Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/01/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Έγινε λάθος IChristy (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Sie haben nicht das Recht, mein Haus, Hauptstr. 17, ins Netz zu stellen. Also raus. Otto Geyer 2003:D9:D73D:6608:449E:323B:102F:5762 11:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep taken from a public road so no problem here. Even if a legal restriction would exist, this would be a non-copyright restriction. Multichill (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lieber Herr Geyer, lesen Sie bitte de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache und lassen Sie sich von einem Anwalt beraten. MfG, Achim55 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded this image two days ago by mistake. I meant to upload an image of the work in an installation view instead. Once deleted I will add the installation image. Thanks. CameronAmiri (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Erroneous upload Nycpan (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems like a never-finished work in progress. Only two images with insufficient descriptions. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This user gallery wasn't tagged as such. --Achim55 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
J’ai téléversé ce fichier par erreur Tito glm (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 23:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close The nominator has tagged the file as CSD G7, DR not needed. Non-admin close, feel free to revert if needed EpicPupper (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I, the author, want it deleted under G7 Dracophyllum (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Error in title ComputerHotline (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 15:52, 17 January 2022 UTC: Error in title --Krdbot 20:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The logo seem to be too large to be permitted by COM:De minimis hence it must be blurred out, unless permission is sent to VRT. Jonteemil (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the review. I amn the license holder, but I will delete the file. Because the concept it is not of any use anymore. 2A01:C23:C09B:4000:6D3E:7702:53DE:7FFC 21:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Collage image with the face of オトッペ main character(シーナ) pasted on the image of Okinoumi Ayumi. Please delete it.
- Delete: DW, OOS per lack of EDUSE. --Achim55 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism G3, user blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --Achim55 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I contest the speedy deletion. Logo dates back from 1932 so is DP for me. It should be kept. Also the brand is no longer used by Air France and is officially expired since 2009, see INPI. vip (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close: a collective DR has been created at Commons:Deletion requests/Air Orient logos instead. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I contest the speedy deletion. Logo dates back from 1932 so is DP for me. It should be kept. Also the brand is no longer used by Air France and is officially expired since 2009, see INPI. vip (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close: a collective DR has been created at Commons:Deletion requests/Air Orient logos instead. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Air Orient (France)
[edit]I contest the speedy deletion. Logo dates back from 1932 so is DP for me. It should be kept. Also the brand is no longer used by Air France and is officially expired since 2009, see INPI.
- File:Logo Air Orient.jpg
- File:Logo Air Orient - Air France.jpg
- File:Logo Air Orient - Air France.svg
- File:Logo Air Orient - Air France with laurels.svg
vip (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Don-vip: Do you have any info regarding who created the logo and when he/she died?Jonteemil (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil According to this page it's a collective work from three Air Orient/Air France people: Maurice Noguès, Joseph Marrast and Robert Philippe Couallier, in 1931 (first occurrence of the logo stamped in January 1931, then published in French national PI registry, BOPI, in 1932). So my understanding is that art. L123-3 of CPI applies (collective work as defined in Template:PD-France: public domain 70 years after publication). vip (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. Looking into this I see that per template:PD-France#cite_note-2 the collective work status is quite restrictive, so maybe someone with a better grasp on COM:France could verify that this file indeed does fall under it. Jonteemil (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: Might you know? I see that you speak French so maybe you're familiar with COM:France? Jonteemil (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This file is indeed very similar to the original logo, so there isn't any new copyright. In a collective work, individual input can't be separated. This might also be a work for hire. In both cases, it is OK. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: I see, thanks for your reply. What is the difference between a collaboration work, where {{PD-France}} say that copyright exipires with the death of the last of the authors + 70 years, and collective work where {{PD-France}} say copyright expires with the publication + 70 years?Jonteemil (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil: AS I said above, in a collective work, individual work can't be separated. This is typically a dictionary. In a collaboration work, the work of each author can be identified, like in a journal or magazine. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, perfect, thanks for the knowledge.Jonteemil (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil: AS I said above, in a collective work, individual work can't be separated. This is typically a dictionary. In a collaboration work, the work of each author can be identified, like in a journal or magazine. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: I see, thanks for your reply. What is the difference between a collaboration work, where {{PD-France}} say that copyright exipires with the death of the last of the authors + 70 years, and collective work where {{PD-France}} say copyright expires with the publication + 70 years?Jonteemil (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This file is indeed very similar to the original logo, so there isn't any new copyright. In a collective work, individual input can't be separated. This might also be a work for hire. In both cases, it is OK. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Yann: Might you know? I see that you speak French so maybe you're familiar with COM:France? Jonteemil (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. Looking into this I see that per template:PD-France#cite_note-2 the collective work status is quite restrictive, so maybe someone with a better grasp on COM:France could verify that this file indeed does fall under it. Jonteemil (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil According to this page it's a collective work from three Air Orient/Air France people: Maurice Noguès, Joseph Marrast and Robert Philippe Couallier, in 1931 (first occurrence of the logo stamped in January 1931, then published in French national PI registry, BOPI, in 1932). So my understanding is that art. L123-3 of CPI applies (collective work as defined in Template:PD-France: public domain 70 years after publication). vip (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: as {{PD-France}} per discussion. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photo Gampe (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 08:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
unusual personal photo. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CSD#F5. — Tulsi Bhagat [ contribs | talk ] 08:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Renwang101 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused software screenshot. Unclear software license.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sctimsttvm (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Surgery for Drug resistant epilepsy.png
- File:External carotid-internal carotid bypass.png
- File:Deep Brain Stimulation surgery.png
- File:Video EEG recording - Invasive monitoring and grid placement.png
- File:Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery.png
- File:New cath lab and HFICU.png
- File:Cardiology Procedures.png
- File:Intraoperative Neuro monitoring Trans Thoracic Echo in ICU.png
- File:DIVISION OF CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR CARDIOLOGY.png
- File:Division of Cardiovascular Imaging and Vascular Interventional Radiology.png
- File:Ultrasound guided Vascular Cannulations.png
- File:Trans Esophageal Echocardiography machines Intraoperative 3D Regional Wall Motion.png
- File:Wipro 3D Chitra Airbridge EBAS (Emergency Breathing Assistance System).png
- File:Chitra Vein Viewer.png
- File:State of the art mobile telemedicine facility in tribal areas.png
- File:Peer leaders training- the community based diabetes control project.png
- File:Chita Heart Valve and Blood Bag.png
- File:SCTIMST Institute Buildings.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
image used only by long-deleted promotional userpage on enwiki. It's the logo for an online gaming guild. Not within scope. DS (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:Illustration de Aux heureux de Augusta Holmès.jpg vip (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
There's no metadata to explain what this image actually is, and thus it can have no possible use. It seems to be in use on pages on vi.wiki and zh.wiki, but - as with its presence in a category on commons - that's the result of people being lazy and sloppy and re-using filenames. It is not within project scope. DS (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Outdated (contains the initial results from one county) and unused. Elli (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Unique activity of the user. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
non free source and this was not taken by the moroccan royal armed forces MakhzenHuman (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:Illustration de l'Hymne à Éros d'Augusta Holmès (anglais).jpg vip (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Scope ? 191.126.9.243 00:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:Illustration de la Réponse d'Éros d'Augusta Holmès.jpg vip (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Randomly takem from the Internet. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD. There is no evidence that the logo has been freely licenced or that it would be part of official document. Larryasou (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Containing private phone numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirjadisastra (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, you can blur those. You didn't realize this issue 3+ years ago when you uploaded it? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The issue actually arose mid-2020, and I just realized this poster is still here few days ago. In mid-2020, there was a Twitter campaign in Indonesia to boycott Wikipedia due to an article about the disbanded Indonesian Communist Party was considered biased and pro-Communist by some right-wing religious clerks. It resulted their followers to doxx some of our community members. I request this deletion because the phone numbers on the poster are still active and have potential as a way to doxx them. Wirjadisastra (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I made a similar request here at that time. The file has been deleted since then. Wirjadisastra (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The issue actually arose mid-2020, and I just realized this poster is still here few days ago. In mid-2020, there was a Twitter campaign in Indonesia to boycott Wikipedia due to an article about the disbanded Indonesian Communist Party was considered biased and pro-Communist by some right-wing religious clerks. It resulted their followers to doxx some of our community members. I request this deletion because the phone numbers on the poster are still active and have potential as a way to doxx them. Wirjadisastra (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unused file, deleted for privacy reasons. --Polarlys (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Between the name, the caption, and the image, this is a clear violation of COM:DIGNITY. I also have serious doubts as to whether the depicted person consented to its creation. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, as well as no educational value, we have plenty of images of humans. EpicPupper (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, account blocked. --Polarlys (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
look like a photo taken from the internet. doubts if the very new hebrew user that uploaded it know who have the rights on this picture... Netanel488 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
copyvio, copyrighted content, see source web page Gampe (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
copyvio, copyrighted content, see https://www.brick-hill.com/ Gampe (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Not own work ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Screen capture of a copyrighted app. ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 05:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Private pic showing unidentified people, low quality, out of scope. Xocolatl (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
"Taken by unknown" or "own work"? Unidentified baby, uncategorized. Xocolatl (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope: no educational value - Commons has a surplus of pictures of babies - this poor quality picture adds nothing--Headlock0225 (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Unidentified baby, "taken by unknown" vs. "own work", uncategorized, low quality... Xocolatl (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope: no educational value - Commons has a surplus of pictures of babies - this poor quality picture adds nothing--Headlock0225 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deives Jose Barva Peinado (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure this is a work from Smithsonian Institute. Smithsonian gives credit to A. Thompson (and mentions it was published in Taylor and Ewart, 1997). Then it mentions that it is availabe with CC-BY-NC 4.0 (not compatible). However this is a pre-1949 photo (the information about the island mention it was eruded to such a degree that it was below the sea level in 1949) and maybe the copyright has expired (or maybe not if it was first published in 1997). C messier (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Some more information: A.J. Tompson, the photographer, died in 1928, this means that according to COM:NEW ZEALAND, it is public domain. The photo was probably first published in Thomson J A, 1926. Volcanoes of the New Zealand-Tonga volcanic zone--a record of eruptions. New Zeal J Sci Tech, B8: 354-371. Thus, I withdraw the nomination. --C messier (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Polarlys (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
personal photo for non-wikipedian. Faisal talk 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
personal photo for non wikipedian. Faisal talk 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
personal photo for non-wikipedian Faisal talk 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
personal photo for non-wikipedian. Faisal talk 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
personal photo for non-wikipedian. Faisal talk 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo and promotional image of a building claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Dentsu iX logo.png. No usage on Wikimedia projects.
mattbr 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Works by Claude Bénard
[edit]Artist died in 2016. Undelete in 2087.
- File:Claude Bénard - Black Door.jpg
- File:Claude Bénard - Fluttiste vegale .jpg
- File:Claude Bénard - Le Palais Africain (c.1970).jpg
- File:Plagát z výstavy Claude Bénarda.jpg
Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 19:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted public artwork. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: OK, you would know. Krok6kola (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sadly, I think you are right, per the photo policy of Meowwolf ([1]). --Jmbranum (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems the uploader has no rights to these images and meant to upload them as fair use.
- File:NewtonDomains.jpg
- File:Potts2 q-plane.jpg
- File:JuliaSet 032 0043i.jpg
- File:MandelbrotSet Seahorse3.jpg
- File:MandelbrotSet Seahorse2a.jpg
- File:MandelbrotSet Seahorse2.jpg
- File:MandbrotSet-Seahorse1.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
see COM:FOP Lithuania Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
See COM:FOP US Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: OK. What about the rest of the stuff in Category:Collections of the New York Transit Museum? Krok6kola (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- What about X? is not a valid argument. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
See COM:FOP Romania Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
See COM:FOP US Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
See COM:DW Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems like it is under COM:TOO for U.S.. It just needs to be relicensed. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Victuallers (talk · contribs)
[edit]In the European Union, even if a Member State provides for the possibility of a legal person to be the original rightholder (such as is possible in the UK),[1][2] then the duration of protection is in general the same as the copyright term for a personal copyright: i.e., for a literary or artistic work, 70 years from the death of the human author...
- File:Betty Swanwick 1936 poster.jpg
- File:Smithfield Cattle Show 1936 London Transport Betty Swanwick.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- ↑ Section 11, UK Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended to 2005. As posted by R. G. C. Jenkins & Co., patent law office. Accessed October 25, 2007. archive copy at the Wayback Machine
- ↑ W. R. Cornish and David Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 5th ed. (London : Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) 471-72. ISBN 0-421-78120-3. ISBN 978-0-421-78110-8.
- That is a subtle but powerful point and means my understanding of "for hire" is wrong. Actually it means that the concept is valueless. Thanks Magog Victuallers (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Victuallers (talk · contribs)
[edit]When I went on the YouTube link, it says it was taken down by the company who owns it. It was originally a copyvio, but was reverted with no explanation.
- File:Conchi Rios before the bullfight.png
- File:Conchi Rios bullfighter.png
- File:Conchi Reyes Rios bullfighting.png
- File:Conchi Reyes Rios victor.png
- File:Conchi Reyes Rios bullfighting in 2016 04.png
- File:Conchi Rios bullfighting in 2016 01.png
- File:Conchi Rios.png
- File:Conchi Rios bullfighting.png
MCMLXXXIX 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep None of 1989's statements seem to substantiate. The source is this. It belongs to a local media group that happens to have an Internet TV station and a radio station. The YouTube channel is this one. It clearly identifies the TV station through here, which happens to be lacomarca.tv. A quick inspection clarifies that the videos provided in the web site are the ones being broadcasted through YouTube. Moreover, the microphone shown in the bullfighting video belongs to Cadena Ser, the most important radio chain in Spain. It's totally sensible as this presentation video clarifies that the radio is Radio La Comarca (watch the microphone), which happens to be here. If you go to the bottom bar, you'll be able to access lacomarca.tv, identified as yet another section of La Comarca group. Crystal clear, I'm afraid --Discasto talk 23:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I confirm the images are extracted from the source under the license CC-BY. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Victuallers (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from posters.
- File:AIG Women's Open Action (51443123440).jpg
- File:AIG Women's Open Action (51441403327).jpg
- File:AIG Women's Open Action (51443122535).jpg
- File:AIG Women's Open Action (51443122940).jpg
- File:AIG Women's Open Action (51441402692).jpg
- File:AMC9139 (51759569561).jpg
- File:AMC9275 (51758726647).jpg
- File:AMC9235 (51759559141).jpg
- File:AMC9195 (51759562121).jpg
- File:AMC9194 (51758732027).jpg
- File:AMC9181 (51760430345).jpg
- File:AMC9143 (51759568981).jpg
- File:AMC9145 (51759809078).jpg
- File:AMC9129 (51759570001).jpg
- File:AMC9021 (51760226569).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination although one or two might have been weakly arguable under COM:DM. [24Cr][talk] 06:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The overall charge of this molecule should be zero, but it is +4. I have created File:Tetrasodium hypophosphate.svg as a replacement. Innerstream (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We have a correct & high-quality version. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
URV / Lizenz prüfen ThüringerChatte (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 11:22, 27 January 2022 UTC: No permission since 16 January 2022 --Krdbot 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Erobran
[edit]User:Erobran has uploaded several Danish public transport maps from the companies websites without any signs of permission:
- File:Odense bybusser linjenet.png (Original: https://www.fynbus.dk/filarkiv/Find%20din%20rejse/Kort/Rutekort/Odensekort__Bymidte_City_01022021.pdf)
- File:Aarhus bybusser kort.jpg (Original: https://www.midttrafik.dk/media/23792/rutekort_aarhus_2021-2022-final-a.pdf)
- File:Aalborg bybusser kort.png (Original: https://www.nordjyllandstrafikselskab.dk/media/Oversigtskort/oversigtskort_02.pdf)
- File:Esbjerg Bybusser kort.png (Original: https://www.sydtrafik.dk/media/ukalgezh/esbjerg_270621_bykort_adlegacy.pdf)
- File:Sydtrafik zoner.png (Original: https://www.sydtrafik.dk/media/mqlfaxfh/zoner-i-sydtrafik_adlegacy.pdf)
- File:Natbus ruteoversigt.png (Original: https://www.nordjyllandstrafikselskab.dk/media/Oversigtskort/oversigtskort_01.pdf)
- File:Natbus ruteoversigt region nordjylland.png (Original: https://www.nordjyllandstrafikselskab.dk/media/natbuskort_regional_november_151121.pdf)
File:Fynbus logo.png, File:Sydtrafik logo.jpg, File:Sydtrafik bybus.png, File:Sydtrafik rutebil.png and File:Line 601A Rute.jpg also seems dubious. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ehhhhh. Hvad bilder du dig ind? Billedet af linje 601A har jeg af Arne fået lov at bruge.....
- Logoerne fra trafikselskaberne har jeg personligt haft inde igennem paint og uploadet dem den vej hvem helvedet er du til at diktere hvad personer må uploade og rette i OG for den sags skyld oprette? SKAM DIG! Erobran (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have also marked File:Sydtrafik rutebil.png and File:Sydtrafik bybus.png as Copyvio. It's not "own work", but copy from <https://www.sydtrafik.dk/media/w2an1jxa/11-udbud_bilag-til-a-kontrakt_adlegacy.pdf>.--Kjeldjoh (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Att ges tillåtelse att använda kartorna är inte samma som att få licensera dem under en fri upphovsrättslicens. Vänligen läs COM:L. Alla bilder på Wikimedia Commons måste vara fria från upphovsrätt, eller släppta av dess skapare under an fri licens kompatibel med kommersiell återanvändning och tillåta bearbetningar av andra (även utan direkt godkännande vid varje användning eller bearbetning). Regarding the logos, lease nominate them separately, and not in this DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo above COM:TOO uploaded without evidence of permission. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
2 have author info in exif, others have no exif and all look like corporate photos. All need OTRS
- File:LART5059.jpg
- File:090 200304 ReportageI2S Proofing R0.jpg
- File:1979 08 W82 Alain Ricros J-L Blouin 01.jpg
- File:1985 01 Entreprise I2S Bordeaux HH32 747.jpg
- File:Optique chez i2S.jpg
- File:I2S Cestas.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT). → 
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlimehmetoniClaudi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Polarlys (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment File:Άποψη από τον δρόμο.png and File:Μορφή κτιρίου.png are used in an el.wikipedia article. However there is a pontetial copyvio issue, unless the uploader is part of the designing brand and thus wants to release these scetches with a CC-BY-SA license. --C messier (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @AlimehmetoniClaudi:
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT). →
Deleted: There were in scope since they were in use in articles. However, deleted due to unclear copyright status, see COM:PRP. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @AlimehmetoniClaudi:
nothing to indicate that the uploader took the picture and/or owns the image Lugnuts (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've added the source. Do check Stormy Shrestha (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- You've just added a link to a website. Do you own the website? Did you take the picture of the cricketer with your own camera infront of him? Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
not acceptable Finance.finest (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not in use, Delete by courtesy. --Achim55 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please delete this picture, as it not relevant for content. Finance.finest (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
not acceptable Finance.finest (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Por supuesto, porqué no es trabajo propio.
Deleted: per nomination. --Tomer T (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This drawing appears to be a derivative work (reflected, then traced over) of non-free iStock/Getty Images rights-controlled image (ID #494642696) by Frank Ramspott (see EXIF). —RP88 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Info The original uploader of this image subsequently added a redundant nomination for deletion with the following comment:
- I interpret this action as a vote for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have uploaded another version of this file with better quality, so I want to remove this version with this name 191.255.10.243 03:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. Superseded by File:Uriel signature.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Deekshith Shett ru? 191.126.9.243 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Deekshith DSR? 191.126.9.243 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Deekshith Shett ru 191.126.9.243 00:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate Image with bad colour quality. Pradnyeshparulekar (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Ctech
[edit]Logos / graphics. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.jpg?uselang=ru#file 146.120.97.203 08:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/CTech
[edit]Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work' by two different uploaders. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead and delete it. 117.193.85.8 04:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a lower resolution duplicate of File:US_guardhouse_at_Neuwied,_Germany_in_April_1919.jpg Suspiciouscelery (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected, per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logos / graphics claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 08:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 08:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake. I didn't realize that I uploaded this file in the past and it was deleted. As I came to know that the copyrighted software visible herein (icons, wallpaper). Samsung TouchWiz UI and components are not Apache licensed, and are non-free.(talk) 09:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The better version: File:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Republic of China) from VOA (3).jpg Solomon203 (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mostly looks like a photo of another photo displayed on some screen (see the effect). Dubious if really own work. Glorious 93 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The same photo is also uploaded here: File:Το Δικτύωμα στο Δώμα.jpg, without looking like a screenshot. However it is difficult to see if this is the resault of telephoto from a smartphone or a photographed photo. EXIF data indicate the later, as the focal length in 35 mm film is 27 mm, which is considered wide and not telephoto Delete. --C messier (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- PS: Here is the possible source of the photo https://doma.archi/en/index/projects/polykatoikia-sto-polydroso .--C messier (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mostly looks like a photo of another photo displayed on some screen (see the effect). Dubious if really own work. Glorious 93 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete Screenshot from [2]. --C messier (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mostly looks like a photo of another photo displayed on some screen (see the effect). Dubious if really own work. Glorious 93 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete It is screenshot from the gallery here.--C messier (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 09:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 10:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It is no longer correct and useful. Tanx Bdelnaye (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cegep7-iles (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos / graphics claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 10:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
不必要であるから Hakatanoshio117117 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of low-res diagram. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
copyright Syced (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
SVG file uploaded: File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - P-27 (Temporary).svg Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
SVG file uploaded: File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - P-28 (Temporary).svg Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
SVG file uploaded: File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - P-29 (Temporary).svg Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
SVG file uploaded: File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - P-32d (Temporary).svg Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Traffic Sign GR - KOK 2009 - P-32d (Temporary).svg Llama jim. Clapped (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, superseded. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Googlemaps Copyvio Enyavar (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 12:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE File is not used in any wikimedia project. Alex Spade (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 12:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 12:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Google Maps, best to just use a pushpin map. Nigos (talk | contribs | uploads) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Photo of a British rock group taken from a magazine, very likely a British magazine. Source web page is a scan of one page of the magazine. No evidence that this meets the "published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice" licence. Lord Belbury (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 12:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen is subject to copyright because the creator Edvard Eriksen (* 1876; † 1959) died less than 70 years ago. Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As usual Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen is subject to copyright because the creator Edvard Eriksen (* 1876; † 1959) died less than 70 years ago. Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown woman cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:ITS-Coop-Travel Logo 2017.png. No usage on Wikimedia projects. mattbr 13:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 13:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Netvertising AG (talk · contribs)
[edit]Redundant to File:ITS-Coop-Travel Logo 2017.png. No usage on Wikimedia projects.
mattbr 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lemonieestrawberry (talk · contribs)
[edit]Wildly different resolutions, web resolutions, logos, images and maps found elsewhere online.
- File:Logo majlis perbandaran kuala selangor.png
- File:Logo majlis perbandaran kuala langat.png
- File:Majlis bandaraya subang jaya.png
- File:Majlis perbandaran hulu selangor.jpg
- File:Hulu Yam Bharu View.png
- File:Genting skyway.jpg
- File:Genting Highlands Hulu Selangor 2.jpg
- File:Genting Highlands Hulu Selangor.jpg
- File:Bus stopped for a while to take passengers.jpg
- File:Nice View of Batang Kali Station.jpg
- File:Mini Kiosk at Batang Kali Station.jpg
- File:Batang Kali Station.jpg
- File:Bukit Chandang View.jpg
- File:Batang Kali Town, Section 4.jpg
- File:Batang Kali Town from Aerial View - 20181230.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by UNITSGROUP (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 13:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be scan so unlikely to be the uploaders own work. Duplicate of File:McMillian 1.jpg and File:McMillian.jpg Salavat (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 14:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
clear copyright violation 2A00:23C5:FF80:F301:AD89:512A:2353:18AE 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Detailed map with a less detailed red line drawn across it. When the uploader claims "own work", presumably they are claiming work of the red line rather than the original map, the source of which is not specified and may be copyrighted. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
user discussion page Wouser (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: talk pages are usually not deleted but COM:ARCHIVED. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Dr.Wiki54 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Wikipedia screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot of the copyrighted online map of the Yandex (Яндекс), logo and copyright notice are at the image margins Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
False date, false authorship. The man died in 1983. The photo was taken around the 1950s and 1960s. A Wikipedia contributor is unlikely to be its author. GAndy (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
made from File:Карта района Байконыр.png which is a screenshot of the copyrighted online map Yandex (Яндекс) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Better version exists here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Estanislao_Esteban_Karlic.svg Turtle-bienhoa (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- File:Yerimi yanında salmışam,Allah!-Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Offne mir einen Platz in deinem Herzen.jpg
- File:Tanrı yatır içimdə - Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Dünyadan qadın iysi gəlir - Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Buda mənəm ilahi - Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Qoyun qisas alan gəlsin - Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Ruhumuz çəkər göyə - Əli Hacı.jpg
- File:Ruhumuzun nəğmələri -Əli Hacı.jpg
The cover of the book is protected by copyright. GAndy (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Better version exists here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Luis_Hector_Villalba.svg Turtle-bienhoa (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused charts. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted book and tape covers, UK, 1989. Above the threshold of originality (or not?) Retired electrician (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Wikipedia screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused Wikipedia screenshot. Vandalism. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eralda Brahaj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Svetlana Ermakova (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Articles enthusiast (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos / graphics and screenshot claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
False authorship. The newspaper's logo is copyrighted. GAndy (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tracy-mcgrady20 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
False authorship. The newspaper's logo is copyrighted. GAndy (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The photo was taken in the 1950s - 1970s. It is doubtful that the participant who uploaded the photo is the author. GAndy (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused software screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EspecialistasUdeS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Modelo de vida, calidad 002.jpg
- File:Auto evaluacioón y contexto 001.jpg
- File:Caracteristicas 003.jpg
- File:Características de los modelos de evaluación.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There are doubts that the participant who uploaded the photo is the author of the photo. All other photos are nominated for deletion for copyright infringement. This photo is clearly cut from another photo. GAndy (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There are doubts that the participant who uploaded the photo is the author of the photo. All other photos are nominated for deletion for copyright infringement. This photo is clearly cut from another photo. GAndy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logos / graphics. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. The name of the files describes another (place in Moscow) and is misleading. GAndy (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. The name of the files describes something else (the construction of a building in Moscow) and is misleading. GAndy (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. The file description describes another (location in Moscow) and is misleading. GAndy (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This image looks 1) like a screenshot (-> copyvio), and 2) like the head of the person in the middle has been manipulated (photoshopped), i.e. the original replaced by somebody else's head. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown woman cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST. The photo of an unknown men cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
La imagen no se corresponde a la persona; se esta preparando un artículo con la imagen correcta y que esta fotografía esta en la red puede confundir al usuario Cmg97 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
La imagen no se corresponde a la persona; se esta preparando un artículo con la imagen correcta y que esta fotografía esta en la red puede confundir al usuario Cmg97 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
False date, false authorship. The photo was taken in 1962. GAndy (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to delete this page (my creation) according to GDPR. EduroboticFLL (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Urheber ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
out of scope: excluded educational content - raw text only Headlock0225 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
moved to [[:Category:Banshee (media player) -DustDFG (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, that's why we have {{Catred}}. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: already redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
According to metadata, the photo belongs to "Joanna DeGeneres Photography". Uploaded as "own work" without proof. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Siulluis23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaded for nonsense, cf. de:Spezial:Beiträge/Siulluis23 and abuse filter hits
- File:Keller bau.jpg
- File:Keller Bau.jpg
- File:Keller leer.jpg
- File:Psychokeller Schild.jpg
- File:David aka. Steckdosenbefruchter.jpg
Schniggendiller (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Blurry photo of Nokia 105, of which we have many better photographs. (This may be the only one with Hebrew writing on it, but the blurring renders that mostly illegible anyway). Ubcule (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Said to be a logo of a singer but the source is stated as own work with no official source given. No remarkable qualities and seemingly not noteworthy for the singer. No usage on Wikimedia projects. mattbr 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Informatec (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logos / graphics claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Iview-abacus-DE-klein.png
- File:Logo Informatec ORIGINAL 1311X236.jpg
- File:Iview.png
- File:Iview-abacus-DE.jpg
mattbr 18:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo for a British school. Claimed as own work but missing VRT permission. The threshold of originality is very low for UK works, see COM:TOO UK. Sufficient effort (from a UK perspective) is likely to have been expended and the logo is potentially sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection in its country of origin (the UK). Use of {{PD-textlogo}} is not appropriate as above the threshold of originality in the UK. mattbr 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:Interwetten Logo.svg which was uploaded on the same day. No usage on Wikimedia projects. mattbr 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo for a UK-based organisation. The country of origin is likely the UK. The threshold of originality is very low for UK works, see COM:TOO UK. The letters have been modified by the inclusion of a 'wave'. Sufficient effort (from a UK perspective) is likely to have been expended and the logo is potentially sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection in its country of origin (the UK). For public domain works Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. mattbr 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality, pointlessly-downscaled crop of File:Nokia 800 Tough, Winschoten (2019).jpg ; replaced with higher-quality crop at File:Nokia 800 Tough, Winschoten (2019) (crop) (tweak).jpg Ubcule (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/IXL Innovation Olympics logo
[edit]Logos / graphics claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The logo of an unknown company. Judging by the description of the file, this is a sample logo. Advertising services for the production of logos and brands. GAndy (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
コンプライアンスの問題。 Codeonrocks (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific as to what specific compliance issue you have with the image. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Uploaded in 2021, courtesy deletion is not applicable either. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Unused COM:PENIS photo, no educational value A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion, quality is ok and genitals are clearly in project scope. --Ordercrazy (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment In scope is the most common rationale to against this kind of deletion. But keeping this kind of photo is really serving the Wikimedia projects' aims. It is significantly different from existing files, or this file ia better than existing files? My answer is no. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not in use, we have plenty of this type of image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
コンプライアンスの問題。 Codeonrocks (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific as to what specific compliance issue you have with the image, we need anatomical images labeled in each language. --RAN (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Uploaded in 2021, courtesy deletion is not applicable either. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
コンプライアンスの問題。 Codeonrocks (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Uploaded in 2021, courtesy deletion is not applicable either. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There are so many "uncircumcised", "flaccid", "shaved" penis images in Commons, including those which have all three qualities together, and considering that this image was "asked by the uploader to be deleted" and also seeing that it is "unused"... it becomes impossible for me to understand why this file was not deleted at the end of the other deletion request. Is there some kind of positive discrimination towards this kind of images or are we punishing people who upload something like this and then repent? What is so special about this file that we need to keep it regardless of all the above? Frog informs (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN. Educational does not mean exhibitionist. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Could you please conclude the deletion request? @Ellin Beltz: --Trade (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
コンプライアンスの問題。 Codeonrocks (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Uploaded in 2021, courtesy deletion is not applicable either. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
the word Kнiv has Cyrillic and Latin letters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бучач-Львів (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused malformed category. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Puertagustavo99 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted banknote, see COM:CUR Colombia.
Stang★ 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This sculpture was installed after March 1989, per COM:PACUSA. See [3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural close as the discussion is taking place at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emerging Mummy - cropped (1a).jpg. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Texier Alain-Yves (talk · contribs)
[edit]No Commons:Freedom of panorama in France.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted Sahaib3005 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Logos of Hong Kong
[edit]ToO in Hong Kong is very low.
- File:1995-1998 MTR kowloon station - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cheunghing2.jpg
- File:China goldjoy wealth management logo.png
- File:Community Alliance Logo.svg
- File:Eastern FT logo v2.png
- File:Emvlogo.png
- File:Fairtrade HK.jpg
- File:Goldjoy Holding.png
- File:HKFHY Logo ESC logo.jpg
- File:HKFHY Logo 白底.jpg
- File:HKFHY Logo.jpg
- File:Hkfhylogosmall.jpg
- File:Irc international vert.jpg
- File:June 4th Museum Logo.png
- File:Larvotto.jpg
- File:Metro Info logo.svg
- File:Prune Deer.jpg
- File:Shopping Hero.png
- File:The naviga of hk.jpg
- File:TKO gateway logo.png
- File:VSAlogo.jpg
- File:VTC(new).jpg
- File:Wai Kiu College logo small.jpg
- File:Wai Kiu College logo.jpg
- File:Youth Arch Student Improvement Award.jpg
- File:ダウンロード.png
- File:公民實踐培育基金.jpg
沈澄心✉ 10:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Logos of Hong Kong
[edit]The threshold of originality in Hong Kong is low.
- File:1069BF.png
- File:Blue Logotype En.jpg
- File:CMK Electrical Store logo.jpg
- File:Federation for the Stability of Hong Kong.svg
- File:HK08.svg
- File:HKIB-logo 64cmx12cm RGB 300dpi-01.png
Billytanghh (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not that low, that e.g. File:HK08.svg would be protected. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hong Kong's copyrights law is based on the one in the UK, which the threshold of originality is very low, even this is copyrighted.--Billytanghh (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that example has design to the 'E' making it creative, while the one mentioned by me above is a standard font made in the the US I'd believe. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The issue seems to depend on if the font was stylised or not. Can a Chinese-speaking user weigh in on the issue? Does the font depicted in the logo look standard, or is it somehow stylised? --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Only the Chinese character in the File:1069BF.png is not a standard character. Cypp0847 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It all comes down to how complex each logo is, and they should be evaluated on a case by case basis. We may want to separate them into separate deletion requests if desired. Here is my take on these images (remember, TOO is low in Hong Kong):
- Keep The following image is likely allowable and can probably be kept:
- File:HK08.svg - Well-known font with the only element that requires any effort being the red colouring of the text.
- Delete The following images are likely not allowable and should be deleted:
- File:CMK Electrical Store logo.jpg - Only composed of characters written in standard fonts, but the bolded text, line dividing the top and bottom and different font sizes likely constitutes enough effort that it is copyrightable under "sweat of the brow."
- File:Blue Logotype En.jpg - Same as above, only composed of standard fonts, but has elements requiring some effort like the colouring of the text, different font sizes and selective bolding of the text, which likely makes it copyrightable under "sweat of the brow."
- File:1069BF.png - Demonstrated originality since it is a non-standard font.
- File:Federation for the Stability of Hong Kong.svg - While it consists only of uncopyrightable/public-domain parts, it required a fair amount of effort to compile and is therefore copyrightable.
- File:HKIB-logo 64cmx12cm RGB 300dpi-01.png - Same as the previous one, it required effort to create and is therefore copyrightable. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:Blue Logotype En.jpg File:CMK Electrical Store logo.jpg File:HK08.svg, simple texts.--RZuo (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @RZuo Please note that MTR logos are mostly deleted so I doubt CMK Electrical Store one can be legally kept. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Logos of Hong Kong
[edit]The threshold of originality in Hong Kong is very low.
- File:HKRC logo 2-2-4-3-01.jpg
- File:Hsin Chong logo.png
- File:LiveTheatre.jpg
- File:Lungmuncafe.svg
- File:The Terrific 12 Logo.png
Billytanghh (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep File:Hsin Chong logo.png: Hsin Chong is a bankrupted company cease to exist, so its logo should falls into public domain. --Happytree9527 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- This logo is used since 2014, as ToO in Hong Kong is very low, it is still in copyright in Hong Kong until 2064, whatever the company is closed down or not.--Billytanghh (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- File:HKRC logo 2-2-4-3-01.jpg is this a bad joke?
- Keep File:LiveTheatre.jpg File:The Terrific 12 Logo.png, simple texts.--RZuo (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: most of them because they seem to be below the TOO even of the HK/UK variety (also probably old like the Red Cross logo), deleted only File:Hsin Chong logo.png because that one seems to be a (little) bit more complex than the others. --Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Rights holder refuses to grant a proper license and prefers the image to be deleted. See Ticket:2022011210003449 Mussklprozz (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
DW of the photo wall (or was it also made by Henrik Schröder?). Not COM:DM according to the description. A tight crop (only the standing man) would be possible - but is this useful then? Or a crop to the urinals - probably they are not eligible for copyright as they are utilitarian objects. Saibo (Δ) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP indoors in Germany. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it's still a public place, & the "art" (images of females) is a part of the background, & incidental to the location. the purpose of the photo is to illustrate the peculiar design of the bathroom as a whole. the presence of the female images is no more of a violation than if the images were advertising posters, or if the photoi was taken inside an art gallery, as a "general shot" of the location. this would only become a potential copyright violation if you went right up to the images of the women & photographed them as the primary focus. Lx 121 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- also, if you read COM:DM (germany section) it IS an acceptable use, since the "object of the reproduction" is not to copy the "artwork", it's to show the room. Lx 121 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please read de:Beiwerk - especially the last sections. The the room (and the photo of it) would appear totally different without the special art. The fact that this bathroom may be (to some extend) public is not relevant for German FOP. --Saibo (Δ) 04:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- also, if you read COM:DM (germany section) it IS an acceptable use, since the "object of the reproduction" is not to copy the "artwork", it's to show the room. Lx 121 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Public place, so FOP applies. Yann (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of file:Funny Restroom - Flickr - joeltelling.jpg or the other way around, or perhaps both are copyvios; the original Flickr pages for each have been deleted so it is hard to ascertain. This is a separate matter from prior discussion about whether the art depicted is de minimis. Arlo James Barnes 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as in use (including as a selected picture in a portal) and delete and redirect the other duplicate as it’s lower quality and only had one use which I removed and replaced. The license appears to have been valid, the deletion of the Flickr page is irrelevant, and the art is de minimis/FOP Dronebogus (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- The reason I had brought up the deletion of the Flickr pages in each case was that it makes it harder to determine if the original upload was Flickrwashing (or viewed another way, opens the possibility that one or both deletions at Flickr's end was for reasons of infringement). But if the image is indeed free, there's no problem except that we don't need two copies of the same image. Arlo James Barnes 19:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- It says the license was confirmed, if we had to delete images just because they are sourced to dead Flickr links we’d be deleting a ton of images. I’d recommend withdrawing this and nominating the other version for above stated reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also note that this version doesn’t link to a “not found” page— it says you don’t have permission to see it unless you’re logged in. So it’s not even a dead link. Dronebogus (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I withdraw this nomination (or is there a different formality I should go through?). I am logged in, and it says:
403 This is not the page you’re looking for. 2022-02-17T00:44:22Z-82895280-73ef-4f22-8b26-e7c04ba6ae5b@server It appears you don’t have permission to view this photo or video. Here are some of today’s best photos instead:
- (compare to the other image's
404 This is not the page you’re looking for. 2022-02-17T00:43:59Z-1f32a9af-3eb1-44bd-b170-47689cdc041f@server It appears the photo or video you seek no longer exists. Here are some of today’s best photos instead:
- and you'll see why I considered them both currently inaccessible). The other image is now nominated at commons:deletion requests/File:Funny Restroom - Flickr - joeltelling.jpg Update: now deleted. Arlo James Barnes 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: that Berlin restroom may be "public" in a way, but it's inside a building and not out on the street, so the conditions for freedom of panorama in Germany are not met. And the photos on the wall are definitely not "Beiwerk" (the German version of de minimis) as they are the actual subject of the image, reflected in the file name. As these are presumably contemporary and copyrighted, I will delete this file. --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
No longer needed in German Wikibooks. Can be replaced by Lilypond if needed. No Wiki use the file. Future use is unlikely. Mjchael (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We don't delete files just because a project decides not to use them anymore. --Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
В нашем разделе написано что он не свободный. In our section it is written that it is not free. Fluttershy — talk 09:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome
[edit]As per Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Reichstag Dome and German FOP. The rooftop area is not considered a place freely-accessible to the public as it can only be accessed through prior registration, not a free entrance without entry control. Thus these images of the dome from the rooftop or interiors cannot benefit from German freedom of panorama, which is strict on location of the photographer, not the physical location of the artwork. Thus these images need commercial license permission from the artwork author, Architect Lord Norman Foster.
Images taken from the ground outside the Reichstag or from the air are fine.
- Prior deletion requests from 2013
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Reichstag (dome) - Exterior
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-080.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-082 with result of EU legislation.jpg — derivative work of File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-082.jpg
- Keep The dome is not part of this image (retouch). sугсго
- @Syrcro: see COM:Derivative works. If the original image where this file is derived proved to be a violation of architect's copyright, then this "censored image" has become a derivative work of the infringing image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Syrcro is correct (an image without copyrighted stuff is not a copyvio) --Isderion (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Isderion: but see COM:DW. Also, it is useless to use it in another Wikimedia-wide campaign, if the dome in relation to the photographer themself did not pass German FOP standards (unless someone from Germany will use this in their lobby to widen German FOP scope to include public indoors regardless of entry requirements). But I doubt that: German legislature, courts, and academia won't expand German FOP anymore since it will be an abuse to artists' rights to earn extra for their living. So I see little use for this censored image, maybe falling out of COM:SCOPE too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: you realize the image is in use in >10 Wikipedias. Claiming out of scope seems a bit far fetched. --Isderion (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Isderion: and yet it misrepresented German FOP in showing the effect of the proposed Cavada proposal for Germany. Misrepresentation because the source image did not comply German FOP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: you realize the image is in use in >10 Wikipedias. Claiming out of scope seems a bit far fetched. --Isderion (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Isderion: but see COM:DW. Also, it is useless to use it in another Wikimedia-wide campaign, if the dome in relation to the photographer themself did not pass German FOP standards (unless someone from Germany will use this in their lobby to widen German FOP scope to include public indoors regardless of entry requirements). But I doubt that: German legislature, courts, and academia won't expand German FOP anymore since it will be an abuse to artists' rights to earn extra for their living. So I see little use for this censored image, maybe falling out of COM:SCOPE too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-082.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-114.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-116.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-117.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-118.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-119.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-120.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-121.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-122.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-123.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-124.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-125.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-126.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-127.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-128.jpg
- File:200806 Berlin 19.JPG
- File:2009-06-28 Reichstag 02.jpg
- File:2019-05-05 Reichstag 11.jpg
- File:2019-05-05 Reichstag 24.jpg
- File:2020-02-13 Deutscher Bundestag IMG 3485 by Stepro.jpg
- File:2020-07-02 Deutscher Bundestag by OlafKosinsky 2729.jpg
- File:2020-07-02 Deutscher Bundestag by OlafKosinsky 2730.jpg
- File:Berlin - Reichstags Kuppel Dome of German Parliament Building, the Reichstag (15683830608).jpg
- File:Berlin 2012 (032).jpg
- File:Berlin kopula Reichstagu 2.jpg
- File:Berlin Reichstagsgebaeude Kuppel dk1109.jpg
- File:Berlin, Germany (8000996562).jpg
- File:Berlin, Reichstag, Kuppel, nachts, 04.11.2007 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Berlin, Reichstag, Kuppel, nachts, 04.11.2007 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Berlin,Reichstagskuppel von außen.JPG
- File:Bundestag © Stefan Kaminski .jpg
- File:Cupola-from-the-outside-terrace berlin-year-2000.jpg
- File:Cúpula Parlamento Berlín.jpg
- File:Cúpula Reichstag, Berlín, Alemania - panoramio.jpg
- File:Der Reichstag08.jpg
- File:Die Kuppel - Berlin (Reichstag dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 5893.jpg
- File:Exterior of the Reichstag dome 20150908.jpg
- File:Glass Dome of Reichstag building, Berlin.jpg
- File:Mitte - Reichstag building - 20171031142704.jpg
- File:Norman Foster Dome (7731127296).jpg
- File:Ostersokonferencen blev afholdt i Forbundsdagen i Berlin.jpg
- File:Reichstag (3815376728).jpg
- File:Reichstag - die Kuppel (The Dome) - geo.hlipp.de - 35082.jpg
- File:Reichstag Berlin rooftop IMG 7819.jpg
- File:Reichstag cupola night.jpg
- File:Reichstag dome - Flickr - davide.alberani.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome at night.jpg
- File:Reichstag Dome at Night.jpg
- File:Reichstag dome tour, Berlin, 2014-42.jpg
- File:Reichstag dome tour, Berlin, 2014-58.jpg
- File:Reichstag dome.jpg
- File:Reichstag year 2016. 09.JPG
- File:Reichstagsgebäude 002.jpg
- File:Reichstagsgebäude 005.jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel - panoramio - Immanuel Giel (1).jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel.JPG
- File:Reichstag´s Dome.JPG
- File:Sky Dome (146248881).jpeg
- File:The Cupola Of The Reichstagsgebäude In Berlin (195637267).jpeg
- File:Whole-reichstag-cupola berlin-year-2000.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Es gibt freien Zugang, nur eben mit den für solch gefährdeten Bereich notwendigen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. Ich kann nicht erkennen, warum gewöhnliche Sicherheitsregeln einen öffentlichen Raum plötzlich nicht mehr öffentlich machen sollten. Außerdem sollte eine Genehmigung des Hausherren, sprich der Bundestagsverwaltung, vollkommen hin reichend sein.
- BTW: In diesem DR sollte ausschließlich Deutsch gesprochen werden, es geht schließlich ausschließlich um den deutschen Rechtsraum und die hier geltenden FoP-Regeln, wer nur Englisch kann, hat sich hier rauszuhalten, das ist ein Zeichen von Unkenntnis. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you can't speak German, you're wrong here, as this is solely about German law an it's wording, without knowledge of German, you can't participate here in a valid manner. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- "without knowledge of German, you can't participate here in a valid manner" Simply isn't true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Google Translate reply of Sänger's input There is free access, just with the security measures necessary for such a vulnerable area. I can't see why ordinary safety rules should suddenly make a public space unpublic. In addition, an approval from the host, i.e. the Bundestag administration, should be completely sufficient. BTW: Only German should be spoken in this DR, after all it is only about the German legal area and the FoP rules that apply here, whoever only speaks English has it staying out of here is a sign of ignorance. _ translation added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Warum übersetzen? Wer das nicht lesen kann, kann hier sowieso nicht mitreden. Monolinguistische Anglophone sollten sich hier sehr zurückhalten, die haben hiervon keine Ahnung. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Only German should be spoken in this DR" There is absolutely no such requirement here; and no policy basis for such a statement. "anyone who only knows English has to stay out of this, that is a sign of ignorance" (better translation, per [4])) Such statement is likely sanctionable; is not welcome and is certainly unwarranted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is solely about some inner-German laws, written only in German, without profound knowledge of German language and laws nobody can say anything meaningful here. So very good knowledge of German is a conditio sine qua non for this discussion. At least one of the photographers here doesn't speak English, and his involvement is a must as well, so it must not be done in English, a language those who are concerned do not necessary speak.
- Da es hier ausschließlich um bundesdeutsche Gesetze geht, die auf Deutsch geschrieben sind, kann jemand ohne sehr gute Kenntnisse sowohl der deutschen Gesetze als auch der Sprache nicht sinnvoll an dieser Diskussion teilnehmen. Sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse sind eine conditio sine qua non für diese Diskussion. Mindestens einer der betroffenen Fotografen spricht kaum Englisch, und seine Einbindung in diese Diskussion ist verpflichtend, also darf hier nicht auf Englisch diskutiert werden, einer Sprache, die von denen, die es fast ausschließlich betrifft, nicht unbedingt auch gesprochen wird. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Again: There is absolutely no such requirement here; and no policy basis for such a statement. Feel free to cite such a policy, if you believe otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not policy, people without knowledge can just say nothing about it, it's like me writing an article for the Spanish Wikipedia: I just can't, because I don't speak the language. There ain't no policy for that, it's just a no-brainer. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- English is the de facto lingua franca for Commons and allows most people to participate. If one doesn't understand English, Google Translate / Deepl are an option. No discussion on Commons is limited in scope to a single country or language area, because it's ultimately about whether we can host certain files for worldwide use, even though this might depend upon national law. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not policy, people without knowledge can just say nothing about it, it's like me writing an article for the Spanish Wikipedia: I just can't, because I don't speak the language. There ain't no policy for that, it's just a no-brainer. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Again: There is absolutely no such requirement here; and no policy basis for such a statement. Feel free to cite such a policy, if you believe otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete We cannot be sure. On COM:FOP Germany#Public there is written: "[...] administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute". This most likely applies to Bundestag too. The fact that it's possible to anyone to visit the Reichstag roof is more like a privilege rather than a right. Its presence doesn't automatically make the Reichstag roof a public place in the sense of German FoP. We have to assume that as long as there is no court decision that says otherwise. --A.Savin 16:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Einer der Hauptbetroffenen hier ist bekennender Nichtanglphoner. Da das hier allein um deutsches Recht in Deutschland geht, muss hier primär in der korrekten Sprache der Betroffenen diskutiert werden. Gerne kann auch mal was in die komische Fremdsprache übersetzt werden, das ist aber nebensächlich und Aussagen nur in einer Fremdsprache sind irrelevant für den Fall. Hier ist Englisch eine vollkommen unangemessene Sprache für den Sachverhalt. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraph also says:"needs to be such that one can infer a (sufficient) dedication to the public". The dedication to the public /German people is literally written on the building
- Please also keep in mind that the need to book an appointment was not always there, there was a time, when you could simply queue and get in.
- Hence, I would rather keep than delete, but it's a close call. --Isderion (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the images, for example File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-120.jpg, probably do not show sufficient of the dome for it to be copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Andy Mabbett: though intricate parts of the dome can still be seen. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Von meinen Fotos werden einige seit damals von der Bundestagsverwaltung benutzt, ich habe damals das Thema Panoramafreiheit Tage vorher angesprochen. Aber eine Freigabe vom Bundestag ist auf Commons nicht ausreichend, das muß scheinbar persönlich vom Papst unterschrieben sein. Ralf Roletschek 11:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Die Freigabe des Hausherren sollte reichen, da es sich um ein öffentliches Gebäude handelt. Gruß --Georgfotoart (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Relevant excerpt from w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“, with English translation (aided by Google translate), with regards to works within public premises but not public outdoors:
Nicht von der Schrankenbestimmung erfasst sind nach einhelliger Auffassung des Schrifttums Aufnahmen und Darstellungen von Werken in Innenräumen auch von öffentlichen Gebäuden wie Museen, öffentlichen Sammlungen, Kirchen oder Behörden. Dies entspricht der ausdrücklichen Erwägung in der amtlichen Begründung, wonach die „in öffentlichen Museen dauernd ausgestellten Kunstwerke“ nicht privilegiert werden sollten, weil diese „nicht in dem gleichen Maße der Allgemeinheit gewidmet [werden] wie die Werke, die an öffentlichen Plätzen aufgestellt sind.“ Das Oberlandesgericht Köln verneinte vor diesem Hintergrund die Anwendbarkeit der Panoramafreiheit auf die Darstellung eines Kunstwerks im Plenarsaal des Deutschen Bundestags in Bonn.
According to the unanimous opinion of legal literature, photographs and representations of works indoors, including those of public buildings such as museums, public collections, churches or authorities, are not covered by the limitations. This is in line with the express consideration in the official explanatory memorandum, according to which “works of art permanently exhibited in public museums” should not be privileged because they “are not dedicated to the general public to the same extent as works exhibited in public places are set up.” For this reason, the Cologne Regional High Court denied the applicability of the freedom of panorama to the presentation of a work of art in the plenary hall of the German Bundestag in Bonn.
- Also, another excerpt from the same part, concerning shots of public artworks taken from mid-air or parts of a building such as a balcony.
Der Bundesgerichtshof verneinte entsprechend für die Aufnahme eines urheberrechtlich geschützten Gebäudes vom Balkon eines gegenüberliegenden Hauses (zu dem jeder auf Wunsch einen Schlüssel erhielt) die Anwendbarkeit von § 59 UrhG schon deshalb, weil diese „Teile des Gebäudes zeigt, die von dem Weg, der Straße oder dem Platz aus nicht zu sehen sind“. Ob vor diesem Hintergrund eine Kamerainstallation auf dem Dach eines Fahrzeugs, die das Straßenbild aus 2,90 Metern Höhe aufnimmt (Google-Street-View-Fahrzeuge), noch den Blick von der öffentlichen Straße bzw. dem öffentlichen Platz aus wiedergibt und insoweit das Privileg aus § 59 UrhG entstehen lässt, wird in der Literatur kontrovers diskutiert, zumeist aber verneint. Dieser Auffassung schloss sich 2020 das Landgericht Frankfurt nicht mehr an. Es stellte fest, dass es im Licht der europäischen Richtlinie 2001/29/EG (Urheberrechtsrichtlinie) und der weiten Verbreitung von Drohnen auf die Frage des Hilfsmittels und der Ansicht nicht mehr ankommen könne, und unterstellte jedes Bauwerk aus jeder Perspektive und mittels jedes Hilfsmittels der Panoramafreiheit.
Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice denied the applicability of § 59 UrhG for the shot of a building protected by copyright from the balcony of a house opposite (to which everyone was given a key on request) simply because this “shows parts of the building that are different from the path, the street or cannot be seen from the square". Concerning this, whether a camera installation on the roof of a vehicle, which records the street scene from a height of 2.90 meters (Google Street View vehicles), still reproduces the view from the public street or public square and insofar as the privilege arises from § 59 UrhG, this is controversially discussed in the legal literature, but mostly rejected. The Frankfurt Regional Court no longer agreed with this view in 2020. It stated that in the light of the European Directive 2001/29/EC (Copyright Directive) and the widespread use of drones, the question of the tool and the view could no longer be relevant, and subordinated every building from every perspective and by means of every tool to the freedom of panorama.
- With regards to this, it can be interpreted that only mid-air and aerial shots (like drone shots) were given consideration in recent German court rulings regarding panoramafreiheit, but views from certain parts of a building are still rejected by the courts. Views that would drastically change the normal appearance of a public artwork (like the Reichstag dome) as it is supposed to be seen from "public paths, streets, squares, high seas, coastal waters, sea waterways, and seaports" ("öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen, Plätzen, Hohe See, das Küstenmeer, Seewasserstraßen sowie Seehäfen"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Es gab aber eine explizite Erlaubnis des Hausherren im Rahmen des de:Wikipedia:Bundestagsprojekt etliche dieser Bilder zu machen, also mindestens diese sind imho unstrittig zu behalten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- It needs a permission by the copyright holder of the dome, and that's Norman Foster, not the Hausherr. --A.Savin 13:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Es gab aber eine explizite Erlaubnis des Hausherren im Rahmen des de:Wikipedia:Bundestagsprojekt etliche dieser Bilder zu machen, also mindestens diese sind imho unstrittig zu behalten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- With regards to this, it can be interpreted that only mid-air and aerial shots (like drone shots) were given consideration in recent German court rulings regarding panoramafreiheit, but views from certain parts of a building are still rejected by the courts. Views that would drastically change the normal appearance of a public artwork (like the Reichstag dome) as it is supposed to be seen from "public paths, streets, squares, high seas, coastal waters, sea waterways, and seaports" ("öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen, Plätzen, Hohe See, das Küstenmeer, Seewasserstraßen sowie Seehäfen"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
keep ... public building. It was built for the public by the government, not by private individuals. It has certainly been photographed millions of times. Triplec85 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Triplec85: This discussion is about the dome, not the building as a whole. --A.Savin 14:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Triplec85: photography is alwaus free and no one disputes that. But publication without the need of commercial license from the architect is a different thing. And take note German FOP is too selective in the location of the photographer. In this case, the rooftop area is no longer a public space and the architect can claim damages to free uses of peoples' images of his work which is the dome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep Die Frage der Panoramafreiheit stellt sich meines Erachtens gar nicht, da es sich bei der Kuppel (ganz im Gegensatz zum Adler im Plenarsaal) gar nicht um ein schützbares Werk des Herrn Foster handelt: »Am 8. Mai 1995 wurde Fosters endgültiger Entwurf für eine gläserne, begehbare Kuppel vorgestellt, dem die Abgeordneten zustimmten. Der Architekt Calatrava erhob daraufhin den Vorwurf, dies sei ein Plagiat seines eigenen Wettbewerbsbeitrags, der eine transparente Kuppel ähnlicher Form vorsah. Nach Gutachten und Gegengutachten setzte sich die Ansicht der meisten Fachleute durch, wonach für ein traditionelles architektonisches Gestaltungselement wie eine Kuppel kein besonderer Rechtsschutz beansprucht werden könne. Außerdem hatte schon anlässlich der Ausrichtung des Wettbewerbs 1992 Gottfried Böhm seinen Entwurf für eine Kuppel veröffentlicht, die er 1988 im Auftrag von Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl entworfen hatte. Dieser Entwurf zeigt bereits eine Glaskonstruktion mit spiralförmig aufsteigenden Gehwegen für Besucher und ist offensichtlich die Grundlage für die schließlich von Norman Foster widerwillig realisierte Kuppel.« --Stepro (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Google Translate of Stepro's input: In my opinion, the question of freedom of panorama does not arise at all, since the dome (in contrast to the eagle in the plenary hall) is not a protectable work by Mr. Foster. On May 8, 1995, Foster's final design for a glass walk-in dome was presented and approved by MPs. Architect Calatrava then claimed that this was a plagiarism of his own competition entry, which envisaged a transparent dome of a similar shape. After expert opinions and counter-expert opinions, the opinion of most experts prevailed, according to which no special legal protection could be claimed for a traditional architectural design element such as a dome. In addition, when the competition was held in 1992, Gottfried Böhm published his design for a dome, which he had designed in 1988 on behalf of Chancellor Helmut Kohl. This design already shows a glass construction with spiraling walkways for visitors and is apparently the basis for the dome that Norman Foster reluctantly finally realized. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: this may be a welcoming discovery: I may withdraw this DR if the claim is in harmonization with COM:TOO Germany. Plus maybe all deleted files can be restored (but one was overwritten and may need to undergo some administrative action). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- The said file is File:Reichstag Berlin.jpg, which I am trying to request to be renamed as File:Reichstag Berlin 2020.jpg. A different file existed until its deletion via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building)#Files in Category:Dome of the Reichstag (building) 2. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Einerseits sind die Bilder mit Genehmigung des Hausherren erstellt worden. Zudem bildet die Kuppel kein eigene Schöpfungshöhe, sonst könnte man jeden Dosendeckel bei Aldi einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz zusprechen. --ST ○ 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dosendeckel selbst nicht, aber wenn dort ein Bild drauf gedruckt ist, dann ist es tatsächlich vielleicht geschützt. --A.Savin 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ist die Kuppel bedruckt? --ST ○ 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nein; allerdings kann bei Werken der Architektur (anders als bei Dosendeckeln) die Schöpfungshöhe nicht nur durch Bedrucken, Bemalen o.ä. entstehen. --A.Savin 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ist die Kuppel bedruckt? --ST ○ 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dosendeckel selbst nicht, aber wenn dort ein Bild drauf gedruckt ist, dann ist es tatsächlich vielleicht geschützt. --A.Savin 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for the following reasons:
- The dome is a protected work of architecture. We apparently have sources claiming the opposite, but they probably only talk about whether or not the idea of a glass dome on top of the Reichstag building can be copyrighted, not about the specific design by Norman Foster.
- Freedom of panorama does not apply to the observation deck, as it is not a "public path, street, or square" in the sense of sec. 59 German Copyright Act.
- We do not have the permission from the rightsholder, as we have no evidence that Norman Foster transferred the entire usage rights of his design to the German government.
- Therefore, sadly, we have to delete any and all photos depicting the dome taken from the observation platform.
- Löschen aus den folgenden Gründen:
- Die Kuppel ist ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk der Architektur. Es gibt offenbar Quellen, die das Gegenteil besagen, aber diese beziehen sich wohl nur auf die Schutzfähigkeit der Idee einer gläsernen Kuppel auf dem Reichstagsgebäude, nicht auf den konkreten Entwurf von Norman Foster.
- Die Panoramafreiheit ist auf die Aussichtsplattform nicht anwendbar, weil sie kein "öffentlicher Weg, Straße oder Platz" im Sinne von § 59 UrhG ist.
- Wir haben keine Freigabe des Rechteinhabers, weil wir keine Nachweise dafür haben, dass Norman Foster seine gesamten Nutzungsrechte auf die Bundesregierung übertragen hat.
- Deshalb müssen wir leider alle Fotos der Kuppel löschen, die von der Aussichtsplattform aus aufgenommen wurden.
- --Gnom (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, the "besonderer [Rechtsschutz]" might be the essential wording. --A.Savin 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ich bin ja kein Jurist, aber nach meinem Verständnis gibt es auch so etwas wie die Intention von Gesetzen. Und hier sehe ich eine reine Überinterpretation pro vermeintlichem Urheberschutz gegen die Rechte der Allgemeinheit. Das dürfte so nie die Intention der Gesetzgeber gewesen sein. Ich sehe auch Gnoms Argumentation demantsprechend als nicht zielführend. Gehalten im Sinne meines Verständnis eines tieferen Sinnes hinter der reinen Gesetzgebung. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- In English (via Google Trans): I'm not a lawyer, but according to my understanding there is also something like the intention of laws. And here I see a pure over-interpretation per supposed copyright protection against the rights of the general public. That should never have been the intention of the legislature. I also see Gnom's argumentation accordingly as not expedient. Keep in terms of my understanding of a deeper meaning behind pure legislation.
- @Marcus Cyron: though the history of court rulings tend to be restrictive, only allowing commercial uses of German public artworks like architecture if the photos to be used are taken by photographers in public paths, roads, squares, waterways and open seas, port areas, and in the recent case from Frankfurt, from air/drone. None of the courts consider public premises (e.g. balconies) as allowed under German FOP. This may mean, the rooftop area, despite outdoors, is not covered by German FOP. Courts interpret the ambiguous laws and their rulings serve as models for future German FOP cases, whether real life or the likes of Commons deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm convinced by Gnom's statement. For transparency, I asked him in German Wikipedia whether he could contribute something to this discussion (as you can see if you have a look at his user page, it's not quite random that I ask him of all people ;-) ). So I'm striking my "weak keep" vote above and now vote Delete as well. In my opinion, it seems to be clear enough that FoP doesn't apply in this case, and I would have voted for deletion from the start, except for Stepro's argument which seemed plausible at first. By the way, the German Wikipedia article quoted by Stepro lacks citations in this paragraph, so it's a bit hard to check what exactly the experts said in the Calatrava/Foster dispute. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment It looks like german government has the usage right, as they published this poster in the Reichstag U-Bahn station: Kuppel in der U-Bahn --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- This only shows that they have a usage right, meaning the right to use this photo for this billboard. They would need the entire usage rights in the dome design for us to keep the photos with their permission (instead of requiring the architect's permission). We do not have any evidence of the latter, unfortunately. Gnom (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Second in motion to Gnom's input. Usage right does not equate to economic rights obtained from Architect Lord Norman Foster. No indication that the architect has surrendered his patrimonial rights to earn and control peoples' photos and videos of his artwork to the Federal Republic of Germany or at least, the Parliament of Germany JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- keep: Limited access does not preclude the interpretation of a site as public. The usual example in German law books are cemeteries, that are closed at night. Despite the closure, they are considered public with regard to FOP. The roof was wide open to the public without booking before 9/11, you just had to show a photo ID and walk through an X-ray-scanner, so all pictures before that date should be fine. Since 9/11 the rules for admission changed a few times. But they were imposed for security reasons only, not for a general limitation of access. Thus I consider the site as public and the image covered by FOP. --h-stt !? 19:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- "you just had to show a photo ID and walk through an X-ray-scanner" - so, if you were not willing or able to show a photo ID, you didn't get access, right? That's not at all what I would call a publicly accessible place. In a "public path, street, or square", I don't need to show a photo ID, and certainly don't need to walk through an X-ray scanner... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, A.Savin, Gnom and Gestumblindi, except File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-082 with result of EU legislation.jpg which has the dome already blocked out. I'm not convinced by h-stt's cemetery analogy for the reasons mentioned by Gestumblindi (the Reichstag roof top is not just closed at night, but there's also only controlled access during the day). The files can be restored when the architect Norman Foster's copyright has expired 70 years after his death, whenever that may be (he just turned 87 today). --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome
[edit]Per this discussion
Lukas Beck (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome
[edit]Per the argument that Freedom of panorama does not apply to the observation deck, as it is not a "public path, street, or square" in the sense of sec. 59 German Copyright Act as mentioned above by Gnom.
- File:Reichstagsgebäude - Dachterrasse 1.jpg
- File:Reichstagsgebäude - Dachterrasse 2.jpg
- File:14-09-09-Bundestag-RalfR-079.jpg
- File:The roof of the Reichstag building in Berlin.jpg
- File:Vistas desde el Reichstag - Berlin - panoramio.jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator and prior discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Question Could COM:De minimis work for this one? --Lukas Beck (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome
[edit]More views of the copyrighted architecture that are not from street, square, or thoroughfares. Courts have ruled that German FoP does not cover non-street views of public art and buildings, and that architects/artists have the right to prohibit commercial Creative Commons licensing of their works if their works are photographed outside the allowed locations of the photographers. See also prior nominations at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Exterior of the Reichstag dome.
- File:Reichstagskuppel (3160951679).jpg
- File:Reichstagskuppel, Dachterrasse. Reichstagsgebäude, Berlin. 2H1A0995WI.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The statue is not in a public place, but in a BVG subway station. Author Rolf Biebl is still alive, which puts the statue under copyright. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rolf Biebl Vinetamann.jpg. The file can be restored 70 years after artist Rolf Biebl's death (who is still alive). --Rosenzweig τ 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The statue is not in a public place, but in a BVG subway station. Author Rolf Biebl is still alive, which puts the statue under copyright. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Geoprofi Lars: "not in a public place, but in a BVG subway station" is a wrong causality, as you hardly can imagine a place more public than a railway station. Indeed this statue does not fall under FoP-Germany, yet for a completely different reason: FoP-Germany does not apply for interior views; and unless one day a German court decides otherwise, we have to assume platforms of underground stations are interiors. Regards --A.Savin 10:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I assumed that although the BVG underground stations are open to the public at certain times, they are privately owned by the BVG. But whether with this or your reasoning, this statue is not copyright protected by the freedom of panorama. Kind regards! Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, ironically, the file is used in an article about "Kunst im öffentlichen Raum" (art in public spaces). Delete per A.Savin though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, ironically, the file is used in an article about "Kunst im öffentlichen Raum" (art in public spaces).
- Well, I assumed that although the BVG underground stations are open to the public at certain times, they are privately owned by the BVG. But whether with this or your reasoning, this statue is not copyright protected by the freedom of panorama. Kind regards! Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. The file can be restored 70 years after artist Rolf Biebl's death (who is still alive). --Rosenzweig τ 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Defective Polish pronunciation - I have rhotacism, I can't pronounce /r/ properly, but I accidentally did it here. There is a good recording of this word: File:LL-Q809 (pol)-Poemat-zamarznąć.wav. Olaf (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader even if upload happened several months ago, as he explained that there's a mistake and also a replacement. --Rosenzweig τ 13:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The author is unknown. However, the image was not taken in a public place and is therefore not in the public domain. As long as the artist is unknown, it should be assumed that the work is protected by copyright. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The art is not in public places, but at a DB station. The pictures were drawn in 2010. They are therefore protected by copyright for at least 60 years. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The art is not in public places, but at a DB station. The pictures were drawn in 2010. They are therefore protected by copyright for at least 60 years. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The art is not in public places, but at a DB station. The pictures were drawn in 2010. They are therefore protected by copyright for at least 60 years. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The art is not in public places, but at a DB station. The pictures were drawn in 2010. They are therefore protected by copyright for at least 60 years. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Statue should be copyrighted. The Alfred Brehm House was opened in 1963. The statue should therefore not be older than 59 years. Even if the artist had died that same year, copyright protection would not expire until 2033. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The facility was built in 1984. It is not in a public place and is therefore not covered by the freedom of panorama. In my opinion, the level of creation should also be achieved through the special architecture. The building is protected by copyright as long as the pictures were not taken from a public place. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see this structure as a protected work of architecture. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The facility was built in 1984. It is not in a public place and is therefore not covered by the freedom of panorama. In my opinion, the level of creation should also be achieved through the special architecture. The building is protected by copyright as long as the pictures were not taken from a public place. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The facility was built in 1984. It is not in a public place and is therefore not covered by the freedom of panorama. In my opinion, the level of creation should also be achieved through the special architecture. The building is protected by copyright as long as the pictures were not taken from a public place. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see this structure as a protected work of architecture. --Rosenzweig τ 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Own Work in impossible! Elfabso (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- HI Elfabso,
- why do you want to delete my File? Jürgen Rickmers was a very special person, he was on the forefront for globalisation in the 19. century. He brought a lot of europeans to the US ...
- Best
- Dannimannn Dannimann (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Don't act shocked! when noobs choose "Own Work", just fix noob errors and save everyone time. I fixed the attribution and license. Every noob picks the default settings, so just fix them. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Elfabso, i was part of the resach team about Jürgen Rickmers. Maybe some linkes are missing to confirm the relevance of this person. Here are some files.
- Findbuch der Ferring Stiftung
- https://ferring-stiftung.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Findbuch-Archiv-Ferring-Stiftung-2020.pdf
- Friesenmuseum
- https://www.friesen-museum.de/aktuell/
- Find a Grave
- https://de.findagrave.com/memorial/157891613/j%C3%BCrgen-rickmer-rickmers
- Bücher (Books), gibt es ja auch noch einige:
- Föhrer Seefahrer und ihre Schiffe
- https://www.buecher.de/shop/buecher/foehrer-seefahrer-und-ihre-schiffe/lueden-walter/products_products/detail/prod_id/26003643/
- Insel der Seefahrer
- https://www.buchfreund.de/de/d/e/9783922117391/inseln-der-seefahrer-sylt-foehr-amrum-und-die?bookId=103271898
- Es gibt auch noch Zeitungsartikel von Georg Quedens im Inselboten über Rickmers, die sind aber nirgends online...
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Quedens 2A02:8108:4CC0:5224:A108:6F07:88F7:60F2 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Leute, es geht nicht darum, ob er eine bedeutende Persönlichkeit war oder nicht, sondern nur um die Frage: Wo kommt das Foto her? Es ist ja wohl nicht plötzlich vom Himmel gefallen. --Achim55 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16. Januar 2022#Jürgen Rickmers (gelöscht) not a notable person. The photo itself could be useful if we had some more solid information about the date, provenance etc., but we don't. --Rosenzweig τ 21:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [5]. Obviously in the public domain, this should not have been deleted. Yann (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Professional media photos, unlikely to be the own work of the uploader. If the uploader is the photographer, permission should be provided through COM:VRT.
-M.nelson (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hamzacetins (talk · contribs)
[edit]All claimed as own work but a mix of scans and old photos.
- File:Ed kemper.webp
- File:Ed Kemper,.jpg
- File:John-d.jpg
- File:Clarnell Elizabeth Strandberg.jpg
- File:Allison Liu ve Rosalind Thorpe.jpg
- File:Cindy Schall.jpg
- File:Aiko Koo.jpg
- File:Mary-Ann-Pesce-ve-Anita-Luchessa.jpg
- File:Mary Ann Pesce.jpg
- File:Ed gein mezartaşı.jpg
- File:S-05e37099caafae0fbbb080778d9fd6a0b39c31fa.webp
Gbawden (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The yearbook photos of the victims are all PD-US-no notice, I can see the full yearbooks at Ancestry.com and so far no copyright notice. I have never found a renewal notice for a yearbook or even a copyright notice pre 1977 for a yearbook. I can't imagine a market for reprinting yearbooks 28 years later, prior to the Internet. I am slowly fixing the licenses and linking to the yearbook itself at Ancestry. --RAN (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
I need more time for research -
-
-
-
.png){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_is_prohibited.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![275 File:Gabriele Arborio presso lo studio "Cista".jpg](#File:Gabriele_Arborio_presso_lo_studio_"Cista".jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(1).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(3).jpg){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_from_VOA_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_is_prohibited.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_is_prohibited.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_is_prohibited.png){kind=link}
_is_prohibited.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.PNG.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(crop)_(tweak).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_5893.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_35082.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=661728069#File:J%C3%BCrgen_Rickmers.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete The Ed Kemper photos should be deleted, unless someone else find they are in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Corbis image, there are others avialable
Kept: yearbook photo's kept, Ed Kemper photos deleted, thanks for you research User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). --Ellywa (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Pictures were not taken in public space. Shown are architectural works by the architect Franco Stella, who is still alive. The copyright thus still protects his works. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:FOP Germany, this open space with a permanently open door and a publicly accessible outside terras of a restaurant can be considered "public" imho. Consequently, a picture of it can be published imho. --Ellywa (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Pictures were not taken in public space. Shown are architectural works by the architect Franco Stella, who is still alive. The copyright thus still protects his works. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:FOP Germany, this open space with a permanently open door and a publicly accessible outside terras of a restaurant can be considered "public" imho. Consequently, a picture of it can be published imho. --Ellywa (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Pictures were not taken in public space. Shown are architectural works by the architect Franco Stella, who is still alive. The copyright thus still protects his works. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:FOP Germany, this open space with a permanently open door and a publicly accessible outside terras of a restaurant can be considered "public" imho. Consequently, a picture of it can be published imho. --Ellywa (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Pictures were not taken in public space. Shown are architectural works by the architect Franco Stella, who is still alive. The copyright thus still protects his works. Geoprofi Lars (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per COM:FOP Germany, this open space with a permanently open door and a publicly accessible outside terras of a restaurant can be considered "public" imho. Consequently, a picture of it can be published imho. --Ellywa (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP for sculptures in the US. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. Granger has informed us on DYK that there is no panoramafreiheit in the U.S., but I believe it looks as if there must be exceptions: see my comment here, with the context of that comment.
- I said: "I have had another look at the article and it says not only that the Secret Philadelphia leaflet by Lebeau mentions that the sculpture was created as a photo op, but also that the artist has actually written "stand here" in the alcove, to encourage that. (See chapter 28 "Closer to Free" in the online leaflet, linked in the article as ref.6). Moreover, if you look at the other pictures in the Commons category, the artist has posed in the alcove to show us how to do it. If those things are not an encouragement for the public to take photos, what is? I think that the author could not sue on this basis, and would not want to anyway, whether there is lack of panoramafreiheit or not". Storye book (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Arguments to the effect of "the copyright holder probably won't mind us violating their copyright" are not valid here. We would need the copyright holder to release the sculpture or the image under a free license. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please see File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg and File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg. They are free-use images of the sculpture, and those who are permitted to read the relevant documents may discover that they were written or approved by the sculptor. So, should I have cropped one of those two images, instead? Storye book (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out – yes, as far as I can tell cropping that image would be fine. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please see File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg and File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg. They are free-use images of the sculpture, and those who are permitted to read the relevant documents may discover that they were written or approved by the sculptor. So, should I have cropped one of those two images, instead? Storye book (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless appropriate COM:VRTS correspondence of licensing permission from the sculptor is obtained for the two nominated images. IMO cropping of one image will make it useless as the Emerging Mummy sculpture is an essential element of it (note: COM:DM United States states that U.S. de minimis is based on "triviality" concept, not "incidental" concept). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Arguments to the effect of "the copyright holder probably won't mind us violating their copyright" are not valid here. We would need the copyright holder to release the sculpture or the image under a free license. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. The fact that another photo exists on Commons does not mean it is allowed. The other photo has not been discussed yet. --Ellywa (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A formal PR picture of an Israeli parliament member and the photographer is mentioned in the file's name (אלעד גוטמן). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- The rights belongs to Boaz Toporovski, credit Photo: Elad Guttman שרון מאירוביץ (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. @שרון מאירוביץ: please closely follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the copyright holder/photographer to publish the image on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image can be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I have found no evidence that this coat of arms really existed. However, the description indicates that this is a variant of the coat of arms of the Braunschweig princely family that really existed in the XVIII century, claiming the throne of the Russian Empire (see ru:Брауншвейгское семейство). The coat of arms is a fiction of the author of the Wikipedia participant and cannot be used for educational purposes. GAndy (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not in use and can be deleted because it is out of COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The painting on the train may be too big for COM:DM and COM:FOP Japan only allow FOP for buildings etc. MGA73 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The painting on the train is copyrighted. Cropping appears not useful. --Ellywa (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GIRLS und PANZER bus@Oarai.JPG that painted vehicles in Japan are OK. Ellywa (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
non free logo Hiro (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- cant it be used since i uploaded via other work? SanderK1313 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The file from jawiki is sourced to http://racecourse.web.infoseek.co.jp/guma/guma_fra.htm and it claims to have a permission. The file was uploaded in 2009 and if it was uploaded today we should ask for a permission send to VRT. Uploader is no longer active so we can either trust uploader or delete. Per COM:GRANDFATHER we can grandfather old files but the date on Commons is 2007 but I do not know when OTRS was mentioned on jawiki so it may not have been in use in 2009. MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: I think we can assume good faith of the original uploader, and 6 years on Japanese Wikipedia. --Ellywa (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted image appears to be take from this site which gives courtesy to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) FOX 52 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This image was uploaded by Indian Air Force on Twitter [6] under open data of government of India. Not from the mentioned link by FOX 52.I ame shears (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The problem with the twitter post is it's dated from Nov 19, 2021, while the cavok.com story is dated from Sept 12, 2021 - FOX 52 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The photo is from original source and it viral get on induction day of HAL LCH i.e.19 November 2021. And 2nd thing here we see the source from where it was uploaded.Date is not issue. I think that website is giving courtesy to HAL.I ame shears (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- The date is important as the twitter upload is from a later date, while the cavok.com article is from 2 month prior, casting doubt on the origins are the first copy. ultimately the evidence is inconclusive on the true authorship and water markings the image does not confirm the actual author - FOX 52 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Date is not an issue, your assumption is. Brazil uses DD/MM/YYYY format unlike US which uses MM/DD/YYYY. So the date is 9 December 2021 and not 12 September 2021. Date format by country. Shashpant (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- The date is important as the twitter upload is from a later date, while the cavok.com article is from 2 month prior, casting doubt on the origins are the first copy. ultimately the evidence is inconclusive on the true authorship and water markings the image does not confirm the actual author - FOX 52 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note See the Indian Air Force logo on the right side corner. Which is placed on the photo taken by IAF.
I can't water mark this image as I ame shears on right side corner as it will violent the copyright. Website may be updated on 20 November. There only few words about HAL LCH.I ame shears (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There is no evidence that this image is freely licenced by the IAF. Per COM:TAG India we have templates for army and navy and not for the air force. In addition. the website of the IAF is showing a copyright sign. On the twitter account I don't see a free licencing. So it must be assumed this photo is copyrighted and it has to be deleted from Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The paintings on the train may be too big for COM:DM and COM:FOP Japan only allow FOP for buildings etc. MGA73 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GIRLS und PANZER bus@Oarai.JPG that painted vehicles in Japan are OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of King of Hearts. --Ellywa (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The art/figures on the train may be too big for COM:DM and COM:FOP Japan only allow FOP for buildings etc. MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GIRLS und PANZER bus@Oarai.JPG that painted vehicles in Japan are OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of King of Hearts. --Ellywa (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The art/figures on the train may be too big for COM:DM and COM:FOP Japan only allow FOP for buildings etc. MGA73 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GIRLS und PANZER bus@Oarai.JPG that painted vehicles in Japan are OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of King of Hearts. --Ellywa (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The art/statue may be above COM:TOO (unless PD-shape) and also too big for COM:DM and COM:FOP Japan only allow FOP for buildings etc. MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete This sculpture is copyrighted. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The title states that it's the pronunciation of "en" in British English, but it's something else. Olaf (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Recording without educational value and not in use on the projects. Therefore this recording is out of COM:SCOPE and can be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). I guess it's unclear whether the uploader is the author of this reconstruction or the photographer of this work. Would need more information on the work if the latter. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of this image. --Ellywa (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Might be above COM:TOO Switzerland which seem to be unknown for logos. Only photographs are mentioned on the Commons page. Jonteemil (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, it appears to me "artistic intellectual creation with individual character", so it has to be deleted per nominaton and COM:TOO Switzerland. --Ellywa (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
fake copyright Sudulfernando41 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/01/16#c-Sudulfernando41-2022-01-16T20:37:00.000Z-File:Gabriele_Arborio_presso_lo_studio_"Cista".jpg){kind=link}
- What do you mean fake? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, albeit very late. Also it appears out of scope to me, not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
![19:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/01/16#c-Ellywa-2022-06-08T19:27:00.000Z-File:Gabriele_Arborio_presso_lo_studio_"Cista".jpg){kind=link}
fake copyright Sudulfernando41 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a courtesy to the uploader, who tried to have it deleted in 2020. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, albeit very late. Also it appears out of scope to me, not in use on the projects. --Ellywa (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
fake copyright Sudulfernando41 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request, albeit very late. Also it appears out of scope to me, not in use on the projects. Uploader is present on the photo, so they did not make the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No proof of ownership or permission to release under a free license. Copyright belongs to the Justice and Development Party. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:TOO Turkey a work is coprighted if the work bears the characteristics of creator. Imho this image is above threshold of originality and has therefore to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Not published before 1927 as declared in the license template. The author died in 1941, the work was not PD in France in 1996 due to war extensions. Not free in US unless published there in 30 days since the iniatial publication date in France. Ankry (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed the work came from a periodical (l'Auto) and has been published from January, 10th to February, 11th of 1939. It has been written by Maurice Leblanc, who died in 1941. I'm unaware of any war extensions for this author. His work is definitely PD in France since January, 2012. I'm not specialist of copyright in the US, but being published before 1964, it should be DP also... Toto256 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete There are illustrations by fr:Jean Oberlé, who died in 1961, so this is still protected in France until the end of 2031 even if the text itself is already in the PD. @Toto256: If you want to transfer the file to French wikisource or similar, now would be the time to do it. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that we can consider this graphic design as a simple logo/txt, therefore eligilbe for PD. Though it is a fanart, it highly recreates the original, so it is a derivative work. Masur (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Adding similar logo's, if decided to delete File:Batman Arkham City Logo.png these should be deleted as well imho, Ellywa (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC):
- File:Batman Arkham Origins Logo.png
- File:Batman Arkham Asylum logo.png
- File:Batman Arkham Knight logo.png
- File:Batman Arkham Origins Blackgate Logo.png
Deleted: per nomination, likely above COM:TOO USA, therefore deleted per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 07:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
رفعته عن طريق الخطأ تركي حمدي الثبيتي (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 22:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Logo / graphic claimed as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope.
mattbr 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)