Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/04/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![113 File:Plant "Red Triangle" 02.gif](#File:Plant_"Red_Triangle"_02.gif){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_407,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_407,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_453.jpg){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_408,_A.jpg){kind=link}
_1972,_MiNr_411,_A.jpg){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_874.jpg){kind=link}
_1986,_MiNr_755.jpg){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_671.jpg){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_670.jpg){kind=link}
_worshipping_Bahuchara_Mata.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy deleted as a copyright violation per F1. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
No Fair Use, not CC or free to use. BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotion/Advert BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also © 2022 Tikotoy. --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotion BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also © 2022 Tikotoy. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Promotion BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:15, 24 April 2022 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Advertisement --Krdbot 19:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
This isn’t the author’s own work. It’s published here, and is also on almost on all the subject’s social profiles. (Instagram, YouTube). Clear copyvio Xclusivzik (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Solicito la eliminación en sentido de buena fe porque incumple las políticas de uso liberado. Trillo.gm (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 05:58, 25 April 2022 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Solicito la eliminación en sentido de buena fe porque incumple las políticas de uso liberado. Trillo.gm (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann at 05:57, 25 April 2022 UTC: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion) --Krdbot 14:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete requested by user Ryse93 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, anyone who can, please delete this file, in order to properly rename File:Présidentielle 2022 T2 carte par département & région.svg as “File:Élection présidentielle française de 2022 T2 carte départements & régions.svg”, for consistency with 2017, 2012, ... SenseiAC (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G7-speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TalkToTriZi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal and promotional images of a non-notable musician. Out of project scope.
- File:Center fresh liquid filled gum.jpg
- File:Golden Prince Ken and King Tri-Zi.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi in 2010.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi Quotes 2.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi Signature.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi at the last Sunday of April 2022 mass service in Delhi NCR.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi during last Sunday Mass in April 2022.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi with his Fiancee (Justina Peter).jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi with Golden Prince Ken.jpg
- File:Midwest Shows Scholarship Program Inc..jpg
- File:Midwest Shows Scholarship Program Inc. 2.png
- File:Midwest Shows Scholarship Program Inc..png
- File:King Tri-Zi Portrait.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 07.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 06.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 05.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 04.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 01.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 03.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi visit to Keshurpur Village 02.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi at New Delhi.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi at Pacific Mall.jpg
- File:King's Records.jpg
- File:King Tri-Zi.png
- File:King Tri-Zi Bitmoji.jpg
- File:Timeline Photos Logo.png
- File:Epic Sound Logo Main.png
- File:20210410 191303-ANIMATION.gif
- File:King Tri-Zi -Black Lives Matter.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
IronGargoyle (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
typo on name Gatto bianco (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete this redirect, file was uploaded a year ago. --Achim55 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:Acetoxyacetic-acid-2D-structure.svg as high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AldrianMimi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not an amateur porn site
- File:Cu depilado de moreno brasileiro, gay passivo, de 30 anos - 5.jpg
- File:Cu depilado de moreno brasileiro, gay passivo, de 30 anos - 4.jpg
- File:Cu depilado de moreno brasileiro, gay passivo, de 30 anos - 2.jpg
- File:Cu depilado de moreno brasileiro, gay passivo, de 30 anos - 3.jpg
- File:Cu depilado de moreno brasileiro, gay passivo, de 30 anos 01.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 12.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 10.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 11.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 9.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 8.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 7.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 5.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 6.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 4.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 2.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 1.jpg
- File:Bunda de mulato gay passivo brasileiro de 30 anos - 3.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 6.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 4.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 5.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 3.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 1.jpg
- File:Pênis duro de um gay passivo negro brasileiro - 2.jpg
- File:Cu aberto de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos - 7.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos - 6.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos - 5.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos - 4.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos -2.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro.jpg
- File:Bunda de homem negro brasileiro, gay passivo de 30 anos - 3.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taiwania Justo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyvio: small sizes, inconsistent EXIF info, User:陳彥可 uploaded copyvios in the past.
Wcam (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Wcam: I agree these deletion. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taiwania Justo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos and diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
doppione OppidumNissenae (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot from unidentified origin CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Joke with photo from unidentified origin CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The source inicates a copyright. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Use of Commons as a personal storage space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Commons is not your personal free web host.
- File:Stev Bobo picture.jpg
- File:Stev Bobo Move.jpg
- File:Stev Bobo Do like I do.jpg
- File:Stev Bobo Corner.jpg
- File:Stev Bobo Why? ( Mama Africa).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Achim55 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The fish is a stock photo CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Unidentified spreadsheet CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: App icon CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: App screenshot CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: No trace of Creative Commons on the source CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Not personal work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Banner used already in 2014 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Unidentfied certification CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an article 2600:100C:A200:E10A:1017:7751:5F91:3B11 10:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Grabbed from the web, not own work, copyvio if no proof of a free license. --Achim55 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Penis
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 23:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
COM:PENIS, more boring pictures of wieners that don’t improve our already giant “hot dog stand”
Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Commons is not an exhibitionist platform
Dronebogus (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: by Fitindia and Yann. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As extremely rare as the human penis is, we’ve nevertheless found many photos of it already.
Dronebogus (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Low quality COM:PENISes
Dronebogus (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Assorted low-quality, redundant, or non-educational COM:PENISes
Dronebogus (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dronebogus (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Commons is not an amateur porn site Dronebogus (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Penis[edit]Absolutely nothing to add to this category of images, COM:PENIS spam.
Dronebogus (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
Files in Category:Penis
[edit]
Dronebogus (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Penis
[edit]Unremarkable WP:PENIS pics
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by User:Gbawden. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Penis
[edit]Low quality penis images
File:Enlarge 2425408393.png- File:Erect circumcised penis.jpg
- File:Male anus, perineum, scrotum and penis II.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not understand the benchmark for "low quality". It demonstrates exactly what it stated. I believe in regards to both empirical characteristics (resolution, clarity, etc) and usefulness, it surpasses many other images left under this category. Rafe101 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized the first one is not low quality and in use; removing Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The world makes a little more sense. Thanks Rafe101 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the rest. 186.175.219.84 22:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I just realized the first one is not low quality and in use; removing Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Penis
[edit]SERIOUSLY WE DO NOT NEED MORE DICK PICS
- File:Human Male Ejaculation (1).gif
- File:Human Male Ejaculation (2).gif
- File:Human Penis (1).jpg
- File:Human Penis (10).jpg
- File:Human Penis (11).jpg
- File:Human Penis (4).jpg
- File:Human Penis (5).jpg
- File:Human Penis (6).jpg
- File:Human Penis (7).jpg
- File:Human Penis (8).jpg
- File:Human Penis (9).jpg
- File:Human Penis+.jpg
- File:Human Penis-.png
- File:Low and tight circumcision.jpg
- File:Male penis flaccid to erect.jpg
- File:My dick.jpg
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&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}
Dronebogus (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 19:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Penis
[edit]- File:Erectpenis.jpg
- File:Erectpenis14.jpg
- File:Fully erect male with a cock ring on the testicles.gif
- File:Malepubichair.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10 - also CSD U3 of their userpage and a block. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This file is not free. Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio file Zafer (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparent copyright violation. The page listed in the source field for this image (https://1883magazine.com/kit-connor/) contains no evidence of free use rational SSSB (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 06:39, 3 May 2022 UTC: No license/copyright since 25 April 2022 --Krdbot 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal pic, useless without context. Fl.schmitt (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 09:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, collage 186.175.95.253 01:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Commons isn't web host for this type of file. Out of project scope. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: original user does not possess permission (it's a reuploader channel) Washuotaku (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete: A channel that is called "NewTrailers" with 1 subscriber does not indicate to me that they are the owner of the actual copyright to the Vtuber model/IP. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by BriefEdits as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a reuploading channel. They do not possess the copyright Washuotaku (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete Uploading channel has 13 subscribers whereas the official account has 2.7 million. Obvious license washing. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded for w:DigiByte. No other use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Esoteric map of a united caribbean nation. Enyavar (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
COM:SCREENSHOT violation. Taken from YouTube (w:en:Ang Probinsyano) episode 120.29.78.72 08:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This mural was installed after March 1989, per COM:PACUSA. See [1]. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- My bad Thesadcactus (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Veeesomaya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused blurry/test images, the first one is a cropped copy of File:Digesting Duck.jpg.
Lord Belbury (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Second image uses a Pexels photo from 2021 (https://www.pexels.com/photo/strawberries-and-a-chocolate-bar-in-pieces-8217984/) putting it outside of {{Pexels}}. Both images are out of COM:SCOPE for Commons as joke images to share elsewhere.
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No FOP-US for 3D art DMacks (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
No FOP-US for 3D art Mvega00 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not the copyright owner, and it needs to be deleted Mvega00 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why did you re-nominated the same file for 4 more times? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also found online. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. This is also the weird drawing that broken Wikimedia Commons' policy. 140.213.7.88 13:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Only used on the userpage of a user with two global edits. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The coat of arms of Banyalbufar isn't official. out of scope. Ceahjlazco1882 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Keep. The coat of arms does not need to be official to stay in the Commons. Macucal (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)- Keep. The file is used on over 30 articles. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The heraldic description is sourced. Clearly in scope. Strakhov (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This coat of arms heraldically represents the municipality of Bañalbufar. It's totally valid. Lopezsuarez (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: 4 user are for keeping so within scope. --Sanandros (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, spam Bodhisattwa (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image was uploaded for a test only, as was written within the description: "For test 1 To be deleted soon" Pikiwiki - Israel free image collection project (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Has a dupplicate File:PikiWiki Israel 86864 grain barn skodvas.jpg.--Sanandros (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Found it here under a cc non comercial licesen.--Sanandros (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded under the wrong name Julio974 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: then pls move it to the right name with the moving button. --Sanandros (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F2 - fair use only https://www.mehrangarh.org/disclaimer/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion of the museum's property-claim, as the original work is surely in the public domain already, whereby image should be ok per PD-Art on Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio The portrait is dated 1830 which I thought would make it public domain. I wanted to ask, what conditions can cause a historical work to not be considered public domain? Thank you. Krayon95 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per turelio and krayon. --Sanandros (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not the current logo of Flimmit GmbH & Co KG. Since a relaunch in November 2020 the company's logo has changed.192.164.201.1 19:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: also historical logos should be kept. --Sanandros (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Nothing in source page to indicate that image has stated license. Ravensfire (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sanandros (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate Victuallers (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality photo of common subject lacking information on location etc. Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Я передумал его публиковать O.sh.78 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: it's not the valid reason for deletion; however, this person is not notable and we don't need his portrait at Commons anyway. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The image has already been published online. For example here: [2]. Even if it is really the author's account (we can't know it exact), then due to the fact that the picture has already been published somewhere else, special permission from VRT is required. Kursant504 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have personally asked the author to provide the formal permission through VRT system. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permisison. --Krd 13:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
https://labs.openai.com/policies/content-policy explicitly forbids commercial use of DALL-E 2 images. This is incompatible with the licensing policy. TilmannR (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It is assuredly in breach of the licencing you state, but I think instead of the "Use for non-commercial purposes only." that you state, I believe it misses because it fails to "Disclose the role of AI" plus "Respect the rights of others - Do not upload images to which you do not hold appropriate usage rights". At the very least COM:VRT should be used to regularise the right to upload the picture, so COM:PCP applies.
- Additionally, it comes from https://twitter.com/gdb/status/1511718170804908037 where the DALL-E source is stated clearly, but it could be considered to be a copyvio. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the role of AI was properly disclosed: DALL·E 2 is mentioned both in the description and as the author. (Although technically existing law does not permit a non-human to be an author. The actual author(s) would be the OpenAI employee(s) who created the input prompt and selected this particular image from the AI's outputs.) TilmannR (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The author is an artificial intelligence, which means that the work cannot be copyrighted. The content policy is not legally binding on copyright grounds because the work is in the public domain. From a legal perspective, the content policy's stance on commercial use is more of a request than a license requirement, since the writers of the content policy are not the copyright owners. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Di (they-them): I believe your assessment is based on a misunderstanding. The U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did not say that all outputs of AI are automatically in the public domain. They said that a work without any creative contribution from a human actor cannot be copyrighted. But since DALL-E's image generation depends on natural language prompts, we can assume that a human did contribute.
- Consider the following analogy: A camera is not considered the author of the images it produces. But when a person does the creative work of pressing the shutter button, they typically own the copyright to the resulting image.
- Generative AI is a tool much like a camera. The AI itself is not considered an author, because it is not a person. But I can think of no reason why the writer of the input prompt would have fewer rights to the generated image than if it had been taken as a photograph. TilmannR (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to play advocate's devil, there is at least one case (this one) where the prompt was generated by GPT-3... What would be the ruling, then ? --Dfeldmann (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Dfeldmann: The bot that generated the prompt apparently generates an infinite stream of random tweets. I don't believe any human claims authorship of that text. And the bot itself is not a person and therefore also not an author. But the person, who selected that specific tweet, felt like it was suitable for feeding into DALL-E 2 and decided that the resulting image was worth sharing, might have done something sufficiently creative to be considered the author of the image.
- Extending the camera analogy: If you photograph a mountain, you own the copyright to the image, even if you didn't create the mountain.
- I'm neither a judge nor an admin, so none of this is an actual "ruling", but I hope this answers your question. TilmannR (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: It cannot be said that a human created this artwork. At the very most, a human gave an AI an idea, but ideas and concepts are not protected by copyright. A human had no input on this work of art besides the text prompt, whereas with a camera a human actually has to make creative decisions and take the photo. I think a more apt comparison would be commissioning an artist. The commissioner does not hold the copyright, the creator of the art does. In this case the creator of the art is an AI, meaning that there is no copyright protection. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Di (they-them):
- You mentioned that the idea for this image is not protected by copyright. Note that the idea to take a photo of something is also not copyrightable, but that has no effect on the copyright of the resulting photo.
- The artist analogy is weaker than the camera analogy, because DALL-E 2 is a tool and lacks personhood. E.g. "In this case the creator of the art is an AI" is either false or irrelevant, depending on the definition of "creator".
- I assume that entering a prompt and selecting one of DALL-E's various output images is approximately as creative as pointing a camera at something and pushing the shutter button.
- I assume that pointing a camera at something and pushing the shutter button are all the "creative decisions" needed for an original photo (e.g. of a clothed dog) to be copyrightable.
- Is either of these assumptions wrong? TilmannR (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The image was not created by a person, thus there is no copyright. You cannot copyright an idea, only an expression of an idea, and unlike in the case of a camera, the creative expression in this case is entirely executed by software, not by a person. As an analogy, if I was a painting instructor and gave everyone in my class the prompt "A Shiba Inu dog wearing a beret and black turtleneck", would you expect me to own the copyrights for all the paintings created by my students? Of course not. Nosferattus (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: But why wouldn't you own the copyrights to your students' paintings? Is it because the paintings were created by brushes, which aren't human and therefore incapable of claiming authorship? No. It's because your students are people with strong authorship claims that make your contribution de minimis. But if your classroom contained any recording devices, then you own the performance rights to the recordings of you saying "A Shiba Inu dog wearing a beret and black turtleneck" despite you doing exactly the same amount of expressive work in both cases. TilmannR (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: Because I didn't create the paintings, just as the authors of DALL·E 2 didn't create the Shibu Inu image. Let's take your argument to the logical extreme. If I wrote a program to automatically generate all possible musical melodies (which someone already did), would I then be entitled to sue the authors of every new musical work for copyright infringement? Nosferattus (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to emphasize your use of the word "automatically". Image generation via DALL-E is not an automatic process, but is conditioned on the input of a prompt.
- Suing the authors of musical works for using a melody contained in that 1202 GB file is like suing authors of literary works for using words that occur in a dictionary or suing artists for using colors that also occur in other paintings.
- We're not even dealing with a case where someone generated their own image of a Shiba Inu dog wearing a beret and black turtleneck and was sued by OpenAI. This is an exact copy of OpenAI's image. TilmannR (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: Because I didn't create the paintings, just as the authors of DALL·E 2 didn't create the Shibu Inu image. Let's take your argument to the logical extreme. If I wrote a program to automatically generate all possible musical melodies (which someone already did), would I then be entitled to sue the authors of every new musical work for copyright infringement? Nosferattus (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: But why wouldn't you own the copyrights to your students' paintings? Is it because the paintings were created by brushes, which aren't human and therefore incapable of claiming authorship? No. It's because your students are people with strong authorship claims that make your contribution de minimis. But if your classroom contained any recording devices, then you own the performance rights to the recordings of you saying "A Shiba Inu dog wearing a beret and black turtleneck" despite you doing exactly the same amount of expressive work in both cases. TilmannR (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The image was not created by a person, thus there is no copyright. You cannot copyright an idea, only an expression of an idea, and unlike in the case of a camera, the creative expression in this case is entirely executed by software, not by a person. As an analogy, if I was a painting instructor and gave everyone in my class the prompt "A Shiba Inu dog wearing a beret and black turtleneck", would you expect me to own the copyrights for all the paintings created by my students? Of course not. Nosferattus (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just to play advocate's devil, there is at least one case (this one) where the prompt was generated by GPT-3... What would be the ruling, then ? --Dfeldmann (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - No human author, thus no copyright protection. (Creating a prompt is not authoring a work.) Nosferattus (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that the people at OpenAI did not merely create the prompt, but they went through all the steps necessary to convert the prompt into a concrete image, which is what makes them the authors of this work. (Copy-paste from Commons:Deletion requests/File:DALL-E sample.png.) TilmannR (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DALL-E sample.png. This is why it's not helpful to create multiple deletion discussions about the same issue at the same time. Nosferattus (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that the people at OpenAI did not merely create the prompt, but they went through all the steps necessary to convert the prompt into a concrete image, which is what makes them the authors of this work. (Copy-paste from Commons:Deletion requests/File:DALL-E sample.png.) TilmannR (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Public domain as not created by a human. The teacher / students analogy is convincing. --Yann (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that product was useless, but the brand was also shown in the monitor. I have to get rid of that image. Evan0512 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get why u want to delete that file.--Sanandros (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work as claimed. --Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; no cc license at source. --Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Permission missing. There is no way this photo is a selfie ("own work"). 91.34.38.7 09:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Billboard from 2009 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
File:Power inverter fiting merubah listrik dc menjadi listrik ac 220 volt sebagai lampu cadangan .webp
[edit]
Promotion BlinxTheKitty (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Google Street View Kun Kipcsak (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I desire delete this upload ASD11115 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's already pretty long here on commons, why to delte it?--Sanandros (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no information on FB page or even site that this photo was shared by free lisence. So this photo should be deleted Kharkivian (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." (1)
- Shouldn't the photo then be classified as public domain? Drive432 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Publishing on FB is not the same as a CC license. --Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't believ this is own work. Higher resolution can be found here. No metadata. Wouter (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Source Google, author unknown? Obvious copyvio. Einsamer Schütze (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
no source given, probably copyvio Einsamer Schütze (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Really own work? No EXIF data, low resolution, missing categories. Xocolatl (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
10 kb, no exif data... Xocolatl (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
4 kb, no exif... Xocolatl (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Really own work? I don't think so. Low resolution, no EXIF data. Xocolatl (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Not-in-use file. Kind of replica of this copyrighted file. The Commons cannot be a repository for just any file. Ldorfman (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; DW of a painting. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably no "own work" - looks like a screenshot. No EXIF data, white stripe at the left side... Xocolatl (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This picture seems to be copied as it appears in at least one more place on the web (this one). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=ecuamedios+el+bom+bom&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiPhpWm2K33AhX5mf0HHQewCioQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=ecuamedios+el+bom+bom&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQHjoGCAAQBRAeOgYIABAIEB5QmQJYsBFgxBZoAHAAeACAAU-IAawGkgECMTKYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=VMdlYo-MD_mz9u8Ph-Cq0AI&bih=739&biw=1536&client=firefox-b-d#imgrc=r9O0KXbkW-o39M Xocolatl (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Efectivamente es la fotografías de mi compañero de trabajo Klever Chamba, la fotografía es propiedad de Ecuamedios por eso la uso. CapitanRoy (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
wrong date (search by google), probably no "own work" Xocolatl (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Buenas Tardes Xocolatl te invito a revisar esta imagen, se encuentra mi espacio de trabajo. Soy el responsable de marca de Ecuamedios https://drive.google.com/file/d/1npPS-BQ8u-now50Q_jqfbnA-_60Z2O1C/view?usp=sharing perdona si he cometido un error en la fecha, permiteme modificarlo por favor.
- Good afternoon Xocolatl I invite you to review this image, my workspace is here. I am the brand manager for Ecuamedios https://drive.google.com/file/d/1npPS-BQ8u-now50Q_jqfbnA-_60Z2O1C/view?usp=sharing sorry if you made a mistake on the date, let me change it please. CapitanRoy (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS from Ecuamedios. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
not own work, image seems to be cruising the internet since early march https://nova24tv.si/slovenija/politika/golob-bi-zenskam-ukradel-praznik/ Vacant0 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted poster from a site by television company. PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mart.varik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Estopedist1 (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not licensed under the terms mentioned Sahaib (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence of cc license. --Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Similar to https://www.amazon.fr/Bose-Cinemate-SR-Syst%C3%A8me-dEnceintes/dp/B005YYHQ9K Cjp24 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
J'aimerais mettre à la place une image de meilleure qualité. Merci de m'aider. Hakim Ghodbane (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion and scope. --Gbawden (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
This image was uploaded for a test only, as was written within the description: "For test 1 To be deleted soon" Pikiwiki - Israel free image collection project (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of test upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
superseded by File:10 Jahre Deutsche Schule Sofia - 10 години немско училище София.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: this is the source file for the retouched version; needs to be kept for the original upload info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Dubious ownwork, the metadata suggests it is copyrighted. Sahaib (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
gif file . please delete Vaija (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
![20:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/24#c-Vaija-2022-04-24T20:51:00.000Z-File:Plant_"Red_Triangle"_02.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. Superseded by File:Plant "Red Triangle" 04.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
![18:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/04/24#c-P199-2022-06-13T18:58:00.000Z-File:Plant_"Red_Triangle"_02.gif){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which likely hasn't passed yet. So this image is probably copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eugen Maria Cordier died in 1974, so the file can be restored in 2045. --Rosenzweig τ 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_407,_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_407,_D.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_407,_D.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_407,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_407,_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_407,_C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_407,_C.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_407,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_D.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_406,_D.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_406,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_406,_C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_406,_C.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_406,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_D.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_404,_D.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_404,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_404,_C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_404,_C.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_404,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_D.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_D.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_403,_D.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_403,_D.jpg){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_403,_C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_403,_C.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1974,_MiNr_403,_C.jpg){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_453.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_453.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1973,_MiNr_453.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1973,_MiNr_453.jpg){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_408,_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1973,_MiNr_408,_A.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1973,_MiNr_408,_A.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1973,_MiNr_408,_A.jpg){kind=link}
_1972,_MiNr_411,_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1972,_MiNr_411,_A.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1972,_MiNr_411,_A.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, Hans Förtsch (died 2003) and his wife Sigrid von Baumgarten (died 2019), so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 16:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1972,_MiNr_411,_A.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Otto Rohse died in 2016, so the file can be restored in 2087. --Rosenzweig τ 16:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Otto Rohse died in 2016, so the file can be restored in 2087. --Rosenzweig τ 16:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Reinhart Heinsdorff died in 2002, so the file can be restored in 2073. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Reinhart Heinsdorff died in 2002, so the file can be restored in 2073. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Reinhart Heinsdorff died in 2002, so the file can be restored in 2073. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist de:Eduard Ege died in 1978, so the file can be restored in 2049. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist Herbert Kern died in 1998, so the file can be restored in 2069. --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- what is the name from the artist? Qwertzu111111 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- No clue. If your asking because you think the drawing might in the public domain, you could be right, but we have no way of knowing unless some can figure out who the artist is and the stamp probably constitutes an original work anyway. So the important question would be who is the stamp designer. My guess is Deutsche Bundespost and their stamps are copyrighted. In my experience it's extremely rare that a stamp of an otherwise public domain work is kept as PD. Especially in cases like this where the stamps contains it's own unique elements. We can't keep it just because we don't know who artist of the picture is in the meantime either. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, de:Hans Michel (Grafiker) (died 1996) and de:Günther Kieser (alive), so the file can be restored 70 years after Kieser's death. --Rosenzweig τ 16:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- what is the name from the artist? Qwertzu111111 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I answered you in the other nomination where you asked the same exact question. I assume the answer applies here also since they are essentially the same image. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There are two artists here, de:Hans Michel (Grafiker) (died 1996) and de:Günther Kieser (alive), so the file can be restored 70 years after Kieser's death. --Rosenzweig τ 16:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
:*
- What exactly about my nomination or the copyright law as Commons interprets it do you disagree with? The Loriot decision is pretty unambiguous that German stamps have to follow the 70 years after death rule. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We have two artists here: designer Gerd Aretz (died 2009) and engraver Wolfgang Mauer (born in 1951 and apparently alive). So the file can be restored 70 years after Mauer's death. --Rosenzweig τ 17:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We have two artists here: designer Gerd Aretz (died 2009) and engraver Wolfgang Mauer (born in 1951 and apparently alive). So the file can be restored 70 years after Mauer's death. --Rosenzweig τ 17:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We have two artists here: designer Gerd Aretz (1930–2009) and engraver Hans-Joachim Fuchs (1930–2005). So the file can be restored in 2080.--Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1990,_MiNr_874.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_874.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1990,_MiNr_874.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. The artists are Sibylle Haase-Knels and Fritz Haase, both apparently alive [3]. The file can be restored 70 years after the last of them to survive has died. --Rosenzweig τ 18:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1990,_MiNr_874.jpg){kind=link}
_1986,_MiNr_755.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1986,_MiNr_755.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1986,_MiNr_755.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. per nomination. The artist de:Heinz Schillinger died in 2008, so the file can be restored in 2079. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1986,_MiNr_755.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I don't know if artist Rudi Schmidt is still alive or when he died, so the file can be restored in 2107 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1982,_MiNr_671.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_671.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1982,_MiNr_671.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. We have two artists here: designer de:Beat Knoblauch (died 1975) and engraver Hans-Joachim Fuchs (1930–2005). So the file can be restored in 2076. --Rosenzweig τ 18:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1982,_MiNr_671.jpg){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_670.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_670.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist which clearly hasn't passed yet. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_1982,_MiNr_670.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. We have two artists here: designer de:Beat Knoblauch (died 1975) and engraver Manfred Spiegel (years of birth/death unknown, but probably alive). So the file can be restored in 2100 with {{PD-old-assumed}} (120 years after this images was first used for another stamp in 1979). --Rosenzweig τ 18:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
_1982,_MiNr_670.jpg){kind=link}
I took this photo, but I also took a similar, better version, a few months later, at File:Highway 103 in Clarksville, AR.jpg. Brandonrush (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sandi Rahmat Alzari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Meisjes-Normaalschool, vermoedelijk te Fort de Kock 2.png
- File:Meisjes-Normaalschool, vermoedelijk te Fort de Kock.jpg
- File:Kerusakan pada Normaalschool Padangpandjang setelah gempa 1926.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Image is a crop from someone else's photo https://twitter.com/optajose/status/1467180084310204425?lang=en Tell-tale signs of not being own work include lack of metadata and unusually high quality 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:8C53:8B1B:71F4:D528 17:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The source of the file is incorrect. The linked picture on Geograph Britain and Ireland, 5623868, is a completely different picture of the same milepost. Without a correct source, we must assume the file is non-free. This was slightly discussed on File talk:Milepost, Buxton Road, Castleton.jpg. bjh21 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objection. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Victuallers (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Blurry? how? i actually rotated the pattern on the kit body file KoreanDragon (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Omyłkowo wgrałam błędny plik Dzidka3221 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 19:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted album art - not de minimis. Retired electrician (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Also file apparently taken from Facebook per file metadata. --Rosenzweig τ 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Rückwärtssuche ergab, dass das Bild einer Webseite entnommen wurde. https://vonketelhodt.jimdofree.com/wappen/ Gemeinfreiheit ist nicht erwiesen, es könnte auch eine Zeichnung neueren Datums sein GerritR (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Looks old, but no old source is given, nor could I find one. --Rosenzweig τ 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation. jos van den berg died 1978. Xocolatl (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made the photo and this lino is in my possesion. There are also no known descendants of van den Berg who can claim this copyright.
- If it is still a problem, i understand. Jaap de koning (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2049. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Not public domain Victorgrigas (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This is an excerpt from a February 13, 1949 CBS television broadcast of a program called The United Nations Casebook. Chapter XXI: Genocide. In the US, broadcast is no publication, so the contemporary US copyright terms based on publication did not apply to this. If the script had been registered for copyright, things would be different, but I couldn't find such a registration. So unless someone has evidence that this was indeed registered for copyright in the US in some way, I'll assume it is in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 20:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission from the author available. Oo91 (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC) additional informationː The information in exif indicates "Kevin Standage Photography" as the author. The picture is published atː https://kevinstandagephotography.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/the-ghats-of-banaras-varanasi-kashi/comment-page-1/ (number 58. Bhonsale Ghat)--Oo91 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - permission discussion really needs to happen with VRTS. Please follow WP:VRTS for what's needed. The important part is that the email needs to come FROM the copyright holder, not forwarded from a person that's talked with the copyright holder. Ravensfire (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 22:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Original file (Hesperosuchus_specimen_location.jpg) has been deleted from Commons by JuTa because: No source since 31 October 2019. HFoxii (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Complex logo. Date provided (2 December 2021) is fairly recent and no evidence of PD due to old age is provided, thus {{PD-Malaysia}} should not apply. Government works other than literary work are not exempt from copyright. Wcam (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP, COM:TOO Malaysia. --Rosenzweig τ 21:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Germany expires 70 years after the death of the artist, which in this case clearly hasn't happened yet. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, Since when are the postal souvernir cards of a former (...and not more existing) state not more in the Public Domain? Answer: Because it's giving still ever any ancient beton heads which believe to must use the (West-)German law from the 1980s (as other state). Meanwhile however is the jurisprudence a total other in Germany, also the "Loriot"-Sentence from 2010 will change nothing on this fact. You have many work before you, when you want to use that law nevertheless. One should rework the copyright-rules at Wikimedia Commons. Simply solution: We delete simply the account of any "Löschtrolls" of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia and already one has silence. --Katharinaiv (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's extremely hard to parse out your comment, but I assume the answer to your question is to take it up on the talk page of the article for copyright laws in Germany or start a conversation about it with whomever decided to do the review of files from the DDR in the first place if you disagree with either. That's out of my peer view though. I'm just applying the copyright guidelines. In the meantime, just going off of an anti-copyright screed isn't going to lead to this or any other file that violates copyright being kept. So maybe skip it next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist Detlef Glinski (born in 1933) is apparently still alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Professional picture, apparently used elsewhere online. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader (submit a ticket otherwise). MarioGom (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, compare [4] from March 2013 (also other TinEye finds from before its upload here). --Rosenzweig τ 22:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The permission reason isn't valid since stamps aren't a means of payment and while the painting is PD a stamp is a unique work. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: derivative work of a PD painting by an artist who died in 1887. The contribution of the stamp designer to this is de minimis. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist en:Alighiero Boetti died in 1994, so the file can be restored in 2065. --Rosenzweig τ 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The image is of a stamp of an art piece, both of which are likely copyrighted. So I doubt this is in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist en:Alighiero Boetti died in 1994, so the file can be restored in 2065. --Rosenzweig τ 21:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The permission reason isn't valid since stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist de:Adolf Tuma is alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist de:Adolf Tuma is alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist de:Adolf Tuma is alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist de:Adolf Tuma is alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist en:Jannis Kounellis died in 2017, so the file can be restored in 2088. --Rosenzweig τ 17:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Permission reason isn't valid as stamps aren't means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I note that you nominated several stamps at the same time. Please merge the requests, as I assume there should be little substantial difference in the rationales for keeping or deleting.
- Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Liechtenstein#Stamps says that "The majority of Swiss copyright law commentaries does not consider stamps 'means of payment'. It is therefore likely that Liechtenstein stamps are protected by copyright as well." So your "aren't" is more correctly spelled out as "it is likely [they aren't]". I think this should be discussed on the talk page of the linked page rather than in individual deletion requests.
- Also, in Finland stamps were PD as the design was part of "a law, ordinance, international treaty or other official act" or "a decision [...] by public authorities" (nowadays the Finnish post is a normal company, although state-owned). Are the designs not decided on as decisions by public authorities in Liechtenstein? I see the Post is an "AG", but is it comparable to public authorities in this matter?
- –LPfi (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, I find the distinction between "aren't" and "likely isn't" slightly pedantic since the point in what Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Liechtenstein#Stamps says is clearly that stamps of Liechtenstein aren't in the public domain or that there is at least enough ambiguity in the law that stamps from this country shouldn't be on commons until the law is definitive. From what I have seen any time a countries copyright is unclear Commons airs on the side of caution by deleting the files. To me it's like there's a 95% chance this file isn't in the public domain. At that point there's almost no chance the file won't be deleted. Outside of that, if you think it should be discussed then your free to have that discussion. It's not something I feel like doing though since I guidelines about it seem clear enough to me. Especially since this is a modern stamp and I can guarantee the artist of the sculpture is either still alive or just died. There's no freedom of panorama with stamps either. So the copyright of Liechtenstein stamps in general is really a moot point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to update that, if it's the same artist I guess she died in 2019. So her work is still copyrighted. In some instances you might be able to argue a stamp is an original work if it has unique designs elements outside of the central image, but this one doesn't really have any. So I don't think that would fly as a keep reason. Same goes for the other images that I nominated for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the wording in that page is clear, why don't you keep to that wording? It does not say that such files shouldn't be on Commons, it says you shouldn't upload new ones because of the unclear situation. Whether the artist is alive or not is moot, nobody is arguing PD-old. The situation is more like an artist working for the US government. Let's see if there is somebody there to shed more light on the actual legal situation. –LPfi (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Except like I said in situations where people shouldn't upload new files because of the unclear laws the current ones have been deleted to abide by the precautionary principle. It's not like if someone sued the Wikimedia Media Foundation they could argue it's fine they are hosting copyrighted material because at least they aren't allowing people to upload the images anymore. That's not how copyright law works. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the wording in that page is clear, why don't you keep to that wording? It does not say that such files shouldn't be on Commons, it says you shouldn't upload new ones because of the unclear situation. Whether the artist is alive or not is moot, nobody is arguing PD-old. The situation is more like an artist working for the US government. Let's see if there is somebody there to shed more light on the actual legal situation. –LPfi (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to update that, if it's the same artist I guess she died in 2019. So her work is still copyrighted. In some instances you might be able to argue a stamp is an original work if it has unique designs elements outside of the central image, but this one doesn't really have any. So I don't think that would fly as a keep reason. Same goes for the other images that I nominated for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, I find the distinction between "aren't" and "likely isn't" slightly pedantic since the point in what Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Liechtenstein#Stamps says is clearly that stamps of Liechtenstein aren't in the public domain or that there is at least enough ambiguity in the law that stamps from this country shouldn't be on commons until the law is definitive. From what I have seen any time a countries copyright is unclear Commons airs on the side of caution by deleting the files. To me it's like there's a 95% chance this file isn't in the public domain. At that point there's almost no chance the file won't be deleted. Outside of that, if you think it should be discussed then your free to have that discussion. It's not something I feel like doing though since I guidelines about it seem clear enough to me. Especially since this is a modern stamp and I can guarantee the artist of the sculpture is either still alive or just died. There's no freedom of panorama with stamps either. So the copyright of Liechtenstein stamps in general is really a moot point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Artist it:Marisa Merz died in 2019, so the file can be restored in 2090. --Rosenzweig τ 17:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The permission reason isn't valid since stamps aren't a means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist, photographer Bruno Köpfli, is apparently alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The permission reason isn't valid since stamps aren't a means of payment. So this image is copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The artist, photographer Bruno Köpfli, is apparently alive, so the file can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The name suggests that this file is potentially taken from YouTube, which means that it is copyrighted. SummerKrut (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per this 2019 web site, it's indeed a Youtube screenshot. --Rosenzweig τ 18:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit d'image, je ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit à l'image, je soussigné Cyril Guillemin ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit à l'image, je soussigné Cyril Guillemin ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit à l'image, je soussigné Cyril Guillemin ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit à l'image, je soussigné Cyril Guillemin ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
droit à l'image, je soussigné Cyril Guillemin ne souhaite plus que cette photo soit en ligne Teambb (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request; photo apparently shows a not really notable (former?) French rugby player. --Rosenzweig τ 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
ВЦИК выпустил Конституцию РСФСР уже в новой орфографии отдельной книгой, на цветной вклейке между 4 и 5 страницами которой были помещены цветные изображения герба и флага РСФСР. При этом изображение флага представляло собой красный прямоугольник с отношением ширины к длине 5:8, в верхнем левом которого были помещены буквы Р, С, Ф, С и Р, расположенные крестообразно[5]. Налевайкин (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, also in use. If some detail of this flag should be wrong, feel free to improve it or ask others to improve it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bedivere as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I'm not sure this one is covered by {{CC-GobCL}}
Converted to regulatr DR to allow for discussion and input of other editors. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I found it here on a tweet of the general comptroler of chile--Sanandros (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as published at https://www.contraloria.cl/documents/451102/2942603/imagen/a3b841d4-4ae6-6307-8325-50a5f95763a4 on an official website of the government of Chile as per {{CC-GobCL}} and underlying official guidelines. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Its in public domain. No copyright violation, close the case. The Contraloría is not part of the Gobierno. Fitmoos (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Fitmoos: How is the Comptroller not a part of the government? How is that person paid? Do they live off the skim? How did they achieve that position? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Its in public domain. No copyright violation, close the case. The Contraloría is not part of the Gobierno. Fitmoos (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: {{CC-GobCL}} per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 13:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Chinese stamps created after 1927 are not in the public domain. So this is a copyright violation. Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:Stamps China. --Ellywa (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Chinese stamps created after 1927 are not in the public domain. So this is a copyright violation. Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:Stamps China. --Ellywa (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
_worshipping_Bahuchara_Mata.jpg){kind=link}
_worshipping_Bahuchara_Mata.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F1 - No indication of license at http://www.theindianportrait.com/artwork/maharaja-takhat-singh-worshipping-bahuchara-mata/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion of the source-site's rights-claim, as the original work is surely in the public domain already, whereby image should be ok per PD-Art on Commons. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
_worshipping_Bahuchara_Mata.jpg){kind=link}
- The time period of Karni Mata painting is 1770 as shown in the source website. And for Bahuchara Mata painting, its 1850. Shouldn't these be in public domain by now? Krayon95 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Same situation with: File:Maharaja Gaj Singhji (1723, r.1745-1787) of Bikaner worshiping goddess Karni Mata.jpg
_of_Bikaner_worshiping_goddess_Karni_Mata.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, original 2D artwork of 1850 is since long in PD. --Ellywa (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
_worshipping_Bahuchara_Mata.jpg){kind=link}
The original CC logos come with a gray background. According to the CC FAQ (May I use the Creative Commons logo and buttons?), the colours must not be changed though under trademark provisions.
- File:CC-BY icon yellow.svg
- File:CC-BY-SA icon blue.svg
- File:CC-BY-SA icon dark blue.svg
- File:CC-BY-SA icon orange.svg
- File:CC-BY-SA icon white.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Sharp (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- File:CC-BY-SA icon yellow.svg
- File:Creative Commons zero small yellow.svg
De728631 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Please view "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CC BY-SA color change" for the relevant discussion. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose the logos with different colours are unproblematic copyright-wise, but are they in scope? What's the educational use? The files are used mostly on user pages, with some uses on policy and help pages, and some in other contexts. They are used on a couple of mainspace pages, where I cannot read the caption and context. I assume the grey logo in a coloured frame would work at least equally well on the help and policy pages. I don't see any significant educational use. –LPfi (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is arguable that we are violating the trademark by hosting altered versions of the logo. It may be "trademark fair use", and maybe not -- we certainly aren't trying to use their trademark to represent a different service, which is where most trademark violations come from. It's not a copyright violation. But if it is against their wishes, it probably would not be a great idea to start spreading versions of the logos around the web that they do not want. That said... their policy page says: You are not authorized to use any modified versions of our trademarks, except that you may use a different color for the CC logo and its background so long as the two colors chosen have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1. Would these fall under that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I missed that. That's a contradiction in their own policy then. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Among other things, if you use the logos on a website or on your work, you may not alter the logos in any respect—such as by changing the font, the proportions, or the colors.
[6]You are not authorized to use any modified versions of our trademarks, except that you may use a different color for the CC logo and its background so long as the two colors chosen have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.
[7]
- I missed that. That's a contradiction in their own policy then. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Technically, the first link is a FAQ, and the second link is the actual policy. So the FAQ may be wrong, or over-generalized. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The policy also states that the logos should only be downloaded from CreativeCommons.org, which would make bundling the logo with the MediaWiki software download, or downloading the logo from Wikimedia Commons, a trademark violation: You are authorized to use our trademarks subject to this Trademark Policy, and only on the further condition that you download images of the trademarks directly from our website or apply them through software that incorporates the trademarks in Unicode.
Definitely a "can of worms". Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think a trademark owner can restrict users on where to get their copy of the logo for fair use. They can add restrictions for use that requires their consent. –LPfi (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The "can of worms" is that the entire purpose of Creative Commons is to help content creators circumvent aggressive copyright restrictions that would otherwise prevent reuse of of their original content by others. The fact that Creative Commons does not use their own Creative Commons licenses for their own work is extremely problematic since it hinders the ability to use the logo as needed or desired in order to visually represent the license. My opinion is to allow the logo alterations on Wikimedia Commons as long as it is legal to do so, with the notification that it may be against the wishes of the trademark policy owner (Creative Commons). Third-party users of the files can then decide if they want to respect the wishes of the trademark owner, or use the altered versions. I think that is the current situation, in which case no changes to any of the files already on Wikimedia Commons are needed, and additional color variants of the logo can be safely added, with the same trademark notification. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- If their logos aren't copyrightable (as they are too simple, "textlogos"), then using copyright licences would be more or less copyfraud. And not registering them as trademarks would make them unusable for their purpose: to make recognising CC-licensed works easy. –LPfi (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The "can of worms" is that the entire purpose of Creative Commons is to help content creators circumvent aggressive copyright restrictions that would otherwise prevent reuse of of their original content by others. The fact that Creative Commons does not use their own Creative Commons licenses for their own work is extremely problematic since it hinders the ability to use the logo as needed or desired in order to visually represent the license. My opinion is to allow the logo alterations on Wikimedia Commons as long as it is legal to do so, with the notification that it may be against the wishes of the trademark policy owner (Creative Commons). Third-party users of the files can then decide if they want to respect the wishes of the trademark owner, or use the altered versions. I think that is the current situation, in which case no changes to any of the files already on Wikimedia Commons are needed, and additional color variants of the logo can be safely added, with the same trademark notification. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The trademark notification on Wikimedia Commons for Creative Commons logos should be altered to mention which specific version of the logo is the official trademark (the one with the gray background), and which versions of the logo on Wikimedia Commons are unofficial/unauthorized altered versions, with a hyperlink to (or quoted text from) the Creative Commons trademark policies. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find a reason to delete at least these 3 yellow images:
- Note: that yellow is the official Creative Commons yellow color, related to the Free Cultural Work project (see https://freedomdefined.org/upload/CCBY_yellow.png , ...). Just as a note, if you delete these yellow files we have also to update upstream in at least the WMIT wiki e.g. [8] --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: there appears some confusion about trade mark provisions and copyright. The trademark is covered by the warning templates on the file pages. These logo's are not copyrighted imho, because they are simple text logo's, as mentioned in the discussion. Als Creative Commons is located in the USA, these logo's cannot be copyrighted. So the variants with other colors can be kept on Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)