains a bunch of clips that are very unlikely to be own work of the Youtube channel.) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Does it make the other parts unusable under the designated license? --INS Pirat (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, the surveillance camera tapes are ineligible for copyright in Russia. So, the questionable part is not the original clips but the edited ones (with zoom effects, etc.) and those which were captured from a screen with a hand-held camera. --INS Pirat (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per explanation of INS Pirat. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
