Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/05/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_ENG_MARMANET_ISRAEL.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-JW-로고_201020.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
F10: This user has no constructive contributions besides attempts at self-promotion. RandomCanadian (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied per F10. --✗plicit 02:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Дубликат File:Minnikhanov visited Republican Children's Clinical Hospital (2021-05-11) 22.jpg Леонид Макаров (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_22.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
- Это вообще не гимназия, если вы не поняли. И перебейте даты на других фото — у фотографа президента неправильно настроен фотоаппарат. Загруженные файлы нужно переименовать по-английски, перегруппировать в ранее созданную категорию, а вашу категорию — удалить. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ок, где не гимназия — поставил на удаление, их скоро удалят. Даты на фото перебил. Категорию сделал внутреннюю от ранее созданной категории (так проще). "Загруженные файлы переименовать по-английски" никто не практикует, но вы можете переименовать на ваше усмотрение (флага на переименование файлов у меня всё равно нет).--Леонид Макаров (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. --A.Savin 13:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Дубликат File:Minnikhanov visited Republican Children's Clinical Hospital (2021-05-11) 21.jpg Леонид Макаров (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_21.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicate. --A.Savin 13:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Дубликат File:Minnikhanov visited Republican Children's Clinical Hospital (2021-05-11) 20.jpg Леонид Макаров (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_20.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicate. --A.Savin 13:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Дубликат File:Minnikhanov visited Republican Children's Clinical Hospital (2021-05-11) 20.jpg Леонид Макаров (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_04.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicate. --A.Savin 13:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fork: File:Minnikhanov visited Republican Children's Clinical Hospital (2021-05-11) 01.jpg Lesless (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duplicate. --A.Savin 16:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_05.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Bishibitsu as no source (No source since) Ankry (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Source clearly specified. This seems to be an improved version with different colouring. Same EXIF data. Ankry (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Keep. The source is clearly indicated. It is an edited version of an existing image here: File:Kaohsiung_Tuntex_Sky_Tower_Innen_Bild_2.jpg. I suspect the user who tagged this thought it was a radically different file (which I assume was due to a radical image "improvement" by Willy1018 that destroyed its EXIF metadata and greatly reduced its resolution. I have since reverted that destructive "image improvement". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wait a minute (or so). Slashed my input. @Ankry: I have suspicion on the original image itself. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2.jpg. It seems the subject is not a real life tangible skyline of Kaohsiung, but an image (therefore an image within an image). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if there are doubts about a specific image, we should not start deletion process from its DWs. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I think the opposite is true. The file here (File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2 (2).jpg) is a DW of the original File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if there are doubts about a specific image, we should not start deletion process from its DWs. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- And so, I suggest closing this and discuss copyright-reletad issues there. Ankry (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DW itself seems OK and issues of the underlying image should be discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2.jpg. --Ankry (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong file uploaded. This file should not be available online as this can lead to misuse of the logo. Author5488 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
& all other uploads of user. Images are not in scope (Commons:Project scope). User keeps reuploading them. Isderion (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Billinghurst at 03:51, 13 Mai 2021 UTC: Mass deletion of pages added by Fischimaus --Krdbot 08:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bondarenko1116 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyright violation. Photos of paintings. The authors of the paintings are not listed. The people in the painting died in 1943.
Maxinvestigator (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio, quickly deleted per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minoraxtalk 02:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work because watermarks of bangkokbusclub.com. It also shows the person who scanned the photo, which doesn't quite match up with the uploader. Bebiezaza (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio, no need to wait full week. Taivo (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work because watermarks of bangkokbusclub.com. It also shows the person who scanned the photo, which doesn't quite match up with the uploader. Bebiezaza (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio, no need to wait full week. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work because watermarks of bangkokbusclub.com. It also shows the person who scanned the photo, which doesn't quite match up with the uploader. Bebiezaza (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio, no need to wait full week. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Not own work because watermarks of bangkokbusclub.com. It also shows the person who scanned the photo, which doesn't quite match up with the uploader. Bebiezaza (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio, no need to wait full week. Taivo (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Pixelated, low quality, inferior file format, inconsistent style, misnamed, unused. Several high quality alternatives are in Category:3,3-Dimethylhexane. Marbletan (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wostr (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 12:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
taken from instagram - no indication owner has open licenced it Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Too small, replaced by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A3_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%98_VIEWPOINT.png Ovedc (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Geagea (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement, no educational value. Velma (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 14:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Women pantyhose (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused low quality photos of dress.
- File:شراب شبيكة اسود.jpg
- File:شراب شبيكة.png
- File:شراب كولون شبيكة.jpg
- File:شراب كولون شبيكة اسود.png
- File:شراب بترتر (فتاة السيرك).jpg
- File:شراب مطرز بترتر (فتاة السيرك).jpg
- File:(فتاة السيرك)شراب بترتر.png
- File:شراب بترتر.jpg
- File:(كولون كريستال).png
- File:كولون كريستال.png
- File:شراب كولون منقط (مساعدة الساحر).png
- File:كولون منقط (مساعدة الساحر).png
- File:جورب بترتر.png
- File:جورب بترتر.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8_%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Women pantyhose (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots, out project scope.
- File:Circus 1959.jpg
- File:Diamond tight.jpg
- File:Trapeze56.png
- File:مرا لابسة شراب كريستال.jpg
- File:The big circus 1959.jpg
- File:Trapeze 1956.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة قميص نوم احمر وشراب كولون شبيكة.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة قميص احمر وشراب كولون كريستال شفاف.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة شراب.jpg
- File:العروسة الخبرة بتلبس شراب الفرح.jpg
- File:مرا بتلبس شراب كولون شفاف.png
- File:مرا لابسة شراب بترتر.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة اندر وسنتيان اسود وكولون كريستال.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة بيبي دول احمر وشراب كريستال شفاف بتعدل الايشارب.jpg
- File:مرا لابسة اندر وسنتيان اسود وكولون منقط.jpg
- File:مرا.png
- File:مرا لابسة اندر وسنتيان اسود وكولون كريستال شفاف.jpg
- File:مرا ..jpg
- File:كولون شفاف اسود منفط.jpg
- File:لابسة شراب شفاف.jpg
- File:كولون اسود يترتر.jpg
- File:لبس الشراب الكولون.jpg
- File:فتاة السيرك لابسة كولون بترتر.jpg
- File:كولون شبك اسود.jpg
- File:كولون كريسال.jpg
- File:مرا.jpg
- File:لابسة كولون شفاف.jpg
- File:لاعبة السيرك ترتدي كولون شفاف بترتر.jpg
- File:مساعدة الساحر لابسة كولون شفاف منقط.png
- File:لابسة شراب شفاف.png
- File:لابسة ملابس شفافة.jpg
- File:طقم داخلي اسود ( اندر وسنتيان).jpg
- File:لبس الكولون.jpg
- File:;كولون منقط.jpg
- File:Pantyhose wearing.jpg
- File:Pantyhose wearing.png
- File:(كولون اسود بترتر (فتاة السيرك.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Billjones94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poor image quality - most appear to be screenshots and missing camera exif data.
- File:Barasat Stadium on a matchday.jpg
- File:Kalyani Stadium on a matchday.jpg
- File:RoundGlass Punjab FC players celebrating.jpg
- File:Gokulam Kerala after winning the I-League 2020-21.jpg
- File:Dsk Shivajians vs Bengaluru FC.jpg
- File:Dave Rodgers giving directions during the pre-season training of DSK Shivajians.jpg
- File:DSK Shivajians FC players during training in 2015.jpg
- File:Aerial view of the Eka Arena Ahmadabad.jpg
- File:Stuart Watkiss as manager of Kalyani Bharat FC in 2015.jpg
- File:Churchill Brothers FC players in 2021.jpg
- File:Minerva Punjab FC players in action.jpg
- File:Rabindra Sarobar Stadium during renovation.jpg
- File:Chennai city fc vs Al Riffa.jpg
- File:Aryan FC players.jpg
- File:Lonestar Kashmir FC players lining up.jpg
- File:Aizawl FC players in action at the Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Aizawl.jpg
- File:Aerial view of Aizawl Stadium in Mizoram.jpg
- File:Cooperage football ground in Mumbai on a matchday.jpg
- File:Mohun Bagan ground in Kolkata.jpg
- File:New Bangaluru football stadium during I-League.jpg
- File:Shillong Nehru Stadium in Meghalaya.jpg
- File:Aerial view of the Khuman Lampak Main Stadium.jpg
- File:A view of Kishore Bharati Krirangan of Jadavpur.jpg
- File:Newly renovated Kishore Bharati Stadium in Kolkata.jpg
- File:Trc turf ground at the evening.jpg
- File:Real Kashmir Football Club players.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
No educational value. Velma (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Private photo, bad quality. Velma (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
spam addition; not notable according to the deletions at cyrillic wikis — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Personal drawing without educational use Drakosh (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
self promotion. Larryasou (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Useless file. Out of COM:SCOPE and COM:NOTUSED. Only link is at an automated monitoring page by OgreBot. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Signature of an unremarkable individual. Only instance of use is w:Draft:Tania Aidrus, which the submission was declined. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
lukistan does not rreally exist, fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused out-of scope file. Also Wikimedia COmmons is not a website for uploading person selfies, or uploading any image. Eaaaaugh (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Farachia does not really exist, fantasy diagram out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Farachia does not really exist, fantasy diagram out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy party names and diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
fantasy party names and diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Private photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gurminder Singh Bajwa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused user photos.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gurminder Singh Bajwa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentations of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not a valid image, taken from a screenshot of a YouTube video without proper permission DrawWikiped (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Dubious own-work claim. Image has a yellow border on the right side and plagued with artifacts. ✗plicit 02:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Klärung im Bildkontext in Autor Josef H. Neumann Juniperi (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative of work of living artist. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement, not useful and no educational value. Velma (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, deleted per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Since fr:Fichier:Michelin logo.png is non-free at fr.wiki, I would assume this logo too does surpass COM:TOO France. I am not very knowledgeable in the TOO of French so it might as well be so that the logo at fr.wiki. actually is free. I'll let topic be discussed in this DR. Jonteemil (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted, clearly complex logo. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
copyright violation; contemporary artwork. Martin Sg. (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ashealeslii (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ashealeslii: Is the file really supposed to be named File:Martha Wayles.png, as you attempted to indicate in this edit? How do you know? Where did you get it? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Pointless, content-less image Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nevermind, this meets the qualifications for speedy deletion (G1. Test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content) -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: already speedily deleted. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Pointless, content-less image Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nevermind, this meets the qualifications for speedy deletion (G1. Test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content) -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close: already speedily deleted. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense tbo47 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Apparently, this depicts some protests in Bogotá in 2015, the description is not very helpful (protests against what?), but certainly not "nonsense". --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete used on WD for promotion --Martin Urbanec (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work. Municipal tarpaulins here are usually not truly government works, but rather works of hired graphics artists (hence commissioned works). Rule of commissioned works (COM:Philippines#Commissioned works) — the owner (here the office of the Baliwag council) holds physical ownership but copyright is retained by the artists, unless there is a "written stipulation on the contrary" (which must be proven by the uploader himself and not passed on by other users or admins of Wikimedia Commons per COM:EVIDENCE). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Potential derivative work problem (sir Col. Sanders logo). Also, if cropping may solve, this can become redundant to File:9886KFC "restaurants on wheels" 03.jpg which shows the same quote in simple words, despite in different medium. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields (Mabalas-balas, Diliman I and Diliman II) 2021
[edit]Unused redundant images to others in the same category. Nominated images contain distracting shadow (of the uploader himself) that diminish their usability.
- File:9816Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction 15.jpg
- File:9816Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction 36.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 05.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 06.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 11.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 13.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 16.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 18.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 21.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 23.jpg
- File:9990Views of San Ildefonso-San Rafael bypass road construction and paddy fields 31.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded for the purpose of vandalism. Person depicted is not the mayor. KittenKlub (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not for storage of personal files KittenKlub (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a personal file, it depicts the Aboudi incident. 2001:16B8:7E:D000:DDA2:DCE4:EBE6:4D79 18:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
misstake Salgo60 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: author request. --✗plicit 02:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
people missuses Rahatahmedrafi (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
pepole miss use Rahatahmedrafi (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
people miss use my signature Rahatahmedrafi (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
people missuses Rahatahmedrafi (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
people miss use my signature Rahatahmedrafi (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Georgia archive requests it not be used Kitkat8892 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Map is from 1789, public domain. What is the problem? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
company logo. No sources of the commons publisher being the rights holder https://www.google.com/search?sa=G&hl=pt_BR&tbs=simg:CAQS_1QEJ1Ba_1ONQKaMwa8QELELCMpwgaOwo5CAQSFLgSxTmFN5MD5SG5BtAxjyasK8Y9Ghu6Ys0v-Z-z4qtomHqhvZYjM3ioJuL0-HxAfbkgBTAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEu7kvmAwLEJ3twQkakAEKFgoDZG902qWI9gMLCgkvbS8wMjdjdGcKGwoIbGFuZ3VhZ2XapYj2AwsKCS9qLzJzaF95NAodCgpob3Jpem9udGFs2qWI9gMLCgkvYS8ybXF2emMKGwoIdmVydGljYWzapYj2AwsKCS9hLzRoaDNwMAodCgtjYWxsaWdyYXBoedqliPYDCgoIL20vMGYxdHoM&q=dot&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjQz8X-_cLwAhVlpZUCHbbICsIQwg4oAHoECAEQMQ&biw=1360&bih=625#imgrc=WnNQX18FXgoKIM O revolucionário aliado (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:MariaSmith02
[edit]- File:Choose our cheap and professional writing assistance (1).jpg
- File:5 steps to writing a case stusy.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Blatant advertising. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There are hundreds of images depicting art exhibitions and contemporary art objects on Commons. This picture as well can be considered "no copyright violation". Even more important: A copyright violation can only be determined when art objects are 100% identified. On this picture the artworks are hidden behind visitors. In fact, there are no artworks in this picture that can be a subject of copyright violation. Lear 21 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- The argument that "A copyright violation can only be determined when art objects are 100% identified" IMO is incorrect, at least for Wikimedia Commons, which is based on contributors demonstrating that media is PD or free licensed, rather than challenging others to "100%" prove it to be a copyright violation. See Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle. By the way, the main image in the background is a monochrome enlarged reproduction of "Raft of the Medusa" by Théodore Géricault (d 1824) - public domain. I am voting to keep this image, but I wanted to be on record that is despite, not because of, the above claim. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The image seen in the background is a monochrome enlarged reproduction of "Raft of the Medusa" by Théodore Géricault (d 1824) - public domain. Anything else seen in the photo is de minimis. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artwork(s), no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Martin Sg.: Did you read the previous listing? The visible artwork is from an artist who died in 1824, not "contemp. artwork". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Explanation can be seen in the previous discussion. All the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artwork. Martin Sg. (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Quite bad quality, we have rather many pictures of people with harps at Category:People_with_harps. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Very poor quality, unclear subject. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Small image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. The person in the photos died in 2003.
Maxinvestigator (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Not own work, might be copyrighted [1] HistoryofIran (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is my own work and the full version can be found here : https://www.artstation.com/artwork/kD1xVA
- Any copyright claimes can't be addressed to me ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-Grogh (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense, the way you and he speaks is pretty different. I also doubt he would remove my comment like you did. Prove it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I Speak the same everywhere and in case of need can confirm my identity, if you continue flagging me for to reason I'll send a complaint against your behaviour, you are lucky I don't understand how anything works on this archaic website ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert pashayan (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Again, you and him speak completely differently, his vocabulary is also better for starters - a quick look at his profile will show that. I've contacted him, and after he confirms you're faking I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I Speak the same everywhere and in case of need can confirm my identity, if you continue flagging me for to reason I'll send a complaint against your behaviour, you are lucky I don't understand how anything works on this archaic website ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert pashayan (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense, the way you and he speaks is pretty different. I also doubt he would remove my comment like you did. Prove it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
there is no FOP in Abu Dhabi 109.45.60.10 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As the original photographer of this image, I support the deletion request. I apologise for any inadvertent violation of the law and request that this matter is not escalated to the UAE authorities for prosecution. Sm105 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no "Freedom of Panorama" in the United Arab Emirates. The building is modern and still under copyright. This photo can be transferred to local wikis that allow FOP-encumbered photos, but cannot be hosted on Commons. Storkk (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no "Freedom of Panorama" in the United Arab Emirates. The building is modern and still under copyright. This photo can be transferred to local wikis that allow FOP-encumbered photos, but cannot be hosted on Commons. Additionally, the file lacks metadata (despite the description's date field referencing non-existent Exif), and thus its authorship should be confirmed via OTRS if it is indeed transferred to a sister project. Storkk (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Y.haruo (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no "Freedom of Panorama" in the United Arab Emirates. The building is modern and still under copyright. Additionally, the file appears unlikely to be the uploader's own work, and thus its authorship and license should be confirmed via OTRS before any transfer to a sister project that allows FOP-encumbered photos is considered. Storkk (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in UAE. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement, no educational value, out of scope. Velma (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement, no educational value, out of scope. Velma (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The logo is not simple enough to be Public Domain. Yogwi21 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The logo is not simple enough to be Public Domain. Yogwi21 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
bad svg and No permission shizhao (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is a little blurry compared to sharper ones of the same view here and here. Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
FXD.jpg){kind=link}
- PNG files are always blurry in thumbnail view. The full image is not blurry. --Trzęsacz (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Trzęsacz: I was looking at the full images, not thumbnails. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moson81 for speedy deletion and the rationale was: Per COM:PORN, we don't need things like these, only used for vandalism
Moved to DR as doesn't meet COM:CSD. CptViraj (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Qwertyfry38 for db-author speedy deletion. Moved to DR as COM:CSD#G7 doesn't apply to pages older than a week. CptViraj (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Sigwald for speedy deletion and the rationale was: out of scope, non-notable person
Moved to DR as doesn't meet COM:CSD. CptViraj (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This flag is not the official standard: https://grs.gov.kg/uploads/state_symbols/flag_standart.png SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The specifications has ben already established by the Kyrgyz government: https://grs.gov.kg/uploads/state_symbols/flag_standart.png SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Facebook photo per metadata. No EXIF. Smooth O (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Indoor artwork in Hungary. This is not covered by FoP. Regasterios (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Privacy concerns EmpathyArts (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete So you upload an image (well actually two, because you replace one version with another, and than you post a deletion request stating privacy concerns. Well, who but you, the uploader should know wether you have the permission by GDR or not? We can't give you an expultation. So yes, if no decent permission is given, this file needs to be deleted. --Wuselig (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The image is not qualified for Commons because the CoA was designed around 2017 by heraldist Tapani Talari and thus is still under copyright laws. More info in Swedish: https://kommuntorget.fi/politik-och-demokrati/nya-vapen-for-gamla-kommuner/ Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Not a real skyscraper photo, but an image of an image. The description states "Picture inside the Tuntex Sky Tower of the Tuntex Sky Tower, Kaohsiung, Taiwan." Part of the title itself, "Innen Bild", literally means "Inside Picture" per Google Translate. I am beginning to suspect this is not a true view of the city skyline, but shows a photo or image of the city skyline that is placed inside the skyscraper itself. The skyscraper itself is the tallest building as seen on this image.
If so, then unfortunately this fails {{FoP-Taiwan}} if ever, as the underlying image work is found inside the skyscraper itself. Image of an image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Adding to my suspicion is the brightness of the whole image file, which make me suspect this is not a window view, but a view of an image (illuminated image?). Ping the uploader @Zairon: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Added comment by nom: one can notice some black margins surrounding some sides of the image, which I doubt could be window margins. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- A decission here should also be applied to DW of this image:
- Ankry (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Willy1018: pinging the uploader of the derivative (File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2 (2).jpg) of this image in question. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- No comment. Willy1018(talk) 09:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Willy1018: pinging the uploader of the derivative (File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2 (2).jpg) of this image in question. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Joke image with misleading, inappropriate text Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
COmes from that google snake game. Also copyright violaation. Eaaaaugh (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation. Non-free logo of Flipline Studios, a video game developer. And Above the threshold of originality. Eaaaaugh (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Does not have a free license, o copyright violation. Eaaaaugh (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Work from ROBLOX avatars. And non-free. Eaaaaugh (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, with no scope. Derivative work of trollfce. Eaaaaugh (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violations. Eaaaaugh (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
near dupe of File:9611Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan 36.jpg Minoraxtalk 13:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:4990010223432 - Bharatiya Gabadi Pashur Katipay Byadhi, Walker, J. K., 61p, TECHNOLOGY, bengali (1916).pdf
[edit]duplicate file at File:ভারতীয় গবদি পশুর কতিপয় ব্যাধি.pdf Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is just an image of the text "Pharmacokinetic data". Category:Images which should not be images. Marbletan (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The file is not licenced under a valid CC licence at the original website. It says in French "sous licence creative commons" ; it could be NC and/or ND.
On top of that, there is no FOP in France ; so nothing by Alain Sarfarti and/or Philippe Stark can be displayed.
XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Flickr Washing. The Flickr Account was created today, and has only 2 photos. The same photo that Ransouk has tried (and failed) to upload earlier today at EN.wikipedia, and that s/he tried to upload later at Wikicommons. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Flickr Washing. The Flickr Account was created today, and has only 2 photos. The same photo that Ransouk has tried (and failed) to upload earlier today at EN.wikipedia, and that s/he tried to upload later at Wikicommons. The same photo can be seen here.
On top of that, there is no FOP in France, so works by Philippe Starck (designer) and/or Sarfati (architect) can't be displayed. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Non-commercial license is incompatible with Commons Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Dual licensed between CC-BY-NC (incompatible) and GFDLv1.2 (compatible) and per [2] GFDL is allowed for photos licensed prior to 15 Oct 2018. This photo was licensed at latest 4 December 2005. --Dhx1 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Shark Girl - 2013 - Painted Fiberglass - Casey Riordan Millard - Side View - Buffalo, New York.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for art in US. Sculpture created in 2012 by still-living artist Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Shark Girl - 2013 - Public Art Collection of Albright-Knox Art Gallery - Buffalo, New York.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for art in US. Sculpture created in 2012 by still-living artist Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Shark Girl - 2013 - Painted Fiberglass - Casey Riordan Millard - Albright-Knox - Buffalo, New York.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for art in US. Sculpture created in 2012 by still-living artist Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Shark Girl - 2013 - Casey Riordan Millard - Public Art Collection of Albright-Knox Art Gallery - Buffalo, New York.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for art in US (or photographic reproductions thereof). Sculpture created in 2012 by still-living artist Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Image déja existante, en meilleure qualité (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redstone_irbm2_14mar56_01.jpg) SpectraKo (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is an easy case of duplicate image. I'll add {{dupe}} to the page. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Noura.akermi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copyviol from Lastampa.it (article from 2015, file uploaded in 2020) — danyele 15:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Transmission code appears to be a Facebook image, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Either way, I am the owner of this image and from my own Facebook profile. This was an old image when I did not know about uploading images, anyway. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please provide the Facebook link for verification? --A1Cafel (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I'm going to assume good faith here. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate. Germenfer (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Duplication of File:Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Due to the passage of the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, this recording now has an actual copyright expiration date, which is January 1, 2029. Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Due to the passage of the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, this recording now has an actual copyright expiration date, which is January 1, 2031. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Due to the passage of the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, this recording now has an actual copyright expiration date, which is January 1, 2030 (100 years after first publication). Kaldari (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I am the author and request speedy deletion of this image under G7 Tibetan Thangka Painting (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work of an image: an image within an image. See a signature on the bottom-left. A similar case is at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kaohsiung Tuntex Sky Tower Innen Bild 2.jpg. {{FoP-Taiwan}} cannot be used as it only covers outdoor works. This is a photographic work located inside the tallest building of Kaohsiung itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Wrong pronunciation Bicolino34 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
professional portrait of a notable (?) individual, uploader wrote "More recent photo of Bryan Cressey obtained from him" in the upload summary. Dubious self-work claim, missing evidence of permission FASTILY 18:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Absence of heirs doesn’t mean that heirs released it in PD. Here it will be in PD in 2012+70 rubin16 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
copy of image at https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/24703926 photo not taken in May 2021 as stated Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Not own work. Picture taken from a PC screen (see mouse arrow lef). Possibly old enough, but source is unclear. Henxter (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Bijay Karmakar images
[edit]
Selfies of the uploader with little to no encyclopedic value. Uploaded for use in an autobiographical article on the English Wikipedia which has been speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The design is protected with copyright. In my opinion {{PD-UA-exempt}} does not apply. Taivo (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Photo of existing photo, missing original author, date, source, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image lNeverCry 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, only 128×94 pixels. No metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Inappropriate licence, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
_ENG_MARMANET_ISRAEL.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ENG_MARMANET_ISRAEL.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
_ENG_MARMANET_ISRAEL.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
_ENG_MARMANET_ISRAEL.png){kind=link}
Bad crop of sheet music cover. There are better images in the same category. Johnj1995 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
pictures from same shoot found here https://www.listal.com/viewimage/22914935 and here https://www.gotceleb.com/caylee-cowan-daniel-poplawsky-march-2021-2021-03-15.html. dubious whether the uploader is genuinely the photographer in question. uploader has also made substantial edits to wikipedia with unsourced edits to subject's biography. Bettydaisies (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a professional photo with metadata marked "copyright Ryan Miles". The uploader needs to demonstrate permissions or ownership to host it at Commons. Bri (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused and needless crop of File:Dr. González Toledo, MD, PhD.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This croped picture belongs to me and my father, Dr. González Toledo. I took it from another place than the original place, that was the image from where he used to worked. LSU Medicine School and Hospital. They gave it to my father as a gift. Thank you --Pentesilea1012 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- That means it is a photo of an existing photo, missing essential info of the original author, date, and permission. Then both the crop and original version need to be deleted as copyvios. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
If you need the permission I will send you the email where the press LSU secretary send the picture and tell to my father that LSU give the picture to my father as a gift Tell me where I send you the mail --Pentesilea1012 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Please follow the COM:OTRS process. Thanks. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah ok P199. Thak you!!! I will do it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentesilea1012 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC) --Pentesilea1012 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Interior of Taipei 101
[edit]Elegant interior architecture plus a plastic sculpture of some sort. One image shows a 2D work. {{FoP-Taiwan}} does not cover indoors. See also https://archive.is/20161029143506/http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=503039&ctNode=7448&mp=1 - which states that commercial reuses on postcards of images of Taipei 101 without architect's permission are fine, provided that the representation shows the exterior only, not indoors.
- File:Taipei 101 11, Dec 06.JPG
- File:Taipei 101 Observatory 88F lounge 2019.jpg
- File:Taipei 101 Observatory Level 5 lobby 201911.jpg
- File:Taipei 101 Office lobby 2019.jpg
- File:The cartoon character of shock absorber in Taipei 101.jpg
- File:타이베이 101 댐퍼베이비.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep: it's belongs to those people use the picture to make postcard to know this terms. It can allow for other purpose. Meanwhile, it is not commons responsibility to manage other people purpose . Besides, according to this news report, it is allow to use.--Wpcpey (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wpcpey: You mean {{GWOIA}}? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- if according to that news report mention, I would say yes. But this template only for government --Wpcpey (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wpcpey: however, the w:Taiwan Intellectual Property Office says otherwise. According to [3], "依據著作權法第58條規定，在街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除該條所定4款情形外，得以任何方法利用之。所詢拍攝「台北101大樓」(僅限大樓外觀，不包括大樓內部) 之照片並將其製成明信片販賣，依前揭規定，無須取得著作權之授權。" To translate, "Pursuant to Article 58 of the Copyright Law, art works or architectural works that have been displayed for a long time on streets, parks, outer walls of buildings, or other outdoor places open to the public, can be used in any way except for the cases specified in the 4 paragraphs of this article. Inquired about taking photos of "Taipei 101 Building" (only the exterior of the building, excluding the interior of the building) and making them into postcards for sale. According to the previous disclosure, no copyright authorization is required." The statement from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office is more authoritative. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: ：The law just mentions making them into postcards for sale for indoors photos is not OK. But you can make it for another type media (except postcard). So it is not a problem to take photos inside the building. For the another government department, they mention it is OK to take the photo, but not mention indoor/outdoor, see Meanwhile, in Taiwan Intellectual Property Office email enquiry in Year 109 they say "拍攝101大樓或台中國家歌劇院等建築地標，依上述著作權法第58條合理使用之規定，亦得主張合理使用，並無侵害該等建築著作之著作財產權，惟應依著作權法第64條規定註明出處。" So the statement change already and your website information updated in Year 103 is outdated. If the Observatory cannot take indoors photos due to the copyright issue, it already has news to report. --Wpcpey (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wpcpey the point that "you can make it for another type media (except postcard)" is already problematic. Commons requires media to be reused in every commercial media, postcards included. Also the copyright law still uses the outdoor designation, instead of "indoors" (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Freedom of panorama). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- So I only agree that File:타이베이 101 댐퍼베이비.jpg is not ok to keep. But the email inquiry in Year 109 mentions, people to take any part of Taipei 101 and upload to the internet is OK. This document from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office also mention "利用著名建築物（包括著名之 101 大樓）作成紀念品，或拍攝照片、製成明信片、紙雕或海報及拍攝戲劇入鏡或做為背景等，均屬上述四款以外的「合理使用」，均不會認為違反著作權法，不會有著作權侵權的問題" 。 On the other hand, the office also mention 拍攝"室內"裝潢的行為是將實施結果的實體物為拍攝，並不涉及著作權之侵害--Wpcpey (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wpcpey the point that "you can make it for another type media (except postcard)" is already problematic. Commons requires media to be reused in every commercial media, postcards included. Also the copyright law still uses the outdoor designation, instead of "indoors" (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Freedom of panorama). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: ：The law just mentions making them into postcards for sale for indoors photos is not OK. But you can make it for another type media (except postcard). So it is not a problem to take photos inside the building. For the another government department, they mention it is OK to take the photo, but not mention indoor/outdoor, see Meanwhile, in Taiwan Intellectual Property Office email enquiry in Year 109 they say "拍攝101大樓或台中國家歌劇院等建築地標，依上述著作權法第58條合理使用之規定，亦得主張合理使用，並無侵害該等建築著作之著作財產權，惟應依著作權法第64條規定註明出處。" So the statement change already and your website information updated in Year 103 is outdated. If the Observatory cannot take indoors photos due to the copyright issue, it already has news to report. --Wpcpey (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wpcpey: however, the w:Taiwan Intellectual Property Office says otherwise. According to [3], "依據著作權法第58條規定，在街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除該條所定4款情形外，得以任何方法利用之。所詢拍攝「台北101大樓」(僅限大樓外觀，不包括大樓內部) 之照片並將其製成明信片販賣，依前揭規定，無須取得著作權之授權。" To translate, "Pursuant to Article 58 of the Copyright Law, art works or architectural works that have been displayed for a long time on streets, parks, outer walls of buildings, or other outdoor places open to the public, can be used in any way except for the cases specified in the 4 paragraphs of this article. Inquired about taking photos of "Taipei 101 Building" (only the exterior of the building, excluding the interior of the building) and making them into postcards for sale. According to the previous disclosure, no copyright authorization is required." The statement from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office is more authoritative. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- if according to that news report mention, I would say yes. But this template only for government --Wpcpey (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Info @Wpcpey: I opened the matter at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Interior architecture, OK?. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination No permission. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Not correct license Tempstent (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination No permission. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
-JW-%EB%A1%9C%EA%B3%A0_201020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-JW-%EB%A1%9C%EA%B3%A0_201020.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
잘못 게시되었습니다. Jungyh9015 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
-JW-로고_201020.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted uploader request, uncat, unused since May-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
-JW-로고_201020.jpg){kind=link}
Its has mistake Ajaska7 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Its edited versio not real — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamphState (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It has mistake Ajaska7 (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
File:Erstes essbares Foto der Welt auf Oblate via Siebdruck mittels gefärbtem Honig unter Verwendung von zugelassenen Lebensmittelfarben.jpg
[edit]
Dateiname zu lang Juniperi (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- ist eigentlich kein Löschgrund, aber das Foto gibt es nochmal, nämlich File:Erstes eßbares Foto der Welt.jpg und das ist ein Löschgrund --Isderion (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: as a duplicate of File:Erstes eßbares Foto der Welt.jpg by the same uploader, also COM:Courtesy. --Rosenzweig τ 12:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
로고 파일 재업로드로 인한 기존파일 삭제 요청 Iilang (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per del req; unused. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bild wird nicht mehr benötigt. Lennart Zieger (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: there may be a better one now, but there's to need to delete this one and it doesn't hurt to keep it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Das Bild wurde durch ein besseres ersetzt. Lennart Zieger (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: there may be a better one now, but there's to need to delete this one and it doesn't hurt to keep it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The copyright of the pattern on the wallet is registered with U.S. Copyright Office. This page also confirms that the description text from the copyright registration is indeed the pattern in the image in question. Wcam (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- This image seems photographed in Netherlands, we need professors on their copyright status. @Rd232, Natuur12, L.tak, Martinvl, and Nemo bis: @Blue Elf, DarwIn, Majora, Gazebo, and Vysotsky: @4nn1l2, Arjuno3, Minorax, BrightRaven, and Ucucha: @Ellywa, Brainulator9, Multichill, 1Veertje, and Ciell: @Krinkle, Lymantria, P199, Romaine, and Rudolphous: @Trijnstel and Wutsje: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not a professor :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a padawan at best, but I think Commons being an American website means even if this was allowed in the Netherlands, whether real or counterfeit (if the description and annotation are to be believed), the photograph would still be derivative of the design, I think... maybe? Pinging @Clindberg seeing as he's the one professor that was not mentioned. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Question here would be if this could be considered as a infringement to the copyright of the printed or woven design that appears on the objects surface, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing. Ciell (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Tend to Keep as per Ciell, fashions are not copyrightable in the United States, and to the best of my knowledge LV is likely below the Dutch TOO. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt whether this can be kept. The link given be user:Ciell also says "In any case, care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface". I would think the design of Vuitton will be protected very well e.g. by European model right which needs registration in addition to the copyright. Much can be found about model right, for instance here https://www.blatterlegal.com/en/knowledge-base/intellectual-property/the-concurrence-of-copyright-and-model-right . Perhaps we can ask advice from Wikimedia Nederland for the general case of prints on clothing and other designed objects? Elly (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not a professor but I can look up what professors wrote about this subject, applied art. Namely: "Het gaat hier om industriële vormgeving, de vormgeving van het uiterlijk van producten. Er kunnen zeer uiteenlopende producten onder vallen als behang, taarten, vijvers, sleutelhouders." (prof. mr. P.G.F.A. Geerts & mr. drs. A.M.E. Verschuur (2020). Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht 2020/537). Therefor, yes, a designer wallet can certainly protected by copyright law. Also from Kort begrip, the criteria for copyright protected: 1) voldoende nauwkeurig en objectief kunnen worden geïdentificeerd; en 2) oorspronkelijk zijn, in die zin dat het gaat om een eigen intellectuele schepping. Kort begrip also states "Andere eisen mogen door de auteursrechtwetgeving van de lidstaten niet gesteld worden.2 Dus ook niet aan voorwerpen met een gebruiksfunctie (industriële vormgeving)." Thus Delete. Wallets can have a copyright and this wallet clearly meets the threshold of originality. Therefor this picture isn't free in the source country as required per com:L. Natuur12 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- For the U.S., I'm not sure that the photo is infringing. The pattern seems copyrightable, but it's a photo of the entire (utilitarian) purse. The Ets Hokin decision said that a photo of a bottle was not derivative of the label on the bottle, even if that was copyrightable itself, unless the photo was focusing on the label itself. Similarly, while many clothing patterns are copyrightable, we don't delete photos of people wearing those clothes. Seems like this is in that same realm -- is the photo there to show off the expression in the pattern, or is the pattern incidental (i.e. was the idea to photo the product, regardless of what pattern was or was not there)? Secondly, the cited copyright registration says it was a selection and arrangement of 33 items, and that it was derivative of an earlier work. I don't count 33 items there, so it's not reproducing the entire work, and a partial selection / arrangement does not necessarily still carry a copyright (since there are fewer elements). I tend to think that the portion shown would likely still qualify, but really don't think the photo is focusing on it enough for the photo to be derivative. The mentioned model right is 1) a non-copyright restriction, and 2) does not have the same derivative work concept I don't think. So not sure how that applies here. Really, I can't think of a case where a photo like this has been ruled derivative. Not sure I want to delete stuff like this without a precedent to point to (and rather, the precedents seem to go the other way). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still, if we want to keep the file, we must ignore the "free in the source country" rule as per com:L. In the entire EU utilitarian can have a copyright after al. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: EU countries are also not iron plates, they also have different TOO levels, for example, a knife could be copyrightable in Sweden, while in Italy it's possible that some but not all logos of FC teams can be public domain. So the question is simply "Hey, is LV logo beyond TOO in NL or not?" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is not just the logo, is it the wallet as well. Both aren't PD in the Netherlands. Not without significant doubt at least. The threshold of originality is harmonized in the EU. Different member states can interpret the norm differently, but this shouldn't cause major differences between member states like utilitarian being protected by copyright in one country and not by another. However, the problem with the knife example (Danmark) is that this jurisprudence predates harmonization. Some of our older examples are null and void. Natuur12 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: EU countries are also not iron plates, they also have different TOO levels, for example, a knife could be copyrightable in Sweden, while in Italy it's possible that some but not all logos of FC teams can be public domain. So the question is simply "Hey, is LV logo beyond TOO in NL or not?" --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Still, if we want to keep the file, we must ignore the "free in the source country" rule as per com:L. In the entire EU utilitarian can have a copyright after al. Natuur12 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- The EU threshold can definitely be interpreted different by the countries. Still, presuming that the pattern itself is copyrightable, the wallet is completely another matter. It is true that some EU countries can protect applied art through copyright, but whether that is actually creative enough to be protected that way (other than the pattern) is far from obvious and maybe not even too likely. What makes this obviously a wallet from that company other than the pattern? What makes it differ from wallets that came before it? Its not simply that any product automatically has copyright protection, and that any photo of any product is therefore a derivative work. There are a couple cases of photos of works that were clearly protected as applied art being ruled derivative, but this looks like a fairly straightforward wallet to me. Most of the time, those works are more protected against competing products rather than photos of them being a problem. I would prefer far better actual court cases as precedent before we delete stuff like this from Commons. There are those who accuse Commons of being deletionists, i.e. stretching to find reasons to delete stuff that has never been proven to be a problem in real life, and while those are sometimes ignorant of actual court cases, there are times those are legitimate complaints as well, and I fear this is straying into that latter territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: There is a case about a card holder. The court of Breda ruled that the defendant violated the copyright and model rights of the plaintiff and violated their patent. "Simple", "like any other wallet", those are irrelevant when deciding if something is protected by copyright in the EU. There are the two criteria I cited in my post of 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) and nothing else. Any other criteria is illegal for EU member states to apply. However, if someone would go to court over this photograph, the plaintiff would probably not be awarded anything because there are no damages. But com:PCP forbids such a line of reasoning. As for a picture as a derivative work, the university level textbook Kort begrip states the following: Aw brengt onder het begrip ‘verveelvoudiging’ het vastleggen van het werk of een gedeelte daarvan op enig voorwerp dat bestemd is om een werk ten gehore te brengen of te vertonen. De bepaling dient slechts ter verduidelijking. Het vastleggen van een werk is immers het vervaardigen van een exemplaar van een stoffelijk voorwerp waarin het werk is belichaamd en dat valt reeds onder de primaire betekenis van het begrip verveelvoudigen (zie nr. 569). Therefor, it is more likely than not that a picture of a by copyright protected wallet (a work) is also a "verveelvoudiging". The reason why Commons is accused of being deletionist is because policy is US oriented and often out of touch with reality and therefor not always suitable for EU, African and Asian related cases. I do believe my argument is based on reliable literature, policy and case law. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: That link is a decision about patents, and secondarily a design registration, both of which are non-copyright restrictions and are irrelevant here. The plaintiff in that case also threw in copyright infringement claims, but the judge saw no need to issue an injunction based on those, so ignored them. The defendant was judged guilty of infringing the patent though, so there was an injunction based on that. Nothing in there is about copyright. If there were further decisions later on in that case, sure bring those up -- but that link has no bearing on the "free" status whatsoever, other than those claims were dismissed at least as concerned the injunction, so they did not evaluate whether a copyright existed or it was infringed. In general, patents and the design registrations are to protect against competing products. A photograph is not a competing product, so photos are completely outside the scope of that stuff. The usual intention for applied art is similar, just competing products, but for countries which use copyright to protect applied art, the derivative work situation can indeed come into play. I'm not arguing that directly -- I'm pretty sure there was a case over a stylish Swedish chair which was ruled to be copyright infringement, and probably a couple of others. It was abundantly clear that the product in question qualified though. Whether a cloth wallet qualifies is an entirely different question -- using a higher quality leather would have no bearing on copyright. This claim is that the copyright on the pattern itself could cause the photo to become derivative, which is an entirely different situation than if the object itself was copyrightable. And it is far from clear that the wallet itself would qualify for applied art copyright -- the pattern sure, but less sure about anything else. And if the photo is not focusing on the pattern, I'm not sure that would qualify as a derivative work in either the US or the EU. I'm not aware of any precedent case in the EU for that situation. I'm sure it's possible to make a copyrightable wallet, but that does not mean that any wallet qualifies. And the link you sent, the question was ignored and not addressed, since the patent and design registration infringement seemed fairly clear and it was ruled on those grounds only. The EU copyright criteria is whether a work is the "author's own intellectual creation". If it's similar to ones that have come before, then those aspects are not the author's own creation, and not their copyright. So yes, "simple" and "like other wallets" would indeed come into play. They are meaningless when it comes to patents of course, but we are only concerned about copyright here. A photograph of an object does not violate patents, only a competing physical product would, so I don't see how that ruling is relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: my mistake regarding the case law. I should have taken a more thorough look. I'm going to leave it like that. The discussion is surely interesting but I do believe the closing admin has plenty of reading material as it is :). Natuur12 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Wcam: So far, could you please withdraw your this case? I really think that there are something must be clarified elsewhere, e.g. on COM:VPC, on or about the EU laws, via a broad discussion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Natuur12: That link is a decision about patents, and secondarily a design registration, both of which are non-copyright restrictions and are irrelevant here. The plaintiff in that case also threw in copyright infringement claims, but the judge saw no need to issue an injunction based on those, so ignored them. The defendant was judged guilty of infringing the patent though, so there was an injunction based on that. Nothing in there is about copyright. If there were further decisions later on in that case, sure bring those up -- but that link has no bearing on the "free" status whatsoever, other than those claims were dismissed at least as concerned the injunction, so they did not evaluate whether a copyright existed or it was infringed. In general, patents and the design registrations are to protect against competing products. A photograph is not a competing product, so photos are completely outside the scope of that stuff. The usual intention for applied art is similar, just competing products, but for countries which use copyright to protect applied art, the derivative work situation can indeed come into play. I'm not arguing that directly -- I'm pretty sure there was a case over a stylish Swedish chair which was ruled to be copyright infringement, and probably a couple of others. It was abundantly clear that the product in question qualified though. Whether a cloth wallet qualifies is an entirely different question -- using a higher quality leather would have no bearing on copyright. This claim is that the copyright on the pattern itself could cause the photo to become derivative, which is an entirely different situation than if the object itself was copyrightable. And it is far from clear that the wallet itself would qualify for applied art copyright -- the pattern sure, but less sure about anything else. And if the photo is not focusing on the pattern, I'm not sure that would qualify as a derivative work in either the US or the EU. I'm not aware of any precedent case in the EU for that situation. I'm sure it's possible to make a copyrightable wallet, but that does not mean that any wallet qualifies. And the link you sent, the question was ignored and not addressed, since the patent and design registration infringement seemed fairly clear and it was ruled on those grounds only. The EU copyright criteria is whether a work is the "author's own intellectual creation". If it's similar to ones that have come before, then those aspects are not the author's own creation, and not their copyright. So yes, "simple" and "like other wallets" would indeed come into play. They are meaningless when it comes to patents of course, but we are only concerned about copyright here. A photograph of an object does not violate patents, only a competing physical product would, so I don't see how that ruling is relevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Carl: There is a case about a card holder. The court of Breda ruled that the defendant violated the copyright and model rights of the plaintiff and violated their patent. "Simple", "like any other wallet", those are irrelevant when deciding if something is protected by copyright in the EU. There are the two criteria I cited in my post of 14:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC) and nothing else. Any other criteria is illegal for EU member states to apply. However, if someone would go to court over this photograph, the plaintiff would probably not be awarded anything because there are no damages. But com:PCP forbids such a line of reasoning. As for a picture as a derivative work, the university level textbook Kort begrip states the following: Aw brengt onder het begrip ‘verveelvoudiging’ het vastleggen van het werk of een gedeelte daarvan op enig voorwerp dat bestemd is om een werk ten gehore te brengen of te vertonen. De bepaling dient slechts ter verduidelijking. Het vastleggen van een werk is immers het vervaardigen van een exemplaar van een stoffelijk voorwerp waarin het werk is belichaamd en dat valt reeds onder de primaire betekenis van het begrip verveelvoudigen (zie nr. 569). Therefor, it is more likely than not that a picture of a by copyright protected wallet (a work) is also a "verveelvoudiging". The reason why Commons is accused of being deletionist is because policy is US oriented and often out of touch with reality and therefor not always suitable for EU, African and Asian related cases. I do believe my argument is based on reliable literature, policy and case law. Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The EU threshold can definitely be interpreted different by the countries. Still, presuming that the pattern itself is copyrightable, the wallet is completely another matter. It is true that some EU countries can protect applied art through copyright, but whether that is actually creative enough to be protected that way (other than the pattern) is far from obvious and maybe not even too likely. What makes this obviously a wallet from that company other than the pattern? What makes it differ from wallets that came before it? Its not simply that any product automatically has copyright protection, and that any photo of any product is therefore a derivative work. There are a couple cases of photos of works that were clearly protected as applied art being ruled derivative, but this looks like a fairly straightforward wallet to me. Most of the time, those works are more protected against competing products rather than photos of them being a problem. I would prefer far better actual court cases as precedent before we delete stuff like this from Commons. There are those who accuse Commons of being deletionists, i.e. stretching to find reasons to delete stuff that has never been proven to be a problem in real life, and while those are sometimes ignorant of actual court cases, there are times those are legitimate complaints as well, and I fear this is straying into that latter territory. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: the people discussing this object cannot come to a consensus. In order to prevent possible severe consequences for re-users of this photo if they would come into contact with the Louis Vuitton lawyers it seems best to delete the image per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
