Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/05/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
i accidently posted it Jim johnson11 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 07:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
استخدام خاطئ Safa rawashdeh (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
لنشره عن طريق الخطا سحابة الاعمال (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Accidental request. For sure you didn't post the MainPage or its talk page. --Achim55 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Photograph by ESA astronaut Matthias Mauer. Photographs by ESA astronauts (and ESA employees in general) are copyrighted unless specifically released under a CC license. No evidence that this image has been released as such. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Mistaken creation, intended to speedy this image. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I realized it is bad for my privacy Salman684 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake AnkurAmrit (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake AnkurAmrit (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupe of File:Ramsingh Tola.png. --Achim55 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
film of a film - not "own work" Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete, I simultaneously flagged this as an obvious copyright violation of the 1984 Apple Macintosh ad. Wikipedia uses a fair use still of it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ad_apple_1984_2.png. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality JPG compared to existing higher-quality PNG: Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Bengali Logo.png. Smaller, with jpg artifacts. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposal does not make any sense. The two images are not the same. The writing is in different languages. File:AAP FLAG.jpg is an appropriate one for the Punjab - you can see the same writing in this news story about Aam Aadmi Party Announces Bhagwant Mann As CM Face In Punjab. File:Aam_Aadmi_Party_(AAP)_Bengali_Logo.png is probably an appropriate one for Bengal, where people speak different languages than the Punjab. The AAP has different variants of their logo in different scripts for different languages. Their Facebook and Twitter pages have latin script versions of the logo.
Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
_Bengali_Logo.png){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Warri._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Delta._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_April_2022.jpg){kind=link}
![97 File:Recorrido de Olga y su hijo Rafael en "Tenga para que se entretenga".png](#File:Recorrido_de_Olga_y_su_hijo_Rafael_en_"Tenga_para_que_se_entretenga".png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![120 File:The Body Shop "Of a man" aftershave balm.jpg](#File:The_Body_Shop_"Of_a_man"_aftershave_balm.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_Bengali_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Oppose per Toddy1 Dhruv edits (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn...didn't notice the language-difference. --DMacks (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
{{copyvio|1=A licença no Flickr não é compatível com o Commons; Copyright}} Kongs (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of image here: [1] Pbritti (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of image here: [2] Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of image here: [3] Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of image here: [4] Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of image here: [5] Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense TheMisti (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim55 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Lichtenstein8460 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: original image from Arts Practicum removed, copyright by the artist withheld
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion due to recent edit-warring. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It does look like the image has been made private. That does not mean the copyright has been revoked as far as I can tell--I don't think that is possible--but it does mean someone might prefer we not use this image. I found a reasonable alternative, and I may reach out to the artist to see if she's willing to provide a preferred photo. Freelance-frank (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week (9th and 11th of May). Taivo (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The image was removed and copyright is withheld by the artist. Please reach out directly regarding the photograph currently used which should be removed as well.
OOS junk Dronebogus (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
i want to upload another photo Herma99 (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Fitindia at 17:13, 20 May 2022 UTC: No permission since 12 May 2022 --Krdbot 19:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
COM:FANART of the character of Shishimaru from Ninja Hattori (https://ninjahattori.fandom.com/wiki/Shishimaru). Lord Belbury (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Wutsje at 19:16, 21 May 2022 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10): Mass deletion of pages added by Ahamed Kafir M --Krdbot 01:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Source links to a youtube video? That is a platform, not a datasource. Ultimately a CopyVio probably from GoogleMaps or some other satellite-map provider. Enyavar (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Clear GoogleMaps Copyvio Enyavar (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
source link doesn't lead to this picture. Looks to be a GoogleMaps CopyVio (basemap) Enyavar (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
copyright image - Dongyo Entertainment Evaders99 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Oos crap Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Joaquín Guardado (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PORN, low resolution files of common subject
- File:Coito y creampie vaginal 2.jpg
- File:Coito y creampie vaginal 3.jpg
- File:Coito y creampie vaginal 1.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by File:The Feels.svg. ✗plicit 01:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of Scope for Commons. Only used on ENWP user page - RichT|C|E-Mail 05:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
corrupted file. unable to fix it. 웃OO 07:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
unused private photo of no encyclopedical use, with watermark. Pibwl (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 04:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk · contribs)
[edit]useless unused thumbnails of no apparent ency value
- File:WE ARE SO COOL,WEDDING COCKTAIL PARTY,SHOW,1996.jpg
- File:ROOKIE GROUP OF THE YEAR AWARD,FRONT SHOT.jpg
- File:RECEIVING ACAPPELLA ROOKIE GROUP OF THE YEAR,1994.jpg
- File:LEAD EAST OLDIE SHOW.jpg
- File:ON STAGE 1995.jpg
- File:PERFORMING AT THE ROOKIE GROUP AWARD VENUE.jpg
- File:PERFORMING AT HIGH SCHOOL OLDIE SHOW,WITH 60'S GROUP THE BOX TOPS.1998.jpg
Pibwl (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
it is COM:ADVERTisement Nutshinou Talk! 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a COM:SELFIE, used nowhere Nutshinou Talk! 13:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elia.Hajbabaei (talk · contribs)
[edit]SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Elia.H 9.jpg
- File:Elia.H 8.jpg
- File:Elia.H 6.jpg
- File:Elia.H 3.jpg
- File:Elia.H 5.jpg
- File:Elia.H.jpg
JopkeB (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamed Mosaad 224 (talk · contribs)
[edit]SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
JopkeB (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality image that was disruptively placed on the English Wikipedia by an anon IP Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content - raw text - best hosted elsewhere Headlock0225 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused photos of non-notable persons, no educational value, out of scope. And likely not own works: inconsistent or FB code in EXIF data (File:CitrusInvite2015.jpg).
- File:LopezArmbar.jpg
- File:Coachfoote.jpg
- File:2coaches4williams.jpg
- File:El Heffe.jpg
- File:CitrusInvite2015.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chem461S16Group5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Likely screengrabs.
- File:Staircase vs linear.jpg
- File:Scan rate 5.jpg
- File:Current vs voltage.jpg
- File:Potentialwaveform.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Text table, should be in wiki-table format, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused business marketing infographics, likely uploaded for promotional purposes, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope.
- File:Architecture-MedRecs.png
- File:DevOps-MedRecs.png
- File:MedRecs-DevOps.png
- File:MedRecs-Devops.png
- File:MedRecs-Architecture.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable fans of a non-notable team, no educational value, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sandra Alonso Sanchez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused bookcovers, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. And likely under copyright.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused image of nondescript place/building, no location, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused text image, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot per metadata, missing permission. And not notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused text table, should be in wiki-table format if needed, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Markus4530 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused very low-res diagrams without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope.
- File:Dibujo 1 .gif
- File:Parte 2.1.jpg
- File:Parte 2.jpg
- File:Parte 1.jpg
- File:Pentagono-irregular-area.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused screenshot snippet, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jaberahmad (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal certificate, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Poor photograph of no encyclopedic value, claimed to be of a minor (with personal details, whether genuine or fictional), originally uploaded for a draft on en:Wikipedia that's now deleted as a hoax. Hoary (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED: Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills
- File:Bow New Hampshire 22.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 21.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 20.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 19.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 17.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 18.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 23.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 16.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 15.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 13.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 14.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 12.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 11.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 10.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 9.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 8.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 7.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 6.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 3.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 5.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 4.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 1.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire.jpg
- File:Bow New Hampshire 2.jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (2).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (4).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (6).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (5).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (9).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (7).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (10).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (8).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (3).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (14).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (13).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (11).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman.jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (1).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (15).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (17).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (25).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (18).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (200).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (28).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (27).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (24).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (16).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (21).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (23).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (29).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (20).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (26).jpg
- File:29-year-old-woman (22).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (ac).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (aa).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (ab).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (z).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (y).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (x).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (w).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (v).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (u).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (t).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (s).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (r).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (o).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (q).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (p).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (l).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (n).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (m).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (k).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (i).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (j).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (h).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (f).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (g).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (d).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (e).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (c).jpg
- File:29 year old woman (a).jpg
- File:29 year old woman.jpg
- File:29 year old woman (b).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Takeaway (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]You cannot just screenshot something and upload it as CC BY-SA, because you are creating a derivative work of the stuff you screenshot, and you have to clear the copyright in that as well. The search engine screenshots infringe the copyright in image thumbnails shown, and also in Windows / the browser. The Wikimedia screenshots do not properly attribute the MediaWiki software or the screenshotted pages and images; if any of the images is non-free then the screenshot is a copyvio.
- File:Gretchen Andrew Search Engine Art & Internet Imperialism Results, Bow NH.png
- File:Gretchen Andrew Search Engine Art & Internet Imperialism Results.png
- File:Wikimedia-girl.png
- File:Wikimedia deletion.png
BethNaught (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
BethNaught I understand now and am happy to execute these deletions but not sure how to. Any clear instructions are very welcomeGretchenandrew (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Gretchenandrew: Please read COM:DP. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, COM:OOS copyvio screenshots. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader agreed to deletion. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 3
[edit]Self-created artwork without obvious educational uses, out of COM:SCOPE. See Commons:Project scope/Summary. Also: COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED.
- File:Perfect-female-body-15.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-14.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-13.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-12.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-11.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-10.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-9.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-8.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-7.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-6.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-4.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-5.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-1.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-3.jpg
- File:Perfect-female-body-2.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-17.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-18.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-16.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-15.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-14.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-13.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-12.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-11.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-10.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-8.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-9.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-7.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-6.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-5.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-4.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-2.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-3.jpg
- File:Powerful-person-1.jpg
- File:Female-conception-14.jpg
- File:Female-conception-13.jpg
- File:Female-conception-12.jpg
- File:Female-conception-11.jpg
- File:Female-conception-10.jpg
- File:Female-conception-9.jpg
- File:Female-conception-8.jpg
- File:Female-conception-7.jpg
- File:Female-conception-4.jpg
- File:Female-conception-5.jpg
- File:Female-conception-1.jpg
- File:Female-conception-2.jpg
- File:Female-conception-3.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 13.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 12.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 11.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 10.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 9.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 8.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 7.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 6.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 5.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 4.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 3.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 2.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer.jpg
- File:Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer 1.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-48.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-47.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-46.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-44.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-45.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-43.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-42.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-41.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-39.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-40.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-38.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-37.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-36.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-35.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-33.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-34.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-30.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-32.jpg
- File:Bow-new-hampshire-31.jpg
- File:Displacement-8.jpg
- File:Displacement-9.jpg
- File:Displacement-7.jpg
- File:Displacement-3.jpg
- File:Displacement-6.jpg
- File:Displacement-4.jpg
- File:Displacement-5.jpg
- File:Displacement-2.jpg
- File:Displacement-1.jpg
- File:Displacement-0.jpg
Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Steinsplitter I disagree with these deletions. Please see the on going discussion on Village Pump in regards to art and educational value, in particularly in regards to the supremacy of photography and the role of image in the education of intelligent machines. It is currently being argued that art is not removed for the scope reason you listed.
@Yann: @Jeff G: @Colin: @Christian Ferrer: @Dvdgmz: @Seeeko: @Donald Trung: @Ruthven: He is an example of work being flagged for removal NOT because of poor quality, poor categorization but because it is not photography. Gretchenandrew (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Citing from COM:PS: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Imho this is a (personal) artwork without obvious educational use. It is your personal art as fare i can see. I did not read the linked discussion/proposal[sic.] yet because tons of text, however the policy has not changed yet (and likely there is no consensus to do so, i fail to see a poll). Best. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Childish art, poor quality. No educational use. Any art reproduction smaller than 2 Mpx is of poor quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Yann as COM:OOS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a fun coincidence for Yann to call my work childish as I spent 5 years training with Billy Childish. I've shown work with The V&A Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I am managed by Stefan Simchowitz. Assuming their opinons on work quality are at least equally valid, let's set aside "childish" as not a valid reason for removal. Poor quality re: image size is interesting. This seems like a rule of thumb but I can believe it is documented somewhere as a guideline. I'd like to read up on this. These images were intentionally sized to the maximum size required to convey the necessary information. Smaller image size is very important to communities, users, and geographies for whom unlimited high speed data is not a given. These images are as large as they need to be. This leaves us with the question of "educationally useful." Can we agree this is the point of contention and reason for deletion alone? If so, happy to respond in depth about that. Steinsplitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gretchenandrew (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Now signed: Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Gretchenandrew: Re the size issue, please read COM:FTSS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, thanks for the article on COM:FTSS. Interesting information but I don't see where it says anything like, "Any art reproduction smaller than 2 Mpx is of poor quality." But I am happy to exchange these images for .png of higher quality if we can agree that will allow them to remain on the site? Thoughts Yann?Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Though I have not yet heard from Steinsplitter as to whether or not we can agree on "educationally useful" as the point of contention here is why, by category, I believe these images to be so:
Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer files - These paintings are about me and my family’s experience of my mom’s ongoing struggle with Malignant epithelial ovarian cancer. Just as battles are not just defined by tactical maps, we are not educated about disease only by what is seen under a telescope. What is cancer? Is it a set of medical diagrams? There is educational value in the humanizing the experience. Is it possible that doctors and researchers studying the disease could learn from a more intricately expressed understanding of how one family has responded to the disease and its treatment? Is it possible that other patients and their families, having just been diagnosed with the disease and turning to the internet, could find educational value in artwork that speaks to their experience? Here art’s educational role is to share experience and to humanise.
Bow New Hampshire files - What is a place? Why is a historic photo depicting a possibly unrepresentative structure more educationally useful than an artistically rendered depiction of the interior of a structure? Each are of a place and time, each show a narrow perspective, each tell a story, each have a point of view. If you’ve never been to Bow, New Hampshire what is the best way to educate you on it as a place? Here art’s educational value is to remind us that life in a particular place is lived by individuals with individual lives that are nonetheless deeply defined by the place itself.
Perfect Female Body files - The female body rendered in photographic or diagram form has a long history of the male gaze, the act of depicting the world and women in the visual arts and literature from a masculine and heterosexual point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. The female body as depicted from the female point of view has educational value in both a competitive and individual sense. The internet and its imagery are important modes of cultural cues and information for those growing up today. Allowing art into this conversation, into the definition, expands the educational value of images, all of which should be read with consideration to who made them and for what purpose.
Female Conception files - The act of conception is very often misrepresented as an active male sperm penetrating a passive egg. As the egg exert a pulling force this is scientifically untrue. Here is a perfect example how a seemingly innocuous scientific diagram can perpetuate a discriminatory world view. All images, event photography even diagrams, contain bias and perspective. In acknowledging this Wikimedia can see a clearer path to allowing non-photographic images to exist as equals on the site. The act of conception is everywhere plagued by this misunderstanding that perpetuates serytoes and limiting gender roles. These images are about conception, portraying women as equal partners in the biological process.
Powerful person files - Artificial intelligence is in the process of using wikipedia and search results more broadly to learn to identify and make decisions based on images and their associated words. To limit “power” to white men and political figures is to narrow an important concept to a western ideal. Here the works are educationally useful to the education of intelligent machines which are learning to identify what power is based on existing content. It should be noted that in all of these cases the argument of how intelligent machines are using wikipedia to receive their education is relevant.
Displacement files - The dictionary definition of displacement is, “the moving of something from its place or position.” In scientific terms displacement is the measuring of volume through submerging an object in a fluid. In human terms our time continues to see the movement of displaced persons. Within Freudian psychology displacement is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind substitutes either a new aim or a new object for goals felt in their original form to be dangerous or unacceptable. In all its definitions there are questions of scales and pressures alongside an implied feeling of a vanished the initial state. Displacement is something different to the scientist, the refugee, the psychologist and the artist. Because displacement has many overlapping definitions used by specialized communities it is an especially important word to be represented by art. The artist’s unique role is to operate between the structures of language, in gaps not covered by its various uses and definitions.
In summary - Part of art’s educational role is to add humanity and experience into the understanding of what is something is or can be, the offering of an intentionally personal experience into the universal. Might these works be considered just as educationally useful as a lot of armature photography allowed on the site? And possibly might they fulfill a knowledge gap that is distinctively difficult to span with text and photography?
This is not about free hosting or self promotion. The required labor of categorization differentiates these image and their context from sites like DeviantArt and Flickr. These images, as more as any others on the site, have been intentionally added for their educational value to both people and artificially intelligent machines.
I argue these images are educationally useful and should be allowed to remain. Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep I think you are onto something here. Specifically, this paragraph:
In summary - Part of art’s educational role is to add humanity and experience into the understanding of what is something is or can be, the offering of an intentionally personal experience into the universal. Might these works be considered just as educationally useful as a lot of [amateur] photography allowed on the site? And possibly might they fulfill a knowledge gap that is distinctively difficult to span with text and photography?
- And this one from your proposal at the village pump:
Considering art's unique role in education, how do we make space for paintings, drawings, [and] non-photographic interpretations of what words mean within wikimedia? One suggestion would be to remove “Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills” as an example of something that is not in scope and allow artwork to be removed on other grounds.
- The policy you are disputing comes from here: COM:EDUSE and COM:NOTUSED, where "educational" is very broadly defined there as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". By that intentionally broad definition it is hard to argue that your images are not educational - and to that point you provided some non-traditional, but completely valid, explanations of their educational value (if not instructional, then informative knowledge) above.
- I think you start to run into trouble because, with this view, it is hard to see how the example "artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" would apply to any seriously considered artwork, regardless of the subjective opinion of the artists' skills, as long as there was a reasonable instructional or informative educational rational for the image in question. It is important to recognize (and justify) that by proposing the removal of that example from the policy page you are (not inappropriately) suggesting a fairly radical change to Commons policy compared to how most people have interpreted the policy historically. I think some editors are concerned the change could lead to a large increase in the number of images hosted on the commons, but I don't think that concern is a fair reason to dismiss your proposed change.
- Unfortunately, I'm not very active on the Wikimedia Commons, and so I'm not able to point to any other specific policies or guidelines that support this view. However, based on this rationale, and assuming you have a reasonable educational explanation for each image, I think these images should be kept on the Commons and accordingly the example in question should be removed or changed to better reflect the potential educational value of non-photographic images when explained appropriately. Cheers. ~ PaulC/T+ 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, no educational value. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 4
[edit]Self-created artwork without obvious educational uses, out of COM:SCOPE. See Commons:Project scope/Summary. Also: COM:NOTHOST an COM:NOTUSED. See also pervious deletion requests.
- File:What-is-ubuntu (13).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (12).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (10).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (11).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (9).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (8).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (7).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (6).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (5).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (4).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (1).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (2).jpg
- File:What-is-ubuntu (3).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, OOS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Note - All files restored, as [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=320069475&oldid=320066098 they are now on scope.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 5
[edit]Thirteen versions of the same text logo with different border sizes, none of them in use.
- File:Art-basel-nft-18.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-17.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-16.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-15.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-14.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-13.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-12.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-11.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-10.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-9.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-8.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-6.jpg
- File:Art-basel-nft-7.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
{{Vk}} File:Art-basel-nft-11.jpg as the best and Delete the restall per nom as oos. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC) edited 16:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)- Keep notorious artist donating content to Wikimedia projects. --Joalpe (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are thirteen copies of the same text image, with the same identical summary description ("Art Basel NFT"), that differ only in their border widths. There is no explanation of their purpose, none of them are in use, and it's not even clear that they're meant to be 13 distinct artworks. If an artist uploaded a portrait with 13 different border widths, or 100, or 2000, would Commons always keep all of them? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Lord Belbury: Is that a !vote? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was intended as a response to the point that the images were all usefully donated art. No objection to Jeff's suggestion to keep one of them, although it would be nice to know what the image is actually meant to be. Is it an artwork called "Art Basel NFT", is it an NFT, is it a logo for a show, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Lord Belbury: Thanks. It would be a real shame if file 11 was what she was trying to sell as an NFT. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was intended as a response to the point that the images were all usefully donated art. No objection to Jeff's suggestion to keep one of them, although it would be nice to know what the image is actually meant to be. Is it an artwork called "Art Basel NFT", is it an NFT, is it a logo for a show, etc. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Lord Belbury: Is that a !vote? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are thirteen copies of the same text image, with the same identical summary description ("Art Basel NFT"), that differ only in their border widths. There is no explanation of their purpose, none of them are in use, and it's not even clear that they're meant to be 13 distinct artworks. If an artist uploaded a portrait with 13 different border widths, or 100, or 2000, would Commons always keep all of them? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. and Jeff. Yann (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gretchenandrew (talk · contribs) 6
[edit]Derivative works. See one of the source at Getty Images.
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-29.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-28.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-27.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-25.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-5.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-6.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-4.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-1.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-3.jpg
- File:Contemporary-art-auction-record-2.jpg
Yann (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Two images here are freely licenced (albeit uncredited, they are copies of File:Sahajdhari Sikh.jpg and File:Sukh Dhaliwal.jpg), but the bottom left image may not be. https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1274756688726261762 and other sources have used it online in news stories from 2020. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, based on lower–left image being non-free. The same uploader uploaded it at File:Sikh_sheajdhari.jpg, which I have speedy-deleted as copyvio. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ethanscholar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted album artworks, all need OTRS
- File:Wake up radio single art.jpg
- File:Queen Of Rock and Roll Art.jpg
- File:Meltdown .jpg
- File:Stoker Band Logo.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akademie uměleckých talentů (talk · contribs)
[edit]Source is archiv MenArt - we need OTRS
- File:MenART Michal Gabriel.jpg
- File:MenART Jan Kodet.jpg
- File:MenART Viliam Dočolomanský.jpg
- File:MenART Beata Hlavenková.jpg
- File:MenART Alžběta Skálová.jpg
- File:MenART Richard Loskot.jpg
- File:MenART Jan Ostrý.jpg
- File:MenART Ivo Kahánek.jpg
- File:MenART Radek Baborák.jpg
- File:MenART Kateřina Kněžíková.jpg
- File:MenART Dominika Špalková.jpg
- File:MenART Jan Fišer.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emmabrowngarrett (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional photos, uploader claims to be the subject. I found one here https://www.facebook.com/ebgauctions/photos/3216290185049219 in 2020, before upload. Unlikely to be own work, PCP
Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Likely not own work: credit in EXIF data and filename not matching the uploader. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism. Author took the sourced original file and inserted his own penis (or worse) as tanner stage 4 , with an obviously photoshoped copy paste of the hair from stage 3 placed above. Aréat (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is trivial rubin16 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Warri._jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_Warri._jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright image. Clearly marked as "BigH Studios" in exif data Velella (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Warri._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Warri._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation? see metadata. Xocolatl (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Copyright viloation. Clearly marked "copyright holder=BigH Studios" in exif data Velella (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Main part of this image is copied from https://www.theworldsikhnews.com/tribute-to-deep-sidhu-sikh-national-hero-and-shining-soldier-of-panjaab/ discospinster (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - you can also see several youtube videos have this as their image - [6]. Ravensfire (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Appears to be a GoogleMap CopyVio? Anyway, also unused and low quality. If this is an area of interest should be re-mapped via OSM or wikitools. Enyavar (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. It looks like this exhibition is showing contemporary pieces of art work, of which the makers will not be dead for 70+ years, so these works are not in the public domain. And I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Is not for commercial purposes.. Marcia Bia (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No free license at source, images may not be altered without permission or used in a manner that could be offensive to the photographer, also may not be used for commercial purposes. --Rosenzweig τ 20:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplikat von Naturpark Bautzen Stauteich Binnewitzer Wasser (16) Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 20:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The only uploader's contribution, low resolution, missing metadata; claimed to be uploaded by impersonator. Xunks (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Photos of textbook uploaded by Rhenoar Ramalho (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs lack Exif data, are small (800×800px), and have JPEG compression artifacts. This means they are unlikely to be originals, and therefore not the uploader's own work. Delete as COPYVIO.
- File:MENINA SEGURANDO NAS MÃOS LIVRO MEDIÚNICO.jpg
- File:Livro Diário das Aulas de Ciências Econômicas.jpg
- File:Contracapa do livro Diário das Aulas de Ciências Econômicas.jpg
- File:Coluna do livro Diário das Aulas de Ciências Econômicas.jpg
- File:Capa do livro Diário das Aulas de Ciências Econômicas.jpg
Senator2029 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The coat of arms of the commune of Sainte-Foy-l'Argentière actually does using the fake coat of arms. This may be the coat of arms is not really real, and considering the fake coat of arms. For more information in the French Wikipedia, see the article. Heraldrist (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Il s'agit de Sainte-Foy-l'Argentière et non de Sainte-Foy-les-Lyons. --Yann (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Fake coat of arms Heraldrist (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment In use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in use. --Yann (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It's unlikely that this image was taken by the uploader or that it was ever published under a free licence. The copyright note in the EXIF data says "Copyright:Fotostudio Attersee". Other EXIF information of the same user says "LUFTBILD-SERVICE GMBH" ('Translates to "Airimage Service Inc"). The username is just the name of the a power plant in Austria. I highly doubt that this or any other file by the uploader is truely their own work. This deletion request thereby applies to all files by the user. Hangman'sDeath (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by FMSky as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Delta._jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_Delta._jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright viloation. Clearly marked "copyright=BigH Studios" in exif data Velella (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Delta._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
_in_Delta._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
._jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright viloation. Clearly marked "copyright holder=BigH Studios" in exif data Velella (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
._jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright viloation. Clearly marked "copyright holder=BigH Studios" in exif data Velella (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Logo copyright uncertain, poor quality photograph of a computer screen. MKFI (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work? See here. No metadata. Wouter (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This Hitler picture is cropped and rotated from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-048-29A, Adolf Hitler retouched.jpg and is only used in one user page. I believe it is out of COM:Scope. MKFI (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Same as File:Philonides of laodicea.jpg 181.230.113.80 06:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Beats by dre.PNG 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This scupture was installed after March 1989, per COM:PACUSA. See [7]. Magnolia677 (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The author is not the copyright holder of this file, which is the logo of an organization. The logo may be copyrightable in some jurisdictions and may be subject to non-free jurisdictions. If the logo is not copyrightable in its source country or the United States, it may be public domain, but a trademark notice must be provided. Aviation News and Information (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, in use. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
copy vio: image from Google Street View Wiki Farazi (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
_April_2022.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_April_2022.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copy vio: image from Google Street View Wiki Farazi (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
_April_2022.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
_April_2022.jpg){kind=link}
Unreadable map (this is a case where a SVG map is inferior to a raster reproduction); also a derivative of a PD-old map is not equal to "own work." Source should be stated. Enyavar (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Edit: found the original. --Enyavar (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:David-hamilton-melby-05122424-kopi kopier.jpg
User-created map with a Google Map of Mexico City as its background. This underlying map imagery is copyrighted to Google and cannot be hosted on Commons. Would suggest using openstreetmap.org instead. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
![09:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/05/16#c-Lord_Belbury-2022-05-16T09:03:00.000Z-File:Recorrido_de_Olga_y_su_hijo_Rafael_en_"Tenga_para_que_se_entretenga".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
![21:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/05/16#c-Yann-2022-05-29T21:06:00.000Z-File:Recorrido_de_Olga_y_su_hijo_Rafael_en_"Tenga_para_que_se_entretenga".png){kind=link}
Images is credited to "Stve Tanner" at https://library.fxplus.ac.uk/nick-darke-cpa1, which questions uploader's "own work"-claim. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No permission from newspaper Venzz (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Professional photo, with no exif, unlikely to be own work. Found widely on the web Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection - it's not true, especially for letters S, H, K. It's not simple text, like "KALUSH". So the image is not in the public domain and so is copyrighted. Brateevsky {talk} 10:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- @Brateevsky: I've just simplified the text removing the unnecessary drip and using the Kerberos Fang Font; therefore the issue seems solved. France3c0 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This would make it a derivative work of non-free content (CSD F3). — Ætoms (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
COM:SCREENSHOT, wallpaper here appears to be a stock Microsoft Windows background (https://tineye.com/search/6511ad13bda18f84a02f3acfa1c31410a646878f?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1) rather than the uploader's own photograph. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Artwork has a 2007 signature at the bottom, so unlikely the artist would have uploaded it to Commons in 2015 asking it to be credited instead to "Boatymcboatface11". Image is also a form of COM:FANART of Barney the Dinosaur. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
who is vjm? probably copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
17 kb, no metadata - probabyl copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded this years ago and am not sure if I obtained the right permissions. I would like to delete this picture to be sure. Filipino Mark (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This film was released in 2021, so this poster cannot be in the public domain (in Japan: 70 years after the dead of the maker). And I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photo is a screenshot, so not in the public domain and I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Bildschirmfoto Bennomeyer
[edit]Copyright violation. These photos are screenschots, so not free of copyrights. And I do not see VRT tickets.
- File:Bildschirmfoto 2022-03-16 um 15.10.52.png
- File:Bildschirmfoto 2022-03-16 um 15.10.29.png
- File:Bildschirmfoto 2022-03-16 um 15.11.14.png
JopkeB (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Logo Victuallers (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused JPEG logo, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photograph is on many websites, for instance https://cryptonomist.ch/2022/04/20/elon-musk-contro-cda-twitter/ and https://www.indiannation.in/https-www-rt-com-news-554649-elon-musk-coca-cola-elon-musk-tweets-hell-buy-coca-cola-next/. It looks like a photo made by a professionial photographer. I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This photo was taken by famous professional chess photographer David Llada (seen on EXIF data) and some random editor uploaded to wikipedia falsely claiming it to be his "own work". 187.11.201.229 13:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation? It looks like this is a still of a video, see for instance https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/jihadi-johns-angry-dad-may-god-take-revenge-my-son-n316391. I do not see a VRT ticket JopkeB (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Source for photo is given to be https://mattchristine.com/photo which contains no indication that the image is released under the CC license claimed at upload, just a standard copyright notice. Jayron32 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
previously published here: https://www.palermotoday.it/user/profile/alessandra/65042112696689/#contenuti-comunicati Bradipo Lento (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
According to the file description this is taken from a book ("libro"). If so, Wikimedia Commons needs COM:VRT permission from copyright owner. If not, this is probably out of scope. Strakhov (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Tagged as fair use on en.wp. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for 2D works. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING. Wcam (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
![14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/05/16#c-Wcam-2022-05-16T14:54:00.000Z-File:The_Body_Shop_"Of_a_man"_aftershave_balm.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, simple enough. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
![21:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/05/16#c-Yann-2022-05-29T21:16:00.000Z-File:The_Body_Shop_"Of_a_man"_aftershave_balm.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative works from advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
See watermark in lower center/right which credits "SarBOAT Photography". Evidence of permission is needed. See also uploader history of copyvios. Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Not licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 in source. RickMorais (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Cloud Gate is copyrighted. There is no FoP for sculptures in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GeorgHH as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Image onlineMarketinges.jpg
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as per Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates (PNG -> JPEG). -- Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Obviously a derivative work from some newspaper clipping, certainly not "own work". 91.34.37.224 18:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Copying uploader response from his user disk. to this page. --91.34.37.224 21:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Das Foto gehörte einer Firma, die schon seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr existiert. Für das Foto existiert kein Rechtsinhaber mehr. Es ist gemeinfrei CharlesRabbit (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Translation:
- The picture belonged to a company that has not existed any more for decades. There is no copyright holder. It is in public domain.
- Hallo CharlesRabbit, es existiert mit Sicherheit ein Rechteinhaber (auch wenn wir den möglicherweise nicht wissen), und zwar der Fotograf des Bildes. Das Urheberrecht verbleibt immer beim Fotografen; es ist nach deutschem Recht nicht übertragbar (außer im Todesfall an die Erben). Es kann also der Firma nicht gehört haben. Gemeinfrei wäre das Foto erst, wenn der Fotograf 70 Jahre tot ist. Das ist - da der Fotografierte erst 1959 geboren wurde - schlechterdings nicht möglich. --91.34.37.224 21:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Translation:
- There is most certainly a copyright holder (even if we may not know who it is) - the photographer. By German law, the Urheberrecht is non-transferable and always remains with the photographer, the only exception being passing it on to his heirs in case of his death. Thus the Urheberrecht cannot have belonged to the company. Neither can the photo be in public domain. The subject of the photo was born in 1959, so there is no way the photographer can have been dead for 70 years. --91.34.37.224 21:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hallo 91.34.37.224, das ist korrekt, jedoch nur teilweise. Die 70-Jahre-nach-dem-Tod-Regelung über die Erlöschung des Urheberrechts findet nur auf Werke im Sinne des § 2 UrhG Anwendung. Bei dem Foto könnte es sich nur um ein Lichtbildwerk handeln. Da es jedoch eine unveränderte und naturgetreue Wiedergabe der Realität bei haltet, ist das Foto ein Lichtbild i.S.d. § 72 UrhG. Nach § 72 III UrhG erlischt das Urheberrecht an einem Lichtbild 50 Jahre nach Entstehung bzw. Erscheinen des Werkes.
- Bist Du so nett, Deine Diskussionsbeiträge zu signieren (mit viermal Tilde ~ oder per Klick oberhalb des Bearbeitungsfensters)? Danke.
- O.k., so wie's aussieht, bräuchten wir jetzt ein halbes Dutzend Juristen, die sich darüber die Köppe einhauen, bis wann ein Bild ein "Lichtbild" ist. Unser Artikel sagt dazu "Als einfache Lichtbilder gelten dadurch beispielsweise nur mehr Automatenfotos (ohne besondere Gestaltung), Bilder aus Überwachungskameras, Satellitenaufnahmen und Ähnliches."
- Mit der Formulierung "unveränderte und naturgetreue Wiedergabe der Realität" jedenfalls habe ich Schwierigkeiten. Schon die Wahl des Bildausschnittes stellt eine massive Veränderung der Realität dar. Und dann gar noch die Umwandlung der üblicherweise in Farbe dargestellten Realität in Schwarzweiß - da kann man aber drüber streiten, ob das "naturgetreu" ist. --91.34.37.224 23:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hallo! Vielen Dank für die liebe Antwort. Ich lerne noch! Danke für den Tipp zur Singierung. Habe gerade bereits eine Antwort verfasst, die wurde jedoch von Wikipedia durch einen Bug gelöscht. Kurz gefasst: Ich bin Jura-Student mit Schwerpunkt Urheberrecht und kenne mich mit der Sache ganz gut aus. Nach der Gesetzesbegründung soll zwar durch § 72 UrhG lediglich die „rein technische Leistung“ geschützt werden (vgl. BT-Drucks IV 270, S. 88). Dennoch fordert die Rechtsprechung zusätzlich „ein Mindestmaß an persönlicher geistiger Leistung, wie es in der Regel schon bei einfachen Fotografien gegeben ist“ (vgl. BGH ZUM 2000, 233, 234). Für den Werkschutz in § 2 UrhG benötigt man dagegen grds. eine ausreichende Individualität des Werkes. LG!
CharlesRabbit (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mehdi Tehrani
[edit]Restored following this request. A wider discussion is needed. I included File:Mehdi tehrani (5).jpg, which has the same status.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Marines Major .Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani.jpg
- File:Mehdi tehrani (4).jpg
- File:Mehdi tehrani (5).jpg
- File:سرگرد تفنگدار دریایی مهدی تهرانی.jpg
- File:مهدی تهرانی.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by پاتريشيا67. Yann (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all files specially includes File:Mehdi tehrani (4).jpg, File:Mehdi tehrani (5).jpg in the public domain by the sources. So much crystal clear. Thanks.پاتريشيا67 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep These are declared in the public domain by a reliable source, Hamshahri, either because of their old nature (Iranian copyright law protection lasts for only 30 years after publication), or that the author/copyright holder has released them into the public domain. It is not the duty of Commons volunteers, some of whom may be clueless, to cast doubt on the claims by reliable sources. Furthermore, VRT is not needed as VRT standards are no better than this and we do accept permission statements from Gmail accounts especially from countries such as Iran where the use of paid email services is very limited even by businesses (there are many reasons for this situation, but one of them is the imposition of severe sanctions on the country by the USA). 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: See above. --Yann (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Santiago Estrada Cruz (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission.
- File:Bratyy.jpg
- File:Ed maverick en coachela.jpg
- File:Imgen 14.jpg
- File:Eduardo portada.jpg
- File:Foto de perfil de spotify.jpg
Edslov (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Orignal version (of 26 April 2016) is a photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. If somehow this original version is notable, then the overwrite version should be split off. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jelican9 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyrighted Jelican9 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Unused rendering of new building, needs COM:OTRS from architects. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EmilyTooth (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal architectural renderings, COM:WEBHOST, no educational use, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Of obvious educational use as depictions of interesting contemporary buildings; just need to be properly identified and categorized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Need permission. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Magedsaud53 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low-res text diagrams, should be in wiki-markup if needed, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Licence non respected Floflo62 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
G1: nonsense content. It’s template for TimedTect markup in Japanese which says: “First subtitle is from 20 sec to 25 sec” etc. Pacha Tchernof (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Fake logo DimiDimi (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted painting. Nanahuatl (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Not an own work. Doubtful authorship. Such files can not exist in Commons. Kadı Message 22:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Photo widely available online. Very unlikely that it is the uploaders own work as claimed. Nthep (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The former image is widely available online as well. Despite your prejudice, you have forwarded no evidence of this not being my work. Furthermore, this was the originale photo used on Wikipedia until the Taliban seized the power undemocratically by force. It is perfectly legal, and morally correct to use this photo. CentipedeBrows (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover, I would like to point out that the picture was changed at 9:17 PM CEST time on 16/05/2022. This comment was also made at 9:17 PM on 16/05/2022. The immediate timing is a major indicator that the user @Nthep is monitoring this page for some reason. Increasing the risk of his comment not being earnest. CentipedeBrows (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a bad faith nomination as you infer. Your change was made at 2114 CEST. I saw the changes to w:Mullah Omar via Special:Recent changes and looked at the image file to discover that you claimed it as your own work. An online search led me to believe that it isn't your own work, so I started this nomination. Yes, that is only 3 minutes later but it doesn't take long to search and start a deletion request. As for evidence, per Commons:ONUS it is your responsibility to establish that this is your own work, not for me or anyone else to establish that it isn't. Nthep (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not own work, the uploader practically admits it with their above comment that using the photo is "morally correct". Also I found it doubtful that this editor who clearly objects to the Taliban is the member of the Taliban who took this picture decades ago. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I suppose, that license cc-by-sa-4.0 for file, which was downloaded from https://24tv.ua/ukrayina-buduvala-30-rokiv-orki-znishhili-za-kilka-dniv-gayday_n1918268, is not fully correct. I see "Усі права захищені. ©" (All rights reserved) in the bottom of the page. If photos have cc-by-sa-4.0 license in original source, it's better to mark this original source, not 24tv.ua. Dinamik (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
We should check, if Facebook photos have cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Dinamik (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
We should check, if Facebook photos have cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Dinamik (talk) 21:34, 16 May 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) 06:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
We should check, if Facebook photos have cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Dinamik (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-wikipedian: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 22:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Not in-use file that seems to be uploaded for commercial purposes. The Commons is not an online photo album and cannot be a repository for just anything. Ldorfman (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Not in-use picture of an unknown person. The Commons is not an online photo album and cannot be a repository for just anything. Ldorfman (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Improper source with no information about the photos origins, nor copyright status. The article given cites Wikimedia Commons as its source. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This is most probably in the public domain. Should be renamed. Yann (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Crowea-RBGV (talk · contribs)
[edit]Author/source for all of these is Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria - we need OTRS or a link to show its free
- File:David Cantrill Herbarium Walk.png
- File:David Cantrill and Book.png
- File:Frank Udovicic with Amorphophallus titanum.png
- File:Frank Udovicic Portrait.png
- File:Pina Milne collecting moss.png
- File:Pina Milne Portrait.png
- File:Jim Willis portrait.jpg
- File:Don Foreman ca. 1992.png
- File:Muelleria 38 (2019-2020).jpg
- File:Muelleria 26(1) 2008 Acacia Special Issue.jpg
- File:Muelleria 1 (1) 1955.jpg
- File:Helen Aston.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2008_Acacia_Special_Issue.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, @Gbawden. Thanks for the heads up.These images, apart from the Muelleria covers, have come from the RBGV image database. I can't offer a link as it's an internal database. What is OTRS? The Muelleria cover images would be covered the same as the other images. Crowea-RBGV (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Crowea-RBGV: Hi. OTRS is confirmation of the license via email. So we would need an email from the gardens granting us the license we need. You can find instructions etc at COM:OTRS Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 19:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Body Shop
[edit]Logo of a British company exceeding COM:TOO UK.
Wcam (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 13:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luke atlas (talk · contribs)
[edit]While some can be relicensed and be kept. Most of the licenses of the files are incorrect. File:MinistryOfDefence.svg is not licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0 but (likely) rather as Open Government Licence v3.0. File:Waseda university logo.svg was never licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0
- File:日本学術会議のロゴ.svg
- File:国立感染症研究所ロゴ.svg
- File:産総研ロゴ.svg
- File:XIONロゴ.svg
- File:都市再生機構ロゴ.svg
- File:防災科学研究所.svg
- File:理化学研究所ロゴ.svg
- File:地域医療推進機構.svg
- File:International Civil Aviation Organization logo.svg
- File:農林水産省ロゴ.svg
- File:国際平和協力本部.svg
- File:日本学生支援機構.svg
- File:ジャパンマリンユナイテッド.svg
- File:国税庁.svg
- File:JAMSTEC.svg
- File:伊丹空港ロゴ.svg
- File:神戸空港.svg
- File:ヤオコーロゴ.svg
- File:関西エアポート ロゴ.svg
- File:セントレアロゴ.svg
- File:関西国際空港ロゴ.svg
- File:LFB logo.svg
- File:United Airlines Logo.svg
- File:成田空港.svg
- File:McDonnell Douglas.svg
- File:Mi5 crest and logotype.svg
- File:MinistryOfDefence.svg
- File:NAA logo.svg
- File:Canadian Space Agency logo.svg
- File:Logo of Paris fire brigade.svg
- File:ヤマトアドバンスマーク.svg
- File:SGホールディングス.svg
- File:JAF logo.svg
- File:佐川急便.svg
- File:Logo of world customs organizition.svg
- File:Emblem of Japan customs.svg
- File:豊和工業ロゴ.svg
- File:消費者庁ロゴ.svg
- File:鉄道博物館.svg
- File:防衛装備庁.svg
- File:ハイパーレスキュー.svg
- File:Mami mart logo.svg
- File:CGCsvg.svg
- File:Japan airlines logo.svg
- File:日本科学未来館ロゴ.svg
- File:科学技術館ロゴ.svg
- File:国立科学博物館ロゴ.svg
- File:Waseda university logo.svg
- File:明治大学.svg
- File:埼玉大学ロゴ.svg
- File:個人情報保護委員会.svg
- File:西区ロゴ.svg
- File:北区.svg
- File:大宮区ロゴ.svg
- File:見沼区ロゴ.svg
- File:中央区.svg
- File:桜区ロゴ.svg
- File:浦和区ロゴ.svg
- File:南区ロゴ.svg
- File:緑区ロゴ.svg
- File:岩槻区ロゴ.svg
- File:Jcrc logo.svg
- File:金融庁 logo.svg
- File:文化庁ロゴ.svg
- File:資源エネルギー庁.svg
- File:経済産業省.svg
- File:原子力規制委員会.svg
- File:公正取引委員会.svg
- File:復興庁.svg
- File:人事院.svg
- File:ITARDA.svg
- File:JTSB-logo.svg
- File:国土地理院.svg
- File:スポーツ庁 logo.svg
- File:環境省 logo.svg
- File:MLIT logo.svg
- File:国土地理院 logo.svg
- File:Milt logo.svg
- File:PSIA logo.svg
- File:Iwasak －logo.svg
- File:Mhlw logo.svg
- File:Fdma-logo.svg
- File:Jpo logi.svg
- File:Isa-j logo.svg
- File:MOD logo.svg
- File:MIC logo.svg
- File:Smea logo.svg
- File:Moj Logo.svg
- File:JTA logo.svg
- File:MOJ logo.svg
- File:Moj logo.svg
- File:MOJ japan logo.png
- File:Jftc logo.jpg
- File:NRA logo.png
- File:FDMA logo.jpg
- File:MOE logo.gif
- File:CAAGJ logo.jpg
- File:PSIA logo.jpg
- File:MIC logo.png
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- And File:MIC logo.png = File:MIC logo.svg but are tagged with different licences. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ezarate: Mind taking a look at this? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyright violation. --Ezarateesteban 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Restored: some files, as per [8]. Yann (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=712357781#File:%E5%9B%BD%E5%9C%9F%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E7%B7%8F%E5%90%88%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80.svg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Thehawk.in (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused forms, text-only, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Violation of artist's copyright, considering Singapore does not provide freedom of panorama for 2D works done by graphic artists such as muralists. This art in particular, according to [9], dates to 1987 and "designed by French artist Christophe Tissot." Commercial licensing permission from Tissot is a must. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in Singapore. According to [10], the museum was incepted in 2007. Photo needs commercial license permission from Norwegian artist, Einstein Kristiansen. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for 2D works in Singapore. The mural is unlikely to be designed by a muralist or muralists who have been dead for more than 70 years; it is likely modern. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Iran Rohalamin (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in Iran Rohalamin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Iran Rohalamin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Iran Rohalamin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Controversial description and license tag, unauthorized withdrawal from speedy deletion, probably illegal distribution of corporate video stream. 188.123.231.20 03:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please clarify what exactly seems contradictory to you in the description and license tag? Unxed (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the bottom right corner we see the word ZOOM. This means, the file is a copy of someone's creative work, this copy was made with Zoom software, and this is not an original work of the uploader. The license states that the recording was made with an automatic camera, yet we see the camera changes its position when the speakers talk. This means, there's a human being making the creative composition of this video footage. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any automated camera has it's initial position set by the human being. This does not automatically makes its recording a creative work. As wiktionary says, creative work is a "tangible manifestation of of creative effort". Just one camera movement can hardly be considered tangible effort, so we can not consider this video covered by copyright laws. Zoom itself also do not claim ownership of users content (see https://www.holmanwebb.com.au/blog/560/intellectual-property-and-virtual-meeting-platforms). Unxed (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is more than "just one camera movement" here: as the film progresses, the camera's direction and FOV width change at least four times, and it's clear that this isn't a pre-set route detour or some other form of automatic camera movement. The choice of the angle of view of the object or group of objects being filmed as the story unfolds has always been considered the creative contribution of the operator.--Yellow Horror (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any automated camera has it's initial position set by the human being. This does not automatically makes its recording a creative work. As wiktionary says, creative work is a "tangible manifestation of of creative effort". Just one camera movement can hardly be considered tangible effort, so we can not consider this video covered by copyright laws. Zoom itself also do not claim ownership of users content (see https://www.holmanwebb.com.au/blog/560/intellectual-property-and-virtual-meeting-platforms). Unxed (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the bottom right corner we see the word ZOOM. This means, the file is a copy of someone's creative work, this copy was made with Zoom software, and this is not an original work of the uploader. The license states that the recording was made with an automatic camera, yet we see the camera changes its position when the speakers talk. This means, there's a human being making the creative composition of this video footage. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - As noted, the POV changes to focus on speakers. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The "Splash" logo within a vinyl label is more complex and may likely be unsuitable for Commons per COM:TOO UK. Contains droplets and a unique curve at the end of the word. George Ho (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Released in 1979, the vinyl label contains a dog checking out a gramophone, a trademark seen in some other prior RCA logos. Very complex, and uncertain whether the label is suitable for Commons. George Ho (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep the image of the dog (named Nipper BTW) checking out the gramophone goes as far back 1910 and perhaps further then that. Although RCA purchased the rights to use Nipper in 1929 from the original artist, but their image is extremely close to (if not an exact copy of) the earlier designs. So it isn't a copyrighted image by any means. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fritze Richard (talk · contribs)
[edit]1939 and 1964 photos claimed as 2021 own work. Needs info on author etc to confirm PD
Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I don't think this billboard is covered by Israeli law on Freedom of Panorama. איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:FoP-Israel 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Israel#Freedom_of_panorama איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be more clear: the billboard may be permanent, but the image on the billboard is not. DS (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your argument holds, it would follow that any photo of a street panorama is not acceptable because the scene may contain images on billboards.איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be more clear: the billboard may be permanent, but the image on the billboard is not. DS (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that using only the last 15 seconds of this film clip would be compatible with WP criteria?איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe the last 10 seconds? If so, we'd have to revdel the earlier versions. DS (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think that using only the last 15 seconds of this film clip would be compatible with WP criteria?איתן טל -Etan J. Tal (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
File:Stamp of Algeria - 1952 - Colnect 211521 - 10 ans de la Bataille de Bir Hakeim Battle of Bir Hakeim.jpeg
[edit]
Stamp created in 1952 when Algeria was French. It is thus the French law which applies. In this country, the stamps fall in the public domain 70 years after the death of their author. fr:Henry Cheffer died in 1957, this stamp will be free in January 2028. --Abalg (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Siren-Com, to notice him. ----Abalg (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Complex case, I asked on the VP. Yann (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The decision should also apply to File:Stamp of Algeria - 1952 - Colnect 916156 - 10e anniversaire de la bataille de Bir Hakeim.jpeg. Yann (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Under Algerian law it would have been PD 1/1/2008, 12 years after the URAA date. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Logo Victuallers (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, it is not a logo but an icon of the business unit. Alexander Wachter (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- Call it whatever you like, it is copyrighted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Niyazov statue, Neutrality Arch
[edit]According to w:en:Neutrality Monument, the monument was erected in 1998, so the statue atop it likely hails from the same period. As there is no commercial freedom of panorama in Turkmenistan, commercial license authorization from the sculptor or their heirs is required.
- File:Detail of Nizazov Statue Atop the Arch of Neutrality (41652995934).jpg
- File:Het grootste standbeeld van Turkmenbashi (3406778102).jpg
- File:Rotating statue of President Niasov.jpg
- File:Stans08-033 (3134868354).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Subject is misidentified. Image copied from de-Wikipedia: <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Maria_W._Stewart,_Portrait.jpg>. However, the source there is indicated to be en-Wikipedia, where the image was deleted in 2019 as misidentified. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maria_W._Stewart&oldid=881181589>. Note the tag on the file source page advising that it not be copied to Commons. See also this file: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sarah_Harris_Fayerweather.jpg>. Geoff Who, me? 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
and File:20220508 124434 May 2022 in Białystok.jpg.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Poland for temporary displays. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The focus of that image is not the displays but the street. Rakoon (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- So blank/crop all advertisement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from photos and art.
- File:PhotoСреда.JPG
- File:Premiere exhibition "Icons of the 1960-80's".jpg
- File:RIAN archive 665523 Moscow holds Night of Museums.jpg
- File:Прилавок в книжном магазине PhotoBookPoster.jpg
- File:Советская эпоха Марква-Гринберга.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No purpose File:Northern Mariana Islands in United States.svg does not serve that this map does. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Bertux as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Work of art or architecture — no Freedom of Panorama inside churches in the Netherlands Vysotsky (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This image shouldn't be deleted. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings, as can be checked in the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18. Proof can be seen in the thousands of images of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (450,000 images, many thousands from interiors, also in churches). Vysotsky (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings indeed, but it only applies to interiors if they are considered to be public space. The question is whether this church might be considered as public space. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 1. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings, as long as the buildings are open to the general public (werk "permanent in openbare plaatsen", Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18, see above). 2.The Andrieskerk in Amsterdam was (before the corona pandemic) regularly opened to the general public. From the website of the church: "Regelmatig is in ons gebouw een tentoonstelling te zien. [...] De exposities in De Andrieskerk zijn rond de Mensenwijdingsdienst vrij te bezoeken." ("Expositions are held regularly, and can be visited around de Mensenwijdingsdienst free of charge"). I made the photographs during one of these expositions. 3. The Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has donated approx. half a million photographs to Commons, all under CC-BY-SA, in line with the Dutch Copyright Act. Others have done the same, see this category -and dozens of similar categories with tens of thousands photos of Dutch church interiors in Commons. There are even other websites like reliwiki.nl that offer photos of religious heritage, of both church exteriors and church interiors. It is therefore quite clear that these 3 photographs are correctly licensed, because of Dutch Freedom of Panorama. Vysotsky (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings indeed, but it only applies to interiors if they are considered to be public space. The question is whether this church might be considered as public space. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discusiioin. COM:FOP Netherlands does not mention churches as not OK like musea (for which you have to pay a fee). So imho these images can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Photo was taken on private property with a ban on photography, expressed with a sign next to the entrance (see: https://ibb.co/JcTv4ZZ). The earlier decision to keep the file, based on Dutch Freedom of Panorama, doesn't apply as public entrance is restricted. Beer8beer (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for this deletion request. (1) The photo that you refer to was taken in 2022, around Saturday 7 May. The depicted sign wasn't visible in 2019, otherwise I wouldn't have made the photographs. (2) The building is no private property, as I could walk in without any restrictions. (3) If there is a ban on photography in the building, how is it possible that the Christengemeenschap website features 14 photographs of recent expositions? (4) The current version of the Christengemeenschap website features this text: "In ons kerkgebouw zijn regelmatig tentoonstellingen te zien. We tonen beeldend werk van leden en belangstellenden, of van mensen die op een andere wijze een binding hebben, of zoeken met onze kerk. De exposities in De Andrieskerk zijn rond de Mensenwijdingsdienst vrij te bezoeken." Vysotsky (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Thank you for your answer. The Andrieskerk consists of multiple rooms, of which one is assigned for exhibitions and gatherings (to which you reffer) and the one of which you took some photographs that I nominated for deletion is assigned for services. The depicted sign (of which I took a photo recently to show you in this deletion request) was placed there already more then 10 years ago. If you need a prove of that, I can look for an older photo. The prediction is specificly for the service room (the sign is next to the entrace of that room), the exhebitions are always in the main (more public accessible) part of the building. --Beer8beer (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed that (other) photographs of the interior of the Andrieskerk in Amsterdam feature in at least three websites online, a.o. ReliWiki (photographs made in 2015). To my knowledge there is no juridical obstacle in the Netherlands (not re copyright nor otherwise) to use photographs of interiors of churches or other sacred buildings. Vysotsky (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Dear @Vysotsky, the argument that photograps of the interiour of the building are featured on other websites as well, is off course a fallacy. Besides that, in this case it's about pictures of the religious painting, some other photographs I know about are from the organ. Despite that, I explained why I nomitated this pictures for deletion and will explain that to other photographers as well. I hope you understand that. Beer8beer (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment A discussion about these two photographs simultanious took place at the Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Andrieskerk_(Amsterdam). A board member of the church explained the importance of the request and why photographs of the sacred part of the building are not OK. It can be helpfull for this deletion request to take notice of that talk page. Beer8beer (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an unexpected way to react on a stretched-out hand. It seems all formal arguments for deletion have now run aground. The existence of other photographs of this room (including the painting) is not a fallacy, but proof of the fact that the room has in the past been open to at least three other photographers. Vysotsky (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The formal argument for deletion you are looking for in this case is the prediction of taking photos in the sacred room (see the picture I included in the deletion request above). Next to that, a board member of the church (and thus a legal representative) explained the vision behind that prediction and asked for deletion as well. That you could walk in freely on the day you took the photos doesn't change the fact that it is private property and house rules apply.
- That you decided to remove the two pictures from the Dutch Wikipedia - the 'stretched-out hand' - is kind of you but doesn't change the fact that they are still available for the community, exactly the reason I started the discussion here and not on one of the Wikipedias where the pictures are used. The removal on the Dutch Wikipedia isn't an answer to the question: to delete the picture for further use online and can also be re-added to the Dutch page without any discussion.
- Last: images of the sacred room are always being handled in the same way: ask for deletion and explain why. Hopefully you can understand that, but it seems we unfortunately have a different view in this case. Beer8beer (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- It is possible that the church has a cause of action against the photographer, but that is not our concern here. Our policy is well established that we are not converned with local rules frobidding photography. see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bertux as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Work of art or architecture — no Freedom of Panorama inside churches in the Netherlands Vysotsky (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This image shouldn't be deleted. Freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is not restricted to the exterior of buildings, as can be checked in the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18. Proof can be seen in the thousands of images of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. (450,000 images, many thousands from interiors, also in churches). Vysotsky (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg for the rest of this discussion. JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discusiioin. COM:FOP Netherlands does not mention churches as not OK like musea (for which you have to pay a fee). So imho these images can be kept. --Ellywa (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Photo was taken on private property with a ban on photography, expressed with a sign next to the entrance (see: https://ibb.co/JcTv4ZZ). The earlier decision to keep the file, based on Dutch Freedom of Panorama, doesn't apply as public entrance is restricted. See also (the discussion about) the related image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg. Beer8beer (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for this deletion request. (1) The photo that you refer to was taken in 2022, around Saturday 7 May. The depicted sign wasn't visible in 2019, otherwise I wouldn't have made the photographs. (2) The building is no private property, as I could walk in without any restrictions. (3) If there is a ban on photography in the building, how is it possible that the Christengemeenschap website features 14 photographs of recent expositions? (4) The current version of the Christengemeenschap website features this text: "In ons kerkgebouw zijn regelmatig tentoonstellingen te zien. We tonen beeldend werk van leden en belangstellenden, of van mensen die op een andere wijze een binding hebben, of zoeken met onze kerk. De exposities in De Andrieskerk zijn rond de Mensenwijdingsdienst vrij te bezoeken." Vysotsky (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment As I also nominated a similar photograph, I would propose to close the discussion here and wait for a decision about the other file and follow that conclusion. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg. --Beer8beer (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-3.jpg. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to delete this graph as it is no longer relevant to Port Taranaki 122.56.38.228 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The diagram is for volumes at this port, so it is relevant. However, it could be updated, if more recent information is available. 2406:E003:FC0:EC01:2D83:131C:56FB:AA8D 22:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi,
- You are incorrect, this diagram does not show volumes at Port Taranaki, this graph is uploaded by USER: Pakariki and last updated on 29 May 2016. The port discontinued trading containers (TEU) many many years ago, therefore this graph WAS correct for container (TEU) trade at the port at that time. However the graph, which is last updated on 29 May 2016 by USER: Pakariki, is currently misleading as it shows that trade at the port has been in decline for many years and hos now stopped, which is incorrect in every way possible. The graph also doesn't have labels on the axis, it doesn't show the years, therefore anyone reading the graph will think that it is relevant to recent years, again, totally misleading.
- The port does however trade in different commodities, of which the Port is happy to update whomever with accurate data or it can be sourced from the Annual reports that are freely published for public to see on the Port Taranaki Official website.
- Please respectfully delete the misleading graph or send me a link and I'll upload the latest graph as a replacement for this outdated graph uploaded by USER: Pakariki.
- Thanks,
- Customer Relationship Manager at Port Taranaki 122.56.38.228 22:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The quarters are identified at the bottom of every bar on the diagram. This is a historical document. If you think it needs further clarification, please add that information to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Fiona Watt
[edit]None of these are free. The first is claimed as own work but has the authors name in the exif, the 2nd is taken from Elife with is (C) at source. Needs OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep 2nd file. Elife actually says "© 2022 eLife Sciences Publications Ltd. Subject to a Creative Commons Attribution license, except where otherwise noted." with a weblink to CC-BY-4.0. I see no "note otherwise". The combination of © and CC-BY is very common. It means eLife does own copyright (for the photo), and releases it under a CC-BY license (if eLife did not own copyright, then they would need some justification for a CC-BY release of someone's work). Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep 2nd file per this. This file isn't fully copyrighted according to what has been stated on this page, © 2013 eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd. Subject to a Creative Commons Attribution license, except where otherwise noted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. deleted the 1st file. Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Wrong building name. See https://www.chungtai.org.tw/english-96/html/a8branches2.htm Solomon203 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Temporary version of the visual that has been replaced by files in the category c:Celic Knot Conference 2022 visuals. In order to not confuse speakers with the wrong visual, I'd like this one to be deleted. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
-2022-05-16T11:19:00.000Z-File:Celtic_Knot_2022.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, if rather late. The category is Category:Celtic Knot Conference 2022 visuals btw. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jo-Jo Eumerus as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No evidence that any of these logos are own works or freely licenced
Claimed by uploader to be PD-textlogo, please discuss. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Threshold of originality#Poland does imply that Poland applies copyright quite liberally, a claim expanded upon here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per the precautionary principle. Per COM:TOO Poland, “Polish copyright law has quite a long tradition of setting the threshold rather low, [...]” which I read to mean copyright there is not liberal, but rather strict. Per [11], newly created single words are usually not copyrightable there (only if they possess an extraordinary amount of creativity), but this is not a single word, but a graphic logo. --Rosenzweig τ 16:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I split this PDF into 19 separate PDF files, one for each issue (see Category:Christian Cynosure, Vol. 3, numbers 53-72). It seems more useful that way and the file was incorrectly categorized since it is technically issues of both 1870 and 1871. It seem unnecessary to have a PDF a portion of the volume 3/a portion of the year's issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As is common with such publications, they were later bound together in what you might think of as a "collected edition". It has independent notability and may be useful for, e.g., Wikisource in this form. --Xover (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no consencus for deletion and there is no copyright issue. Therefore decided to keep. --Ellywa (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
the license requires publication date. Warheroes.ru isn't the original publication source, so, we can't prove the license here rubin16 (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dokientrung (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:VIETNAM, these insignia are not in PD.
- File:Vietnam Marine Police insignia 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Racing Stripe.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Band.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Sport.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Ensemble.jpg
- File:Le Quy Don Technical University logo.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army General Staff insignia.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Army Captain rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam Civil Defense Force insignia.jpg
- File:All of Vietnam People's Army insignia.jpg
- File:Vietnam Ground Forces symbol.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force symbol.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Anti Aircraft gun.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Missile.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Radar.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Paratroops.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force pilot.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Tank and Armored.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Information.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Medical Corps.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Artillery.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Driving.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Technology.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Chemistry.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Ordnance.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Commado.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Engineers.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 11.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 10.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 9.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 8.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 7.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 6.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 5.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 4.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 3.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 2.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 1.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 5.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 4.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 3.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 2.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 1.png
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Naval Academy logo.png
- File:Missile Force.jpg
- File:Friendship Medal.png
- File:Glorious Fighter Medal.png
- File:For National Security Medal.png
- File:Determined to Win Military Flag Medal.png
- File:Friendship Order.png
- File:Bravery Order.png
- File:Great National Unity Order.png
- File:Feat Order.png
- File:Fatherland Defense Order.png
- File:Labor Order.png
- File:Military Exploit Order.png
- File:Independence Order.png
- File:Hochiminh Order.png
- File:Gold Star Order.png
- File:Anhhunglaodong.png
- File:Bamevietnamanhhung.png
- File:Anhhunglucluongvutrang2.png
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Captain rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Captain rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commander rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Private second class.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy private first class.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Corporal.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Sergeant.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Sergeant major.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Ensign.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Lieutenant Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Senior Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commodorel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Rear Admiral.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Vice Admiral.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Admiral.jpg
- File:Anchor Marine Police.jpg
- File:Anchor Navy.jpg
- File:Air Force wings.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force general rank lapel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police general rank lapel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy general rank lapel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force general rank lapel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army general rank lapel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police signal.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force insignia.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force insignia.png
- File:Vietnam Marine Police insignia.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy insignia.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army insignia.png
- File:Vietnam General rank.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army Armored Infantry.jpg
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- A similar proposal was debated and rejected over the period April 2019 to September 2019 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Vietnam Government. The volume of proposed deletions was so vast that it was identified that it would be better to address the proposal in smaller chunks. CdnMCG (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. As works of applied art, they would be in the PD in Vietnam 75 years after first publication. I guess none of them are that old, and even if some are, they would be still protected in the US per the URAA. So undeletion seems only possible for items that are shown to have been first published over 95 years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 17:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dokientrung (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:VIETNAM, these insignia are not in PD. However, I'm not sure whether they exceed COM:TOO or not.
- File:Vietnam Glorious Fighter Medal ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Friendship Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Bravery Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Great National Unity Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Feat Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Fatherland Defense Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Labor Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Military Exploit Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Independence Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Hochiminh Order ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Gold Star ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Hero of Labor ribbon.png
- File:Vietnam Hero ribbon.png
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- A similar proposal was debated and rejected over the period April 2019 to September 2019 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Vietnam Government. The volume of proposed deletions was so vast that it was identified that it would be better to address the proposal in smaller chunks. CdnMCG (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: There is no COM:TOO Vietnam, but I'll go out on a limb here and say these are too simple to be protected by copyright. --Rosenzweig τ 17:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
US license is less relevant here as the film was first published in the USSR. Not free per Soviet-Russian rules rubin16 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is true that a US license is insufficient and that Russian rules applies too. However, Template:PD-Russia suggests this still from a pre-1943 film is in the public domain per condition 3a, while COM:Russia does not mention this particular point and thus suggests copyvio until 2041 (director died in 1970). Something on our Commons side needs to be sorted out... --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This is said to be a still from a Soviet / Russian film that was shown in 1924. Apparently Template:PD-Russia/ru and Template:PD-Russia/en are more recent than either Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia or Commons:Нормы авторского права по территории/Россия. Because accd. to the template, the file is in the public domain in Russian because this work is a film (a video fragment or a single shot from it): (a) which was first shown before January 1, 1943 [...]. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#Durations however, a work is in the public domain in Russia if the work is non-amateur cinema or television film (or shot, or fragment from it), which was first shown between January 1, 1929 and January 1, 1952. Which does not apply to a 1924 film. I'll go with the template here and keep the file, but this disconnect between template and copyright help page is a mess and should be corrected. Preferrably by someone who knows the copyright subject matter as well as Russian. If this file turns out not to be in the PD after all, just re-nominate. --Rosenzweig τ 20:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the WB logos is more complex; it contains glossy silver (or whatever that is). Lacking a copyright notice for the visuals isn't adequate enough to prove the vinyl label as PD, right? George Ho (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep per FOP since the logo is an extremely minimal part of the image and by no means the main visual component of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- FOP doesn't apply to 2D artworks, like logos (COM:FOP US). George Ho (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- de minimis then. Whatever you want to call it, I doubt you'd argue that an image of someone sitting at a café with someone in the distance using a laptop that has a barely visible logo on it should be deleted. At least I wouldn't. Call that FOP, de minimis, or whatever. It's massively splitting hairs over semantics to a point that I don't really care about and isn't necessary IMO to justify keeping the image though. That said, I don't really care about this all that much. So if you want to upload it to Wikipedia so it can still be used in the Wikipedia article I'm fine with it being deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't apply de minimis to the potentially visible logo. The company who produced the logo also distributed the product. Regardless of size, the logo's visibility is sufficient to tell readers which record company or label made the product. Also, the logo takes over one quarter or half of the vinyl label (book, others), making de minimis less likely or unlikely. De minimis applies only when one part is unintentional and hardly visible. Unfortunately, the logo is neither but rather used intentionally and highly emphasized. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not how the company who producing the logo also distributing the product is relevant. The same would go for my laptop example. I'm not sure the ability to tell readers which record company made the label is relevant either. The reason I think de minimis works here is because the point in the image is to show off the record. Of which the logo is only a small part and not the main feature of the image. To quote Commons:De minimis, " useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis." In this case, ask yourself if the image without the logo would be just as useful. My answer to that is yes, obviously it would be. The logo existing or not is completely inconsequential to the usefulness of the image. So IMO it's de minimis. Or are you going to argue that the image would be completely un-helpful and worthless without the logo? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- A copy that blocks out logos from the vinyl label would be inappropriate to use in projects like Wikipedia. By blocking out the logo, a reader would question the legitimacy and authenticity of the image and/or assumed the vinyl label to be that of a bootleg. One original image was deleted due to its emphasis on a highly visible copyrighted poster. I just had to upload a copy that crops out the poster in order to focus more on another element and to preserve that element. Too bad the cropped image itself didn't look that great or good to display that element well. --George Ho (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where did I say anything about blocking out the logo? You could also use editing software to cut and paste part of the record that doesn't have a logo to the parts that do. I've done it a few times with postcards I scan that have marks on them and it leaves the original image mostly intact, but without the mark. Really, you can't even tell I've edited them. That aside, I doubt anyone would question the legitimacy and authenticity of the image without the logo. Most people probably don't even know the original record has one and there's still the smaller logo on the bottom of the image. Commons isn't hosting it for the 1% of record aficionados out there that would know those kinds of details anyway and it's not being used in an article on Wikipedia about the layout of WB records either. Nor should Commons/Wikipedia be used as a source to authentic if albums are genuine. So that's really just a strawman. I'd agree with you if the image was being used in a Wikipedia article about record label design or something along those lines, where the image being 100% authentic mattered. But that's not how the image is being used. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- A copy that blocks out logos from the vinyl label would be inappropriate to use in projects like Wikipedia. By blocking out the logo, a reader would question the legitimacy and authenticity of the image and/or assumed the vinyl label to be that of a bootleg. One original image was deleted due to its emphasis on a highly visible copyrighted poster. I just had to upload a copy that crops out the poster in order to focus more on another element and to preserve that element. Too bad the cropped image itself didn't look that great or good to display that element well. --George Ho (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not how the company who producing the logo also distributing the product is relevant. The same would go for my laptop example. I'm not sure the ability to tell readers which record company made the label is relevant either. The reason I think de minimis works here is because the point in the image is to show off the record. Of which the logo is only a small part and not the main feature of the image. To quote Commons:De minimis, " useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis." In this case, ask yourself if the image without the logo would be just as useful. My answer to that is yes, obviously it would be. The logo existing or not is completely inconsequential to the usefulness of the image. So IMO it's de minimis. Or are you going to argue that the image would be completely un-helpful and worthless without the logo? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't apply de minimis to the potentially visible logo. The company who produced the logo also distributed the product. Regardless of size, the logo's visibility is sufficient to tell readers which record company or label made the product. Also, the logo takes over one quarter or half of the vinyl label (book, others), making de minimis less likely or unlikely. De minimis applies only when one part is unintentional and hardly visible. Unfortunately, the logo is neither but rather used intentionally and highly emphasized. George Ho (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- de minimis then. Whatever you want to call it, I doubt you'd argue that an image of someone sitting at a café with someone in the distance using a laptop that has a barely visible logo on it should be deleted. At least I wouldn't. Call that FOP, de minimis, or whatever. It's massively splitting hairs over semantics to a point that I don't really care about and isn't necessary IMO to justify keeping the image though. That said, I don't really care about this all that much. So if you want to upload it to Wikipedia so it can still be used in the Wikipedia article I'm fine with it being deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: blurred copyrighted logo per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Posters are non-permanent objects thus cannot benefit from FOP 2404:C800:A000:4005:5E86:4E37:5E86:4E38 06:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kendi kameramla çekimini yaptım. Bu şekilde yüklenince sıkıntı olmuyor diye biliyorum.--KediÇobanı🐈 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: the photo itself can—in principle—be licensed any way the uploader sees fit. However, it incorporates a poster, making this a derivative work. The uploader thus needs permission from the poster's creator to republish it like this, because legal exceptions like COM:FOP Turkey indeed do not apply to non-permanent "works of fine arts". --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of HyperGaruda. --Ellywa (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
for PD in Russia/ex-USSR the publication date is important, not creation date. The image is published on multiple web-sources but I wasn't able to find a source that proves early enough publication, so, the license is doubtful rubin16 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:VIETNAM, these insignia are not in PD. Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dokientrung.
- File:Vietnam People's Public Security general rank lapel.jpg
- File:PhuHieuCoAoCACapTuong.png
- File:Vietnam Senior Colonel insignia.png
- File:Logo benh vien y hoc co truyen bca.png
- File:Anninh-Daita-1992-1998.png
- File:Anninh-Daita-1989-1992.png
- File:Canhsat-Daita-1992-1998.png
- File:Canhsat-Daita-1989-1992.png
- File:Vovinam-emblem.png
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Several of these files had VRT permissions added before they were nominated for deletion. What is going on with those? --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure if they have the permission to relicense them as own work, as per the reason cited above: all insignia are not PD by default. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Two images show a VRT ticket permissions, the other files can be deleted anyway imho.
- @-sasha-: can you please take another look to the ticket:2022051210004075. I will add a note to the ticket to express my view on this matter. Ellywa (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: Hi, thank you for pinging me. When I reviewed the ticket concerning those two files I considered that, even though the copyright of those insignia wasn't owned by the uploader, they were simple enough not to be protected by copyright (it was before the DRs that have been brought up happened, I would have changed my mind if I had seen them). If you think that they're over the threeshold of originality (I don't know what the Vietnamese law could say about this) I have no problem with them being deleted. Sorry for any inconvenicence. -sasha- (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure if they have the permission to relicense them as own work, as per the reason cited above: all insignia are not PD by default. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 15:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion after closure or DR
[edit]- @-sasha-: , @Rosenzweig: , @Ellywa: Hi everybody, it is pretty confused about licensing on Wikipedia, I don't understand why those images have my own work by taking pictures of the object in real life, and some of them just get recreated to visualise the insignia, which does not literally show the real insignia, why they still get deleted? For example, these 2 files:
- The first one was taken by me and sure do, you cannot find any other similar images because it was taken by me and published only to Wikicommon. And the Vietnam Senior Colonel insignia is not even the real insignia, I just redrew elements of the insignia, including 4 stars and 2 lines, just for the visualisation purpose and it still got deleted. Additionally, all of the objects about military, especially insignia, I believe they are common knowledge since we can easily find them in public places, media and so on.
- Also the stuff in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dokientrung, I am not sure about the medals, but regarding the insignia, most of them were drew by User:MrInfo2012. Those are his original works and to be honest, they not even look exactly similar to the actual insignia but still good enough for the visualisation purpose. Why they still get deleted? From what I read in this thread, these images get deleted by unsureness from proposed user. Is it reasonable enough?--Botminh24 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Botminh24, I understand it can be confusing. The first example, File:PhuHieuCoAoCACapTuong.png is a photo made by yourself. But the object you photographed is not designed by you. This object might be copyrighted. And if on Commons it is not 100% sure an object is in public domain, we cannot publish it here. Of the second example, File:Vietnam Senior Colonel insignia.png, I was not aware this was completely made by you. As it consists of simple elements which are not copyrighted, I decided to undelete the image. But in general, if you copy a design of somebody else, it is a derivative work, and it cannot be kept on Commons. I understand your are interested in these insigna's. It would help if you know the age of the design. Then perhaps some can be kept, please read COM:Vietnam (or similar pages of other countries). Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam it is not described whether this country has copyright laws that define a threshold of originality to show which images are not protected by copyright due to their simple design. Therefore it must be assumed these insigna’s might be protected by copyright. In addition, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam images made by or for the government are protected. As the age of these designs are not known, the images must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
رفعته عن طريق الخطأ كمال عادل مكرد القدسي (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
