Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/10/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Because it's the wrong file. Evanyu35outlookcom (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete this redirect of a file uploaded 4 years ago. --Achim (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it's the wrong file. Evanyu35outlookcom (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the filename, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Can you show evidence for why the filename is wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: this file and another were moved (criterion 3) and it appears that the OP objects to the existence of the redirects that were left behind. @Evanyu35outlookcom: deleting the redirects would break any links that were made to the files before they were moved, so we don’t generally do that (unless the old name was highly offensive or something).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. I'm not entirely sure if the move was proper to begin with, there is some confusion as to what specimens are that in these museum labels. FunkMonk (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @FunkMonk: this file and another were moved (criterion 3) and it appears that the OP objects to the existence of the redirects that were left behind. @Evanyu35outlookcom: deleting the redirects would break any links that were made to the files before they were moved, so we don’t generally do that (unless the old name was highly offensive or something).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete this redirect of a file uploaded 4 years ago. --Achim (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 09:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Stated source does not have this picture, thus its pedigree is in doubt. It is of the uploader.
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request 2021102510004131. --Krd 09:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete Copyvio. A09090091 (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
artwork, not a simple text logo — danyele 00:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A09090091 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Clear case -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Would like to upload a copy without watermark. Angelina Suzuki (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Would like to upload a copy without watermark. Angelina Suzuki (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Anupam Dutta (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete @Anupamdutta73: next time use {{Speedy delete}}. A09090091 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
per COM:POSTER A09090091 (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Uploaded by error, not free image Perohanych (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. @Perohanych: Next time use {{Speedy delete}}. A09090091 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prompt uploader request -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Scanned image of copyrighted newspaper text, with no evidence that any permission or licence has been granted to copy/distribute the work Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted DW -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Scanned image of copyrighted newspaper text, with no evidence that any permission or licence has been granted to copy/distribute the work Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Scanned image of copyrighted newspaper text, with no evidence that any permission or licence has been granted to copy/distribute the work Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Scanned image of copyrighted newspaper text, with no evidence that any permission or licence has been granted to copy/distribute the work Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
per COM:ALBUM A09090091 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Logo PtiBzh (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep under COM:TOO. A09090091 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted false license, false claims -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMZesXMijJYSa5fGqqhy6sQ Hoyanova (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete @Hoyanova: for next time, use {{Copyvio}}. A09090091 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mmilesmilana (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted logos of w:Miss Earth 2001. Obviously exceed simplicity levels (COM:Threshold of originality).
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mmilesmilana (talk · contribs)
[edit]These have similar problems to those of deleted files expunged via COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matthewmilana18#Files uploaded by Matthewmilana18 (talk · contribs).
- File:LRT 1 Teachers Gabay Guro Themed Train 2021.png
- File:LRT 1 Christmas Train 2021.png
- File:LRT 1 Gabay Guro Teachers Train 2021.png
- File:LRT 1 Christmas Themed Train 2021.png
- File:LRT 1 Valentines Loves Cascada Themed Train 2022.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Pure vandalism. Gikü (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted prank image (also DW) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Nee, Unsinn ist diese Anfrage. Deleted as Screenshot of non-free content (F3)--Google Streetview screenshot (see "©2018 Google" in lower right). --Эlcobbola talk 14:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting POV, maybe cropping off the finger. A09090091 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed, it is interesting, and the subject is identified. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept as this is identified as a monument in Iran. Not a 'nonsense' file. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 16:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Faith Ayanga (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Faith Ayanga: because it is what? clpo13(talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Ein Selfie Strubbl (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: SD:F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept, this is textlogo. Taivo (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
copyvio; contemp. artwork; no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete (nominated the file for speedy deletion). Taivo (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an image of copyrighted character. - NeoMeesje (talk/contributions) please use ping when replying to me 22:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 17:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Ein Selfie Strubbl (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm fine with deleting if there are no other contributions by user after a week. As it is first contribution, nominated almost immediately after upload, I disagree with speedy deletion - don't bite the newbies; they may want to make it their profile photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; out of COM:SCOPE. Prior to deletion, the image was not in use. The uploader has only one other global edit: on October 24, they created w:de:Phillip Bengen, which was deleted. --Ahmadtalk 18:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Ein Selfie Strubbl (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 18:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PS A09090091 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also deleted File:OMK&PMK DIFFERENCE.png for the same reason (out of COM:SCOPE), as it was very similar to this one. Please let me know if you think a seperate DR is needed for the other file. --Ahmadtalk 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Taken from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/769763761295762328/. A09090091 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyright violation. A Google/TinEye search by image also returns several hits. --Ahmadtalk 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn, Unscharf, Ein Selfie Strubbl (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- per COM:PS. CSD F10 is applicable. A09090091 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Ein Selfie Strubbl (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 19:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Same as his profile pic - https://twitter.com/JoseManuelRey - i think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Unused and unexplained photo. Possibly a personal image. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:PS and CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 20:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HasanShimul00 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ادم القديم (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 21:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. A09090091 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. A09090091 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 21:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Poor quality (low resolution, pixelated), replaceable by File:Lauramide DEA Structural Formula V1.svg. Leyo 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Desidero oscurare le mie foto dal web e di abbandonare il più possibile l’utilizzo di internet anche perché il mio nome è citato in più punti, questo mi preoccupa Beatricetoniutto (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Desidero oscurare le mie foto dal web e di abbandonare il più possibile l’utilizzo di internet anche perché il mio nome è citato in più punti, questo mi preoccupa Beatricetoniutto (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Of course I would normally prefer to rename rather than delete, but this seems to be a serious case and the image includes a signature. Brianjd (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Desidero oscurare i miei dati dal web e vorrei utilizzare il meno possibile internet anche perché il mio nome è citato in più punti, è una grande rischio avendo già avuto alcuni problemi con la privacy Beatricetoniutto (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Desidero oscurare i miei dati dal web e vorrei utilizzare il meno possibile internet anche perché il mio nome è citato in più punti, è una grande rischio avendo già avuto alcuni problemi con la privacy Beatricetoniutto (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD#U1. Brianjd (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violations: there is no commercial freedom of panorama here, and images lack COM:VRT authorization from the artists of the stained-glass artworks or the artists' heirs.
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 03.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 04.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 09.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 10.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 15.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 17.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 20.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 21.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 22.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 23.JPG
- File:JfNorzagaray1122ChurchSchoolfvf 24.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 01.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 03.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 04.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 05.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 07.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 09.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 11.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 12.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 13.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 16.JPG
- File:JfNorzagarayChurch1101Bulacanfvf 20.JPG
- File:JfStAndrew1084BulacanChurchfvf 02.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:"Pamana sa Tanay, Hane!"
[edit]Derivative work copyright violation. Images show a wooden sculpture that was incepted in 2015. There is no COM:FOP Philippines for public artworks. No evidence of permission for uploader's use of commercial license from sculptors Yvette Co of Los Baños, Roel Lazaro of Kalayaan, Laguna, and Frank Gajo of Paete.
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 16.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 17.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 18.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 19.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 20.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 21.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 22.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 23.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 24.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 25.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 26.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 27.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 30.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 31.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 32.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 33.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 34.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 35.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 36.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 37.jpg
- File:6415Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church Tanay 38.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
per COM:ALBUM A09090091 (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There is an VRTS email received for “File:Хроноп - Самостояние.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2021102510005907. ·Carn 11:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Хроноп - Самостояние.jpg” under ticket:2021102510005907. --rubin16 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per VRT. --rubin16 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
unused copy of commercial document with no indication of importance. Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Uploader blocked on en.wiki as a sock; source for this image never given. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: No source is necessary for a logo below COM:TOO US. The purpose of a source is to verify that the image has the copyright status stated on the file description, but here it is evident from the content of the image itself. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danangjoyo38 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unfree logos and an unfree sound file, unlikely to be own work.
- File:Ikatan Mahasiswa Muhammadiyah.png
- File:Pasukan Inti Pagar Nusa.png
- File:Gerakan Pemuda Ansor NU.png
- File:Pencak Silat NU Pagar Nusa.png
- File:Ikatan Pelajar Putri NU.png
- File:Fatayat NU.png
- File:Persaudaraan Setia Hati.png
- File:Pagar Nusa - Gerakan Aksi Silat Muslimin Indonesia.png
- File:Ikatan Pencak Silat Indonesia.png
- File:Keluarga Silat Nasional Indonesia Perisai Diri.png
- File:Perguruan Silat Nasional Perisai Putih.png
- File:Perguruan Seni Bela Diri Indonesia Tapak Suci.png
- File:Perguruan Pencak Silat Phashadja Mataram.png
- File:Perguruan Pencak Indonesia Harimurti.png
- File:Persatuan Pencak Silat Indonesia.png
- File:Persatuan Pencak Silat Putra Betawi.png
- File:Keluarga Pencak Silat Nusantara.png
- File:Persekutuan Silat Kebangsaan Malaysia.png
- File:Persekutuan Silat Brunei.png
- File:Muslimat NU.png
- File:Mars PSNU Pagar Nusa.ogg
- File:'Aisyiyah.png
- File:ISHARI NU.png
- File:JATMAN.png
- File:Serikat Nelayan NU.png
- File:Persatuan Guru NU.png
- File:Konfederasi Sarikat Buruh Muslimin Indonesia.png
- File:Ikatan Sarjana NU.png
- File:Jam'iyyatul Qurro' wal Huffazh NU.png
- File:Gerakan Kepanduan Hizbul Wathan.png
- File:Ikatan Pelajar Muhammadiyah.png
- File:Nasyiatul Aisyiyah.png
- File:Pemuda Muhammadiyah.png
- File:Persekutuan Silat Singapura.png
- File:Muhammadiyah.png
IronGargoyle (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danangjoyo38 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission/source
- File:Bendera PKB.png
- File:Bendera PKPI.png
- File:Partai Golongan Karya.png
- File:Bendera GOLKAR.png
- File:Bendera PBB.png
- File:Partai Bulan Bintang.png
- File:Bendera GP Ansor.png
- File:Bendera IPPNU.png
- File:Bendera PMII.png
- File:Nahdlatul Ulama.png
- File:Bendera Muhammadiyah.png
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- File:Bendera Muhammadiyah.png: May be re-licensed as PD, see this information. Held by organization 50 years after first publication (1912), author died >70 years ago, and U.S. expired. Will we contact him? Others: Delete. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- However I also consider that these are wrong license. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Contact him? Who are you talking about? IronGargoyle (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. As for File:Bendera Muhammadiyah.png, it is not a slavish copy of File:Emblem of Muhammadiyah.svg and so it would be eligible for a new copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
No longer used after mainspace article was deleted through PROD. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. School logo. Unlikely to be own work. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per IronGargoyle. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
No longer used after mainspace article was deleted through PROD. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Heavily used and a featured image on English Wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per IronGargole; inappropriate and false nomination, in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
No longer used after mainspace article was deleted through PROD. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Interior of noteworthy higher education institution. Has possible educational use. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept' per IronGargoyle; nomination not a reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Interior of noteworthy institution. Has likely educational uses. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per IronGargoyle. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid rationale, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per Andy Dingley; not a reason for deletion, of in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep One of many, all with the same rationale. But it's not a valid rationale.
- The images here are not of great value. Some are corporate logos and we might decide that they don't reach COM:SCOPE. But even if we delete them, that's a different rationale. We should at least be honest.
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mayoor School Noida Nursery Classroom.png
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:SNS LOGO- light.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:DPS Noida.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Byte.png
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Army Public School, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.gif
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Ameen.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Ameen College of Law Library.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Ameen College of Law a side view.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prof. Waseem Khan. M.I.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Library of College.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waseem Khan M.I.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Welcome to College.JPG
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Library-Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Extruder spheronizer.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy Block.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stplogo.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian-Saudi support map.png
- Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, the Iranian-Saudi support map is not given the same rationale, it's an OR map made by a user being disruptive on the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per Andy Dingley. Previous use in article which has been deleted is not by itself a reason for deletion. Commons scope also includes supplemental material giving information about in-scope subjects, whether individual images are at any given time used in article or not. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid rationale, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per Andy Dingley -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid rationale, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept, not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The used source (https://www.deviantart.com/jordangrimmer/art/TheFatRat-Jackpot-Official-Artwork-646477035) does not provide any notice that this artwork is CC BY-SA 4.0. Besides, I don't see any usage for this artwork on Commons. - NeoMeesje (talk/contributions) please use ping when replying to me 22:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, logo of a British media company, TOO in the UK is very low FASTILY 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, logo of a British media company, TOO in the UK is very low FASTILY 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
not allowed in fr Com Paul Holder (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why is not allowed in France? Link to the jurisdiction? --Juandev (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Moreover, it was shot in Prague, Czech Republic, where Freedom of panorama applies (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Czech_Republic#Freedom_of_panorama). Why should any French rules apply here?
--JiriMatejicek (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Almost 2 weeks have passed and my question was not answered. There are other photographs on Commons that depicts Paul, so I wonder, why only this image in not allowed. With this knowledge, where we don't know, what is not allowed in France I am in favour of keeping the file on Wikimedia Commons. --Juandev (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept per above -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. There is no reason of holding just sentence as a picture format. Netora (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
copyviol from Tg24.sky.it — danyele 00:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
probably copyviol, cf. Google Images — danyele 00:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
copyviol from Livornopress.it — danyele 00:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete copyvio. A09090091 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Reverse image search indicates the photo is not the Flickr user’s work Ytoyoda (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Flickr license laundering. A09090091 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moon Enderscratch-scratch (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not your personal free web host. Lack of COM:EDUSE.
Achim (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A formal PR picture. The photographer is mentioned in the file's details and in watermark and the picture is in use in several websites (such as this one). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A formal PR picture of an Israeli actor. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
A formal PR picture of an Israeli actor. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - advertising Lotje (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- First of all @Timtrent, that much info was not needed, but I just ping the uploader Naser Almeer to upload the OTRS within 7 days or this file should be speedily deleted. I also highly doubt he is the uploader. Warm Regards, Contributers2020Talk to me here 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Contributers2020 He appears to be the uploader and has created an apparent autobiography using it. The information is generally accepted as being required when the subject of the picture is the uploader. Your mileage may vary Timtrent (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
out of scope, not own work (same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medijed.png) Nutshinou Talk! 09:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
per COM:ALBUM A09090091 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
per COM:ALBUM A09090091 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for 2D art in Denmark. Ytoyoda (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Der Beitrag "Uwe Rotermund" wurde abgelehnt. Da kann das Foto auch gelöscht werden. Pressefritze (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Priyanshu3717 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE: unused personal photographs.
MKFI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:OTRS. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. Timtrent (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Taken from https://www.lakpohora.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=54&lang=en and cropped with white edge left behind. A09090091 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Image is watermarked (c)Stanislav Mirchev; OTRS permission from Stanislav Mirchev needed. MKFI (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Killian Tassoni (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work claims. For example File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg is cropped and lacks metadata - an uncropped version can be seen at some other websites like here from an earlier date.
- File:Arlette Vincent.jpg
- File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg
- File:Martha Henry.jpg
- File:Alexandre Rogojkine.jpg
- File:Abdelbaki Hermassi.jpg
- File:James Michael Tyler.jpg
- File:Andrew Bergman.jpg
- File:Les fesses a l air.png
- File:Elia Cmiral.jpg
- File:Derek Ringer.jpg
- File:Tiziano Siviero.jpg
- File:Léon Vandermeersch.jpg
- File:Anders Bodelsen.jpg
- File:Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai.jpg
Elli (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree; that these are own works is also unlikely because of the lack of other contributions and that there is no web presence for a professional photographer (as the author of these would need to be) under this name. Sandstein (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as not freely licenced. If by some miracle they are the owner of these professional photos, they would need to use OTRS to prove this. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete These all look like crops sourced from around the web. TarkusAB (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
it does not mark the arabian peninsula, but rather it marks the political contemporary boundaries of GCC countries and Yemen, without any reliable citation this map is very misleading for very important matter Abu aamir (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
it does not mark the arabian peninsula, but rather it marks the political contemporary boundaries of GCC countries and Yemen, without any reliable citation this map is very misleading for very important matter Abu aamir (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep Identical to previous deletion request, which was closed as "no valid reason for deletion". Widely used on other projects. Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)- Keep Physically looking the image is itself correct. You cannot count any Middle East country more, because it doesn't have water on both sides or is on a peninsula. A09090091 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, this map is not, is not for Arabian peninsula, it is for the contemporary GCC countries plus Yemen, it is not for Arabian peninsul Abu aamir (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello
- please I would like to talk with someone who knows about this topic, but those who do not know, please do not engage in it, leave alone asking for keeping this wrong and misinforming map, the least to do with this map is to move the name into "Map of GCC countries plus Yemen" that exactly fit the map content. Abu aamir (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. if you don't like the description, fix it or use {{Fact disputed}} instead. STOP nominating the file!. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF, clearly a studio shot, uploader serial copyvio uploader, etc. Duck/COM:PRP issue. Also COM:SCOPE, as unused, non-notable person Эlcobbola talk 14:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Low-res professional quality photo from an account with past copyvio issues Ytoyoda (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Low-quality photograph from a likely Flickrwashing account with a couple of Getty Images photos Ytoyoda (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted : see : http://www.redeangola.info/flec-escolheu-emmanuel-nzita-wa-nzita-como-lider/ Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:PRP, eventhough the motive is not the same as in given link. A09090091 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Das Bild ist in den EXIF-Daten copyrighted: "Benjamin Kurtz Photography | Kurtzfilm". Keine Freigabe durch den Fotografen ersichtlich, daher wohl URV Jbergner (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angel Mexica (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Conchas y Caracoles Marinos.jpg
- File:Militarismo.jpg
- File:Estela III.jpg
- File:Estela II.jpg
- File:Estela I.jpg
- File:Estela Representativa de Xochicalco.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused and non notability logo in educational use. Out of COM:SCOPE Netora (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BehradFathi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart/diagram. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Credited to Ken Ruinard-USA TODAY Sports, unlikely that TigerNet has the rights to the image. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Metadata lists Gannett / USA TODAY Network as the copyright holder. Unlikely TigerNet owns the rights. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The background and foreground, apparently, are photographed separately. The photo has collage signs. There is no sources and proper quality permission for the use of the photos included. Also there is no permission from the person who merged the photos. ·Carn 14:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Now I know that it is Speedy delete per CSD F4, I apologize for going through the long procedure, but now, apparently, it is too late to change something. ·Carn 09:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:میدان مرزداران شهر بیله سوار .jpg
- File:وضیعت نامناسب جاده بابک.jpg
- File:شهر بابک (بیله سوار).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused musical score. Should be in Score or SVG if useful.
- File:Bach Cello Suite 1 with misleading beaming.png
- File:Bach Cello Suite 1 measure 33 with voice leading.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused music score. Should be in Score or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Franziska Haslinger
[edit]copyright violation; works by living artist; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Franziska Haslinger 6 Segmente eines Kreises.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger AnDACHt.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Aufbruch.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Fractale.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Konkrete Kunst 1985.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Mitte der Diagonale.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Nebra.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Spot.png
- File:Franziska Haslinger Tetra Eder.png
- File:Portrait Elisabeth Schmitz von Franziska Haslinger.png
- File:Portrait Kathinka Platzhoff von Franziska Haslinger.png
Martin Sg. (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep good in-scope image; not a valid reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:Fuguchraibi
[edit]Some handwritinfg in, probably, Arabic. Is anybody able to check their educational value? Looks like rather useless to me. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
An own poem of the uploader, out of scope. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
アップロードは間違いです Cmppp (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- English: He accidentally uploaded this image.--新幹線 (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Çünkü Anlamsız BencaminKS (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Not agreeing with the reason. I'd argue this file does not meet Commons:Deletion policy#Not educationally useful, since it shows a better view of the entrance to the memorial house than the next best view we had: File:Stejar puskin IMG 8776.jpg. Even if it would not, I don't see why the image would be "meaningless". Gikü (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Weak keep per Giku. --Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unscharf Strubbl (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Cropping would crop too much. A09090091 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work per exif. --Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Woman is in center of picture and is the main motive here, maybe selfpromotion? A09090091 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- it looks like this account uploaded a lot of pictures with this kind of selfpromotion Strubbl (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Nice photo but unlikely to be own work per exif. --Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If uploader sends permission. A09090091 (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Turelio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No clear copyright status, multiple images found on the internet. A09090091 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Logo Strubbl (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:POSTER. A09090091 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Pressefoto, Bild aus dem Internet Strubbl (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No direct copyvio found, even specific incorporated images were not found via Image search. A09090091 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a composite image, we need info on the PD status of each photo. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete author per EXIF is AlienMadeit. A09090091 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Bild aus dem Internet, Pressefoto Strubbl (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No direct copyvio found, even specific incorporated images were not found via Image search A09090091 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: We need info on the PD status of each image. --Gbawden (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Unsinn Strubbl (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PS. A09090091 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Denn es ist Logo Strubbl (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex logo, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
accidently uploaded per flickr to commons; exact duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Derek_Fisher,_Kobe_Bryant.jpg FMSky (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Processed as a duplicate. --Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation - metadata says the author is Jernej Campelj, no evidence of permission. — Yerpo Eh? 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The map contains vast areas that were not actually under the control of the Babylonians, such as Cyprus, Sinai, and Elam, for example Ahmed88z (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion and heavily in use. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The map contains vast areas that were not actually under the control of the Babylonians, such as Cyprus, Sinai, and Elam, for example Ahmed88z (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No objection yet! i need delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed88z (talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion and heavily in use. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation; works by artist who died in 1985.
- File:Alexander Harder-Khasán Explosion.jpg
- File:Alexander Harder-Khasán Krug mit Granatapfel.jpg
- File:Alexander Harder-Khasán Spuren.jpg
- File:Alexander Harder-Khasán Steinschrei.jpg
- File:Arachne Alexander Harder-Khasán.jpg
- File:Selbstportrait Alexander Harder-Khasán.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright Violation, against COM:FAN. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Metadata and watermark credit ELBEN_APPIAH Ytoyoda (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal file, out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Selfie without education use Drakosh (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD F10. A09090091 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This file has resemblance with this image. Needs official permission from the author. Gazal world (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Self-promotion picture for personal webspace on Thai Wikipedia. Please notify admins there to review the user page using this image. Enyavar (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Google search reveals this map series shows the (fictional) setting of author's horror novel written in 2016 (see also the following two files) Enyavar (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
what fictional setting is this "Liberteria" supposed to be part of? Enyavar (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Derivative of an image deleted as a copyright violation, and therefore itself a copyright violation. firefly ( t · c ) 20:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
GoogleMaps Copyvio Enyavar (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
sourceless, as such non-educational content created by myself Newmoniccc3 (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
None have exif. File:Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP) 2021.jpg States that it is from the DPA. Another is clearly a signed promo photo. File:21 09 2020 Bettina Stark-Watzinger Wiki.jpg is probably also from the DPA see https://fdp-hessen.de/bundestagswahl2017/bettina-stark-watzinger/ - I think all need OTRS as they are definitely not own work
- File:Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP) 2021.jpg
- File:Schaefer Peterskirche 03052019.png
- File:Michael Stolleis als Vizekanzler des Orden Pour le Merite.jpg
- File:21 09 2020 Bettina Stark-Watzinger Wiki.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —DerHexer (Talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yanlışlıkla yükledim BencaminKS (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There is a better version and this one is not being used.--Nanahuatl (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope ; file has no use to it. And possibly fails COM:PORN. Commons is not a webhost, which is why these files are on Commons. Jairus is doing... 🎮🦜📷 01:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Nonsense claim, These videos contain Japanese en:Gravure Idol(ja:グラビアアイドル) information (A kind of Japanese popular culture, also you can find this information with google search ), so in scope. (Japanese Wikipedia article about "Miss Magazine", It is a kind of Beauty pageant, especially a Swimsuit competition of Gravure idols.) also, Commons does not necessarily require its files must be used in other Wikimedia projects( There is no restriction like "one-article minimum" or "restrictions on location" for free media files.), because the site is a general media repository files in the website can be used outside anywhere (that's why Commons is a "free" license media site.). The nominator's arguments are apparently based on a misunderstanding of Gravure idol(Japanese Wikipedia article about Gravure idol), a part of Japanese contemporary popular culture. Puramyun31 (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
:: p.s: Furthermore, There are Wikipedia articles about "porn" and actual "porn" files (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inkorrektes_tournage1.jpg from, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kink_porn_shoot_09.jpg from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage_pornography, etc.), to explain what "porn" is. This existence is not based on mere sexual arousal intent but intended to provide encyclopedic information. Puramyun31 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Christopher Fynn (talk)) 04:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Uploader added license Christopher Fynn (talk)) 04:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: License added. --Missvain (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation: https://bankbps.prowly.com/presskits/zdjecia-centrali-i-oddzialu Panek (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
A photoshopped photo - the original appears to be https://es.2021discountsale.ru/content?c=franco%20gafas%20de%20sol&id=12 - vandalism and copyvio Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
taken from FB per MD and found here https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2021/08/24/the-pandemic-created-an-economic-disaster-for-women-these-female-entrepreneurs-are-helping-other-women-bounce-back/ - we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP, but also Forbes link does not cite who the author of the image is. A09090091 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Using the PD-old template requires known death date of the author (but athor is declared unknown). Also missing US copyright status information that depends on initial publication date and publication country. The description suggests that the author was French; if the country of origin was France, the image is unlikely to be PD in US. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Near-duplicate / redundant to File:6467Saint Ildephonsus of Toledo Parish Church - Tanay 45.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Plain wall. Redundant to everything at Category:Exterior of Tanay Church. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Invalid license template: Facebook publication is not pre-1989 Ankry (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio until 2023. Image is derived work from 1937 postcard (online at orgelsindrenthe.nl) with watermark "Kramer, Groningen" ; the professional photostudio Kramer in Groningen by Piet Kramer, (1878-1952). Mdd (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also there is second image by the same photographer made the same day at the Beeldbank Groningen, see here. Both pictures are made in the same style and show the same flower bouquet. The Beeldbank Groningen has confirmed this assessment.
- Late last night I also noticed there is already a larger collection of works by Piet Kramer (1878-1952) on Commons, all part of an image release by the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, see here.
- These both issues do not effect this deletion request. The image should be deleted now and restored in 2023. -- Mdd (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Not own work as claimed. One is from https://galeriafavila.es/bio/ and the artwork needs OTRS from the painter. Probably from Insta as well
- File:Plantilla instagram-03.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram-04.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram-02.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram copia-10.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram copia-08.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram copia-09.jpg
- File:Plantilla instagram copia-07.jpg
- File:Fotografia de Favila.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
A similar photo found here in 2015 - https://www.vanitatis.elconfidencial.com/casas-reales/2015-10-03/hablamos-con-favia-el-pintor-que-letizia-se-llevo-a-estados-unidos_1043129/ - no exif, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
no permission Hoyanova (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -217.159.216.114 07:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC) I am the owner of the image and it was not given to anyone with permission to publish on any site
- Keep Unless you are Ivars Svarcs @Sphynx A09090091 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Itsmecyndi (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Shanna Peoples - Missing.jpg
- File:Shanna Peoples 2011.jpg
- File:Shanna Peoples 19 - Missing Poster.jpg
Claimed own work, yet credited to LostNMissing Inc. No evidence is provided that LostNMissing Inc, let alone the uploader, has the rights to these images. Brianjd (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Image is sourced to Conversaciones con Leonardo Castellani by Pablo Juan Hernandez, who was born in 1952; uploader credited image to Hernandez, and Hernandez's works are not yet PD-70. Barring more specific image provenance which may or may not be in the physical book, all we can know about the photo is that it was taken prior to Castellani's death in 1981. DS (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, The right license is this one:
|
This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (Both at least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created, and it was first published at least 20 years ago, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4)).
Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art.  Warning: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it, and clear evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago must be given.
|
|
- Regards, --Torsade de Pointes (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, good enough. DS (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a cover page of recently (some years ago) published book. Must be copyrighted. Gazal world (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Baycrest as no permission (No permission since) Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm turning this into a regular deletion request only to give us time to have a discussion on Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back to you, Baycrest. I support deletion per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Google search reveals this map series shows the setting of author's horror novel written in 2016 Enyavar (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Google search reveals this map series shows the setting of author's horror novel written in 2016 Enyavar (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
what fictional setting is this "island" supposed to be part of? Enyavar (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No longer used after mainspace article was deleted through PROD. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid rationale, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No longer used after mainspace article was deleted through PROD. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid rationale, as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moot Court Hall.JPG Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
useless photoshopped image Ske (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Won't be used as the mainspace article was deleted. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: The image is in use. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
No sources 86.212.144.180 20:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, logo of a British media company, TOO in the UK is very low FASTILY 23:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violation, logo of a British media company, TOO in the UK is very low FASTILY 23:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
logo uploaded by film studio account banned on en.wiki for making a self advertisement draft article Nutshinou Talk! 08:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep doesn't exceed COM:TOO. A09090091 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- this nomination isnt about copyright --Nutshinou Talk! 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't exceed COM:TOO.--A09090091 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion request was made by Nauthis (talk · contribs) who only added the header but didn't give a reason for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept, textlogo. Taivo (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately we have no evidence that the author, Emily Lakdawalla, released the legal rights to this file under the license given. If possible, the uploader Khamar should have the author send permission via the COM:VRT process. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- It would be disappoiting if permsission cannot be confirmed, or assumed, as this was recorded specifically for Commons, and for use on Wikipedia, as part of COM:WikiVIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree it would be unfortunate, but considering it was uploaded in 2014, ten years after OTRS was started, it can hardly be grandfathered in as old files once were. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: No VRT to date. --Herby talk thyme 15:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
image used only by spam page deleted off vi.wiki DS (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't exceed COM:TOO. A09090091 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091: This does not seem to be about copyright, but rather about scope. Indeed, the filename, description and categories do little to explain how this image is useful. Brianjd (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick self-portrait for Look
[edit]This early photographic self-portrait of Stanley Kubrick is apparently from the Look Magazine Collection at the Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. The Look copyright holder, Cowles Communications, Inc., transferred its copyrights to the Library of Congress, and the collection is now regarded as being in the public domain. The Kubrick estate maintains that Kubrick was only a staff photographer from January 7, 1947 to September 12, 1950, meaning that it only recognizes Kubrick photos in the collection from that time range as being in the public domain; the Kubrick estate would presumably attempt to enforce its copyrights on any of his photographs for Look from earlier or later.
In short photos taken by Stanley Kubrick are in the public domain if the following two conditions apply:
- They were taken between January 7, 1947–September 12, 1950, and
- They are part of the Look Magazine Collection at the Library of Congress.
This photo was taken by Kubrick for Look in some capacity, whether it was ever published in print or not. It is dated 1949. So far, so good. However, there's a big problem: I can't find the photograph in the Library of Congress's Look Magazine Collection. See for yourself:
- Look Collection homepage
- Photos by Stanley Kubrick in the Look Collection
- Photos of Stanley Kubrick in the Look Collection
- There's also this slightly blurry photo that clearly depicts Kubrick, but "Kubrick, Stanley" is missing from the "subject" metadata.
The source for KubrickForLook.jpg is listed as:
- "LOOK Magazine Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [Reproduction number e.g., LC-L9-60-8812, frame 8]"
The problem is that's the example credit line, verbatim, recommended by the Library of Congress on its page about rights to Kubrick's photography. The abbreviation "e.g." means "for example", as in, the given ID number is just an example. (I understand how that could have been overlooked, given how it may appear that "e.g." is intended as part of the ID number itself.) The call number "LC-L9-60-8812-Z, no. 8" designates a photo of JFK by Bob Lerner.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but I don't believe this was part of the Look Collection at the Library of Congress. We would thus have to presume it remains copyrighted. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment First upload to Commons [1] gives photo source as "Drama and Shadows: Photographs 1945-1950. Phaidon Press. ISBN 0-7148-4438-1. 2005. Originally taken for Look Magazine." -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This edit from December 2010 by @Jan Arkesteijn: added the text "Credit Line: Stanley Kubrick, photographer, LOOK Magazine Collection, Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [Reproduction number e.g., LC-L9-60-8812, frame 8]" to fill in author field, not source. This edit from June 2011 by @Damiens.rf: removed the "Drama and Shadows" credit from the source field and substituted what had been in the author field. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Thanks for digging up that additional information. I would try to dig up a copy of Drama and Shadows: Photographs 1945–1950 to see if it supplies any additional information, but used copies are expensive, there are no copies available in any libraries near me, and there are no digital copies available online.Just to make sure this point is clear to everyone who finds this discussion: the mere fact that a photograph was made by an employee of Look magazine, by itself, does not guarantee that the photograph is in the public domain. The Look collection at the Library of Congress—which is mostly, but not exclusively, public domain—does not contain the complete corpus of all published and unpublished Look photography. The Museum of the City of New York holds far more of Kubrick's Look photography than the Library of Congress, and none of his photos held at MCNY are in the public domain. (Incidentally, the MCNY does not appear to have the Kubrick mirror selfie in question either, at least not in a digitized form on its website.) Therefore it is not enough for a photograph to be from Look to determine it is in the public domain; it must be shown that the photograph is in the LoC's Look collection, as we cannot infer that any photograph made for Look is also in the Look collection. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- More info: there is an uncatalogued portion of the LoC's Look collection held on-site and in deep storage. Photos held in the uncatalogued portion are, obviously, not listed or available in any form through the online catalog, but they would be subject to the same PD-licensing conditions as the rest of the collection. It is possible that the Kubrick mirror selfie might originate from there, and if so there is a small hope that it could be public domain after all if we can reliably determine it originates from there. A copy of Drama and Shadows: Photographs 1945–1950 would be extremely helpful, since a credits section or credit line might supply the information we need. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The photo does not appear in Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2002), ISBN 0-8212-2815-3, nor is featured or described in Stanley Kubrick at Look Magazine: Authorship and Genre in Photojournalism and Film, ISBN 9781841506111, the latter of which has a fairly comprehensive catalog of Stanley's "jobs" for Look as held at both the Library of Congress and the Museum of the City of New York. We don't know what job this was part of, but there is no mention of this kind of self-portrait. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment A gallery of Kubrick photography at AnOtherMag.com credits the image: "Reproduced by kind permission of the Museum of the City of New York." I'd say odds are this image is copyrighted after all. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, we are unable to confirm that this photo is free licensed. (If that changes some time in the future, it can be undeleted or re-uploaded, but at present efforts to confirm free status seem at an unsuccessful impasse.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 12:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Invalid licence template. PD-old requires 70 years from authors death to pass while the author is declared unknown. Original source is also not indicated, so the copyright status is unknown.
- File:Prawieniszki2.jpg
- File:Prawieniszki4.jpg
- File:Prawieniszki.jpg
- File:La-czenstochovienneretusz.jpg
- File:Brygadaczwa.jpg
- File:Brygada-czestochowaretusz.jpg
- File:Brygada-czestochowa-papeteria.png
- File:Brygada1931ret.jpg
- File:BrygadaSzeged.jpg
- File:WartaCKSret.jpg
- File:Brygada-Ruchret.jpg
- File:Most GnaszynGórny1939ret1.jpg
- File:GnaszynDolny1939.jpg
- File:OSPKamienicaPolska1920ret.jpg
- File:UtworzenieOSPKamienicaPolska1910ret.jpg
- File:PałacKorwinów2fotopolska.jpg
- File:PałacKorwinówfotopolskaretnowy.jpg
- File:PałacKorwinów1941fotoplska.jpg
- File:UrządGminywCzastarach1936ret.jpg
- File:SzkoławCzastarach01.06.1933retnowy.jpg
- File:TartakimłynwCzastarachret-1.jpg
- File:KawiarnianadbrzeżnaJózefów1941.jpg
- File:StacjawCzastarachret.jpg
- File:DwórwParcicach1953.jpg
- File:DwórMagnuskichw Parcicach.jpg
- File:OSP Blachowniaret.jpg
- File:OSPWrzosowaretusz.jpg
- File:OSPDźbów1930ret.jpg
- File:OSP Kamienica Polska2ret.jpg
- File:OSP Kamienica Polskaret.jpg
- File:OSP Gnaszyn.jpg
- File:KoplaniaFranciszekStary3ret.jpg
- File:PracownicyZakładówGnaszyn01.05.1933ret.jpg
- File:KoplaniaFranciszekStary2.png
- File:SzkołaGnaszynDolnyretusz.jpg
- File:PracowniceTkalniGnaszyn1923726KB.jpg
- File:KoplaniaFranciszekStary4ret.jpg
- File:KopalniaFranciszekStary.png
- File:GnaszynSzkołaret.jpg
- File:DziałaczemłodzieżowiGnaszyn1936retnowy.jpg
- File:Gnaszynszkoła16.06.1932retusz.jpg
- File:ZebranieUrządGminyPoczesnapopr.jpg
- File:WójtGminyPoczesna.jpg
- File:UrządGminyPoczesna.jpg
- File:SzkołaPowszechnaPoczesna.jpg
- File:StowarzyszeniePracaPoczesnaretusz.jpg
- File:OSPHutaStaraA1936retusz.jpg
- File:OrkiestraparafialnaPoczesna1.jpg
- File:OSPHutaStaraA1926.jpg
- File:KościółKamienicaPolskaretusz.jpg
- File:MandoliniściHutaStaraA.jpg
- File:MłynZawodzie1936ret.jpg
- File:KopalniaTadeuszIHutaStaraAret.jpg
- File:KopalniaLudwikPoczesna1ret.jpg
- File:KopalniaLudwikPoczesnabudowarampretusz.jpg
- File:KopalniaLudwikPoczesna.jpg
- File:BudowaSzkołyPodstawowejwPoczesnej1937ret.jpg
- File:KomuniaŚwiętaPoczesna.jpg
- File:ChórżeńskiparafiaPoczesna.jpg
- File:BudowakopalniLudwikPoczesnaret.jpg
- File:ChórżeńskiHutaStaraA.jpg
- File:UlBarbaryCzęstochowa1860.jpg
- File:Hutablachownia.jpg
- File:JRutkowski1.jpg
- File:FabrykaCzęstochowianka.jpg
- File:Bargły.jpg
- File:WrzosowaulStrażacka.jpg
- File:SzkołaIIwojnaświatowa.jpg
- File:OSPPoczesna.jpg
- File:DrogaklinkierowaKamienicaPolska1-1.jpg
- File:PanoramaRakowa1912.jpg
- File:Rakówhuta.jpg
- File:Huta-Czestochowa-Ekipa-wielkiego-pieca-w-1906-r.jpg
- File:Raków1945.jpg
- File:NaprzódRadomsko-RakówCzęstochowa1937.jpg
- File:Raków1935.jpg
- File:Raków1923.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 19:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Invalid licence template. PD-Poland requires lack of copyright in the first publication, before 1989, so original source and date in necessary to determine copyright status.
- File:PAKISTAN-zamach048-1024x1019.jpg
- File:PAKISTAN-zamach051-1024x869.jpg
- File:PAKISTAN-zamach047-1024x972.jpg
- File:KARACZI003.jpg
- File:Karaczi-Wolniak003-1024x957.jpg
- File:KARACZI001.jpg
- File:Sławuta2ret.jpg
- File:Sławuta1ret.jpg
- File:Sławuta3.jpg
- File:Skra-Tęcza1946.jpg
- File:Boisko klubu SKRA 1214900 Fotopolska-Eu.jpg
- File:DwórParcicelata80ret.jpg
- File:DwórNowickichParciceret.jpg
- File:KościółPrzemienieniaPańskiegoGnaszynret.jpg
- File:UrządGminyCzastary07.1977ret.jpg
- File:UrządGminyCzastary07.1977 (2)ret.jpg
- File:Raków-Szombierki1966.jpg
- File:Raków-Arkonia1965.jpg
- File:Raków-VictoriaJaworzno.jpg
- File:Raków-Arkonia.jpg
- File:Raków-StalMielec.jpg
- File:DwórwParcicachret.jpg
- File:Raków1967kibice (2).jpg
- File:Raków1967kibice.jpg
- File:Stadionim.Piłsudskiego.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleting per nomination. Thanks for assuming good faith on this closure. If you disagree with this decision, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than my talk page. Thanks!. --Missvain (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Dubious CC licence for historical pictures. Some of them come from Fotopolska.eu. While it's a popular source of modern images it's not a good source of historical materials, since many of them have unclear copyright there.
- File:Czestochowa Kosciol sw Antoniego Padewskiego.jpg
- File:BudowakościołaGnaszynret.jpg
- File:Most kolejowy Korwinów Fotopolska (2).jpg
- File:Most kolejowy Korwinów Fotopolska.jpg
- File:HutaszkłaHołbieja.jpg
- File:DomPostawypo1936tablicaJPret.jpg
- File:Dwór w Woropajewie.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Tkaniny Sp z oo2.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Tkaniny Sp z oo.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Stacja kolejowa Czestochowa Gnaszyn-3.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Stacja kolejowa Czestochowa Gnaszyn-2.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Stacja kolejowa Czestochowa Gnaszyn-1.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Most kolejowy1.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Most kolejowy.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Kosciol sw Antoniego Padewskiego4.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Kosciol sw Antoniego Padewskiego2.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Kosciol sw Antoniego Padewskiego3.jpg
- File:Czestochowa Kosciol sw Antoniego Padewskiego1.jpg
- File:RakówSpartaretusz.jpg
- File:RakówSparta.jpg
- File:VictoriaCzęstochowa1923.png
- File:VictoriaCzęstochowa.jpg
- File:VictoriaCzęstochowaSpartaRaków.jpg
- File:VictoriaCzęstochowa1945.jpg
- File:TSCzęstochowianka1911.jpg
- File:Brygada Cracovia 1936.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 20:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In the photos sent, mostly from websites, all information in the possession was indicated, both in terms of the source, date of creation and publication, and the author. Most of the photos have been retouched. In the case of most of the photos from before World War II, the author is actually unknown, but this is not an obstacle to posting them on Wikimedia Commons. Then a lot of them would have to be removed, e.g. from Category:Historical images of Pastavy. If a license has been incorrectly applied to a given photo, please correct it so that there is no doubt about the copyright.--Waraciła (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep These appear to fall under PD-1996 for images published in Poland before 1996. They appear to be mixture of anonymous yearbook photos, and anonymous landscape photos, but I have not looked at all of them. --RAN (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- They definitely weren't published on the websites before 1996. First publication before 1996 must be sourced for each photo to clarify it's copyright status and keep it on Commons. ~Cybularny Speak? 00:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no indication of pre 1996 publication. — Racconish 💬 12:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Behalten. Ich sehe keinen Hinweis darauf, dass diese alte Karte erfolgreich abgemahnt werden könnte. Der Zusammenhang mit dem Markenrecht ist mir bei dieser Karte nicht erkennbar. -- Kürschner (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hallo mritz, bitte erklären Sie, worin Ihre eigene Leistung beim Erstellen dieser Kopie besteht (außer dem Kopieren). Nach Ansicht von Wikipedia ist die Karte aufgrund ihres Alters ansonsten gemeinfrei, egal in wessen Besitz sie sich befindet. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1.) Erstmal ist es frech einfach ohne Nachzufragen und Genehmigung Dateien aus meiner Webseite zu klauen.
- 2.) Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 dem Original und wurde umfangreich erst digitalisiert, bearbeitet und für das Landkartenarchiv neu hergestellt.
- 3.) In anderen Fällen, hier auf Wikipedia, hat man eine Datei geklaut, deren Rechte (Markenrecht) bei Pharus liegt. Nicht bei mir.
- 4.) Durch den Diebstahl kann jeder die Datei vervielfältigen. Es existiert kein Schutz gegen Vervielfältigung. mritz (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. A09090091 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep taking the image of a public domain 2d object does not transfer the copyright to you, and restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- (Comment also applies to other DRs below.) I'll just leave this diff link here. Together with the previous DR, where OP claimed the file was public domain, it looks to me OP is either very confused or deliberately lying. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --MB-one (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Die Kopie wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. https://www.landkartenarchiv.de/historischestadtplaene2.php?q=landkartenarchiv_berlin_8_1921_v2 mritz (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Das Reprint unterscheidet sich zur Originalkarte (Urheberrecht für Reprints, Copyright: Michael Ritz, Landkartenarchiv.de) mritz (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- OP left this link on the original file: http://www.landkartenarchiv.de/ in a separate speedy tag. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Denn es ist Logo Strubbl (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't exceed COM:TOO. A09090091 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Logo of non-notable organization. Out of project scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Данный рисунок не соответствует историческому гербу Владимирской губернии. Этот рисунок современная интерпритация неимеющая никакого отношения к настоящему гербу Владимирской губернии. Распростроняя ложное изображение история Владимирской земли будет искажена. 94.158.119.158 08:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This drawing does not correspond to the historical coat of arms of the Vladimir province. This drawing is a modern interpretation that has nothing to do with the real coat of arms of the Vladimir province. By spreading a false image, the history of the Vladimir land will be distorted. 94.158.119.158 08:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This drawing does not correspond to the heraldic description of the coat of arms of the Vladimir province - the crown on the lion leopard is incorrectly depicted. According to the description, the coat of arms is "an image of a golden lion leopard in an iron crown decorated with gold and colored stones, holding a long silver cross in a scarlet field in its right paw. The shield is crowned with an imperial crown and surrounded by golden oak leaves, connected by a St. Andrew's ribbon." There are no colored stones on the crown, symbolizing the unification of inheritances and the overcoming of fragmentation. Therefore, this drawing should be removed or replaced with the forged historical coat of arms of the Vladimir province. 94.158.119.158 08:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Данный рисунок не соответствует геральдическому описанию герба Владимирской губернии - неправильно изображена корона на львином леопарде. Согласно описанию герб представляет собой "изображение золотого львиного леопарда в железной, украшенной золотом и цветными камнями, короне, держащий в правой лапе длинный серебряный крест в червлённом поле. Щит увенчан императорскою короною и окружён золотыми дубовыми листьями, соединёнными Андреевскою лентою". На короне отсутствуют цветные камни, символизирующие объединение уделов и преодоление раздробленности. Поэтому данный рисунок должен быть удален или заменен на подленный исторический герб Владимирской губернии. 94.158.119.158 08:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment
.png)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_etwa_1906.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-3){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}
-2021-10-25T17:31:00.000Z-File:PaRappa_the_Rapper_Head_Basic_Vector_Art.png){kind=link}
_2021.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:KubrickForLook.jpg&oldid=5575046){kind=link}
ret.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}
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep
Ru: Кроме цвета камней в короне льва всё остальное точно соответствует описанию. Ни в одном из приведённых изображений нет цветных камней. В описании цвет камней не указан, поэтому любой цвет камне может быть оспорен. Данное изображение полностью соответствует историческим.
En: Apart from the color of the stones in the lion's crown, everything else exactly matches the description. None of the above images contain colored stones. The color of the stones is not specified in the description, so any color of the stone can be disputed. This figure is fully consistent with the historical images. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Это неправильный исторический герб! И описанию не соответствует! 84.53.206.113 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the wrong historical coat of arms! And it doesn't match the description! 84.53.206.113 06:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is your personal point of view. In File:Coat of Arms of Vladimir gubernia 1856.svg the colors clearly correspond to the historical depictions of the coat of arms of the Vladimir Governorate – drawing 1, drawing 2. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can you link to the correct image? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The photographer Yefim Kopyt, died in 1992, therefore not PD PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I have specified the wrong license for this file. The correct license is now listed. All material of the newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" it is a property of the Russian Ministry of Defence (mil.ru). All issue of this newspaper are available on mil.ru with CC BY 4.0 license as all other materials. Kursant504 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, mil.ru only applies to photos published in a WEBSITE that has the mil.ru extension in the url. It DOES NOT extend to the Red Star newspaper itself, be it the paper or online version.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, bur I will not agree with you. Mil.ru says: "© Все материалы интернет-портала Минобороны России доступны по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" (in english version of mil.ru: "© All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0").You can see: "All content". And online-copy of newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" for 1941-1945 years also on this web-site. "Krasnaya Zvezda" it is the newspaper of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. It belongs to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. I will agree with your arguments that this free licence is not extend on this newspaper if anywhere in wiki there has already been a discussion that this license does not apply to all materials from mi.ru. The results were summed up, etc. Now it looks like your personal opinion. Kursant504 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Link to the online archive: https://xn--80ahclcogc6ci4h.xn--90anlfbebar6i.xn--p1ai/multimedia/frontline_redstar.htm? Kursant504 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=909508979#File:RedStarNewspaper56.jpg){kind=link}
Freigabe dey Fotographen Amanda Nikolic fehlt. Alpöhi (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Die Rechte sind bei uns, Universal Music Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umusic Switzerland (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Dr Eidgenoss 2017.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2021110910009709. --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Any progress? --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete @Rosenzweig, the VRT correspondence concerning this artist is somewhat confusing, but as far as I can see, no valid release for this particular image has come. We have a valid permission for File:Dr_Eidgenoss_2021,_©_Jen_Ries.jpg instead. I think we can let it go with deleting the image discussed here. Mussklprozz (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 12:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
found online here - http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Consulados/CIUDADDELCABO/en/Consulado/Pages/Consul.aspx - although this is higher quality it is unlikely to be own work as claimed Gbawden (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe {{Attribution-La Moncloa}} is applicable? A09090091 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. Also including later quasi-duplicate File:Embajador Jesus Silva 2017.jpg by same uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Denn es ist Bild aus dem Internet Strubbl (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Kannst du das bitte genauer erläutern? Den Plan habe ich eigenhändig mit CorelDraw gezeichnet.--HerrMay (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Entschuldige, dann war es eine Fehleinschätzung meinerseits. Strubbl (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Kein Problem, danke für die schnelle Klärung.--HerrMay (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Entschuldige, dann war es eine Fehleinschätzung meinerseits. Strubbl (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ayman Aumi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Babri-Masjid-Demolition-1992.webp
- File:Gyanvapi-mosque.jpg
- File:Babri Mosque Ayodhya Faizabad.jpg
- File:Syria-1592160890962-5382.jpg
- File:Patriarch tomb.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep for File:Patriarch tomb.JPG. This was not uploaded by Ayman Aumi. Also, the large resolution image is not available on google and none of the websites where the image is available predate the date on Commons. The odd resolution is likely the result of cropping. EugeneZelenko, is the proposal for this picture a mistake? --Strainu (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- delete some keep some As Strainu says, Patriarch tomb is from another user and seems original. This is a mistaken nomination here, right?
- Keep the Syrian image, or at least, it is not a copyright violation. It is a crop of another image in Commons from another user, and the metadata credits the source.
- The other 3 images first in this list seem like copies of copyrighted content from elsewhere online. Delete those for lack of explanation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: the first three, per nomination and discussion, kept the other two per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 16:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The map contains vast areas that were not actually under the control of the Babylonians, such as Cyprus, Sinai, and Elam, for example Ahmed88z (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion, but a valid reason to overwrite the file. Also to Ahmed88z, this map is just based on File:Neo-Babylonian Empire.png. SHB2000 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The map is used in many articles on Wikipedia and is an exaggerated map. So how do you say there is no good reason to delete it?--Ahmed88z (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, pr discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 16:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The map is obviously copied from the source, which is not listed. False attribution of "Own work" Ke an (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- It IS really my work which I made in CorelDraw with my own hands. It had the underlying (geographical) base map created by using the data from OpenStreetMaps. Historical information I took from many other maps which I consulted with my eyes.
- And I just wonder, how do you usually determine wether a user makes something himself or just copied from somewhere? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is hardly obvious to me that the uploader copied this map from somewhere else. Also note Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rus-1113-1194.png and the linked undeletion discussion. Brianjd (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Unsubstantiated suspicion. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation/original research. -- Pofka (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- There can be no copyright infringement if the image is uploaded by the author.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Pofka probably means copyright infringement of some sort of underlying work, although that has been thoroughly discussed in other comments here. Brianjd (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pofka: "Original research" is permitted on Commons. As we so often say, Commons is not Wikipedia. Brianjd (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- There can be no copyright infringement if the image is uploaded by the author.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete It is not about redrawing in Corel or else it is about historic information of the map which doesn't contain "own work". In case it is a synhtesis of several historic maps or books, names of the authors and references must be provided. In case you are historian and created a historic map, based on you own research please provide your reaserch. [3], [4] -- Ke an (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is the coincidence of state borders, coastlines and city names on the maps a violation of copyright? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure it is the sufficient reason for deleting the map? And not for a message on the map's or authors's talk page? --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- And as I understand it the "own work" is about who made the map. And the used sources are listed in "Description" or below the "own work". Look, for instance, at these maps: 1, 2, or those maps from Commons:Quality_images: 3, 4. And probably optimal layout is used here: 5. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- The authorship of the map is not only the drawing, but also the information it contains. For example - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Shklow_(1654).jpg. The source of the map is clearly stated. -- 13:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Has any information been misused on this card? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ke an, yes, it's quite straightfort when you just redraw a single map, but I used a lot of sources many of which were texts not maps. But I'll try to remember and provide them. --Koryakov Yuri (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- The authorship of the map is not only the drawing, but also the information it contains. For example - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Shklow_(1654).jpg. The source of the map is clearly stated. -- 13:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is not original research. Those are well-known facts amongst historians of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian history, see for instance this Belarusian monography and encyclopedia about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences, p. 9 and esp. p. 11 (same years and regions there). This is also no copyright violation. It's first publication online was here, published on the website lingvarium.org, made by scholars Timur Maisak and Yuri Koryakov at the Institute of Languages of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, the same uploader we have here. Commons should be happy to have scholarly uploads. But this is not original research, it's well-known.--WajWohu (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.ritmeurasia.org/images/myfls/velikoe-knyazhestvo-litovskoe/1.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://rushrono.ru/images/hrono/velikoe_knyagestvo_litovskoe_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion it's not a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 10:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
These three maps are all variants of each other in different languages. They would be useful, but unfortunately, they contain a number of errors. Mine Creek is shown in the wrong state (should be Kansas), Pilot Knob is shown well too close to St. Louis, Glorieta Pass (note spelling diff) was actually located slightly to the south of Santa Fe, not north of it, the route of Price's retreat after Westport is wrong (should be west of the Kansas/Missouri line until after Mine Creek), and the relative positions of Camden and Poison Spring are erroneously flipped. These are used in a lot of articles across several wikipedias, but I'm concerned that there are just too many errors here.
- File:Departament Trans-Missisipi.svg
- File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR-ar.svg
- File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR.svg
Hog Farm (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Deleting these files while they are still in use would set a dangerous precedent. Brianjd (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: - So we should keep error-riddled maps up? I think that's more dangerous. Hog Farm (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: did you try requesting corrections at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? Veverve (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, I did not know of its existence. Will look into that after work. Hog Farm (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I suggest uploading corrected version of all maps and then revision deletion of all previous versions of maps. A09090091 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've posted a request at the graphics lab, including linking to a better map that would serve as a guide to correcting the Price's Raid errors. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091: Revision deletion is supposed to be used sparingly. It is definitely not appropriate for this case. The upload summaries for the new versions should note that corrections were made. Brianjd (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Thanks. After reading the policy you gave, summaries seem to be even better. A09090091 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @A09090091: Revision deletion is supposed to be used sparingly. It is definitely not appropriate for this case. The upload summaries for the new versions should note that corrections were made. Brianjd (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've posted a request at the graphics lab, including linking to a better map that would serve as a guide to correcting the Price's Raid errors. Hog Farm (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I suggest uploading corrected version of all maps and then revision deletion of all previous versions of maps. A09090091 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, I did not know of its existence. Will look into that after work. Hog Farm (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: did you try requesting corrections at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? Veverve (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: - So we should keep error-riddled maps up? I think that's more dangerous. Hog Farm (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep We don't delete files because they have some mistakes. Instead, we alert users about the mistakes and encourage removing the mistakes. Mark the files with {{Factual accuracy}}, which I have done. Glrx (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to remove it from all enwiki uses. I've always had doubts about Commons's willingness to make sure files are actually correct and/or properly licensed, this generally confirms my previous notions that quantity > quality here. Hog Farm (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I hardly think deleting a file because it has factual inaccuracies sets a "dangerous precedent". That said, there's nothing wrong with seeing if some of our fine graphics people can make fixes. But our main concern should be that these Wiki-user produced maps simply don't reflect reality, not that some articles would lose a file if it was deleted (what's the point in having it if it misleads our readers)? -Indy beetle (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: Trying to determine whether a file has factual inaccuracies is not always a trivial matter. Maybe it is in this case, but where do we draw the line? Also, even if a file does have factual inaccuracies, that does not necessarily make it useless. In fact, according to COM:INUSE, this file is deemed to have an educational use. Brianjd (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- What's the educational value of something if it is flat wrong? Some things are simply incomplete or speculative, and some things are wrong but they are historical (like very old maps and artistic depictions of certain events), and that is well enough understandable. But HogFarm is talking about maps other Wikimedians made which factually inaccurate and misleading. It sounds like you're advocating for a precedent whereby I can upload stuff that is wrong and have it kept because in my subjective view my distortion is "educational". -Indy beetle (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Indy beetle: Trying to determine whether a file has factual inaccuracies is not always a trivial matter. Maybe it is in this case, but where do we draw the line? Also, even if a file does have factual inaccuracies, that does not necessarily make it useless. In fact, according to COM:INUSE, this file is deemed to have an educational use. Brianjd (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Saw this via the COM:SCOPE talk page - Maybe it is in this case, but where do we draw the line? There's no obligation to draw a line. Dealing with inaccuracy is a complicated problem and can be sorted on a case by case basis. I don't think abdicating our responsibility as a host of educational content and throwing our hands up in the air is desirable, nor declaring all inaccuracy to be out of scope. Some inaccuracies are hard to determine, some are notable as misinformation, some may be easily framed as simply a different perspective, some may be historically meaningful, but some have no conceivable educational use and are actively harmful. Working on the best approach to a particular case is what this page is for. We should drop notifications on the pages where it's used to alert editors of this discussion but then indeed proceed with this discussion with deletion as a possible outcome. — Rhododendrites talk | 11:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I've got this open in Inkscape and it's fully editable. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've got most of it but there are other errors: ex. Mansfield is in LA not TX> It's not the high quality Hal Jesperson map we're spoiled with... BusterD (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I've uploaded an adjusted version at File:TRANS-MISSISSIPPI CIVIL WAR (revised).svg. I urge interested parties to review my changes. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I can see I need to adjust "Valverde" rightwards, as I do "Honey Springs". BusterD (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The revised map is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I can see I need to adjust "Valverde" rightwards, as I do "Honey Springs". BusterD (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion is not the way to go here. Please improve, revise, rename, merge the existing files as needed. --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
obviously not truly own work considering it's from the mid 1940 PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep If author is known to satisfy {{PD-Russia}}, otherwise Delete. A09090091 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No author of the photo is mentioned since october 2021. --Ellywa (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Die Quelle hat Mritz grad entfernt. Die Datei stammte von seiner Landkartenarchiv-Webseite und ist auch heute noch dort online. Nur die URL hat sich anscheinend zwischenzeitlich geändert. --Alexrk2 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: https://www.landkartenarchiv.de/historischestadtplaene600.php?q=landkartenarchiv_berlin_gross_5_1928 mritz (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. According to the log of the file, the file was first deleted and then undeleted on 19 may 2019. The uploader did not respond to a question sent through the VRT system asking "Können Sie mir ein Bild einer Originalkarte zusammen mit einer überarbeiteten Karte senden? Damit können wir überprüfen, ob die Arbeit die Schwelle des Urheberrechtsschutzes überschreitet." mritz, please provide proof and insight which edits you made to show you have obtained copyright on this map which is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. -- Ellywa (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Die Information auf der WP-Seite ist nicht so bedeutsam. Dann löschen wir eben vorsorglich. Warum nicht. --Paul - eine Silbersonne (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- OP left this link on the original file: http://www.landkartenarchiv.de/ in a separate speedy tag. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: procedural keep in favor Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pharus Berlin ca1920.jpg. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Die Karte wurde als Ausschnitt einer bereits vorliegenden Datei gezogen. Die Ausgangs-Karte selbst war allerdings auch in anderer Quelle vorhanden. Doch es wurde der Ausschnitt der bereits auf Commons lag gewählt. Diese Karten wären auch bei Geoportal Berlin zu erreichen. Bei Landkarten.de liegen diese Karten ebenfalls ohne Bezug zu Pharus-Verlag. --Paul - eine Silbersonne (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: this map is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. Uploader does not show which edits they made to obtain their own copyright. --Ellywa (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep As the only evidence is a link that does not work, there has been no explanation as to whether this is a derivative version of a public domain work, or what creativity (if any) is being claimed in the derivative. As the last DR confused trademark law with copyright law, this looks like spamming or copyright trolling. If the latter, the account history is relevant to examine. The file has been restored after ticket:2019031810004396 resulted in no action.
- Ref to other maps currently being challenged Category:Copyright challenges by mritz --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Zeige uns doch mal ein paar Beweise für Deine in den Raum gestellten Aussagen auf. Irgendwie kommt mir das arg "g'spinnert" vor. Ein Reprint eines gemeinfreien Werkes würde ausserdem urheberrechtlich gar keinen Unterschied machen (alles andere wäre illegales copyright launderiny). Keep --Mateus2019 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Als 1. habt ihr ohne zu Fragen die Datei von meiner Webseite geklaut. Das Landkartenarchiv ist kein Selbstbedienungsladen. Ich möchte das nicht. Also entfernt endlich meine Datei aus Wikipedia.
- Als 2. schaust du selber mal nach der Marke Pharus nach. Kann man im Internet.
- Ich weiß nicht was hier herumdiskutiert wird. Das Original ist nach 70 Jahren gemeinfrei. Wenn ich vom Original digitalisiere dann entsteht dort keine Kopie. Die Datei wird bearbeitet.
- Dadurch entsteht ein neues Werk.
- ENTFERNEN SIE ENDLICH MEINE DATEIEN AUS WIKIPEDIA. mritz (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: this map is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. Uploader does not show which edits they made to obtain their own copyright. Just digitizing an old map does not give a new copyright, although it might be a lot of tedious work. --Ellywa (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
_etwa_1906.jpg){kind=link}
_etwa_1906.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
_etwa_1906.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-US}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
_etwa_1906.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Takshashila7977 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These pictures all look like they're screenshots of videos from the same channel. You can see that all of them has empty "events" tabs which don't make sense when making a standalone picture and they all have similar graphics, font, map style, etc. It is likely that either these screenshots are from videos that are made by the uploader themself which needs to be verified or it came from a likely copyrighted video made by someone else on Youtube.
- File:North India in 241 BCE.png
- File:Map of Bengal in 958 CE.png
- File:Map of Bengal around 1000 CE.png
- File:Map of North-India during the Avanti-Magadhan Wars.png
- File:Mughal-Maratha Wars in 1680 CE.png
- File:North India in 540 BCE.png
Twotwofourtysix (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if the uploader owns the YouTube videos, the boundaries depicted in the map are inaccurate, and therefore, the images fail COM:EDUSE. Utcursch (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Takshashila7977: Twotwofourtysix (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)- Hi,
- All these maps have been made by me. I make every year Historical Maps. I do indeed have a Youtube channel with the name of Takshashila where I upload animated maps occasionally as well. These maps though aren't screenshots rather are PNGs. The events tab is a part of the initial map making process. As these maps were earlier meant to be used to show events as well in the side column but due to the map becoming too congested the idea was dropped and the map without events was uploaded. Although on my own Youtube Channel I went on to add events as well. If there could be anyway you had suggest that I could verify that this is indeed my own work, I had be highly obliged.
- As for the accuracy, this map is the most accurate available anywhere on the Internet. I am in no way suggesting that these maps are 100% accurate but they are the best we have right now. The alternatives to them are way worse. I had really really suggest not deleting them until we find a better alternative which is more accurate(or if you have already found then please send link).
- As for the accuracy of my own map, I used multiple sources for them, some of which have been listed here:Sources:1)https://www.google.co.in/books/editio...
- 2)https://www.google.co.in/books/editio...
- 3)https://www.google.co.in/books/editio...
- Link to my own Youtube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmLcRXQRlrw&ab_channel=Takshashila — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takshashila7977 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Even if you claim that those are your own videos, you need to verify that you're actually the owner of that channel and that you actually release these screenshots under the stated licenses, especially since the videos themselves are *not* under a free license; they're under the standard YouTube license. You can do that by sending an email to the Volunteer Response Team. Twotwofourtysix (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: First, I have no reason to suspect the uploader is who they say they are. So that is no reason to deleted the files. Secondly, according to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. Some of the files are currently in use on the projects, so they have to be maintained. --Ellywa (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Gewalt JaPe2007 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Confused: what? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 15:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: without additional information this image is imho of no educational value and should be deleted because it is out of COM:SCOPE. Currently not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
The missing persons website cited for this image is licenced under CC BY 4.0. But I think this image would not be covered by the licence if the copyright owner is not the Argentinian government, which seems likely to be the case. Brianjd (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If it entered into the PD in 2017 (1947+70) it might still be under URAA copyright Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- What does Uruguay have to do with it, if a photo from Iceland and according to Iceland's laws can be used after 50 (if it is not a work of art) years or 70? ArniGael (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Because it also needs out of copyright in the US. Under the law named URAA many foreign works that weren't PD in 1996 or so in their origin countries became copyrighted in the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Nonsense. ArniGael (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because it also needs out of copyright in the US. Under the law named URAA many foreign works that weren't PD in 1996 or so in their origin countries became copyrighted in the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and still copyrighted in the US, see Template:PD-1996. In 1996, this image was still copyrighted in Iceland. So regrettably it has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
