Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/06/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Kirche_(Westheim_(Pfalz)_Church)_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_23277.jpg){kind=link}
![99 File:"Miss Columbia" in 1927 - Chamberlin és Levine fortepan 132570 (cropped).jpg](#File:"Miss_Columbia"_in_1927_-_Chamberlin_és_Levine_fortepan_132570_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_felé_nézve._Fortepan_75655.jpg){kind=link}
,_a_felvétel_a_település_déli_határánál_készült._Fortepan_27219.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
because i messed up posting it Msmitraillette (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Im the owner of this photo and and i got wrong to uploading this photo, i want to delete it JorgeFlores-pe (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Wrong File upload Resham12 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Achim55 as Noncommercial (Cc-by-nc-sa) Yann (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: Yann, thanks for notifying! The license on https://objectparadise.com/Manifesto has been changed to CC BY 4.0 in the meantime. --Achim55 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
material incompleto Thewolf343 (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per the APH website, this image is published under a NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence. Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
As per the APH website, this image is published under a NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence. Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Likely Flickr washing - low-resolution with no metadata. The upload date on Flickr was relatively recent, and was found elsewhere on the Internet prior to this date (per a Google search and a TinEye search). Hiàn (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a copyright violation. The source flickr account was also used to upload File:Bhupendra Patel Portrait.jpg which was taken from https://cmogujarat.gov.in/en/downloads/ by this same editor -- Whpq (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:3-Methyl-3-oxetanecarboxylic-acid-2D-structure.svg as high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as a better replacement exists. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No es usuario de verdad 181.203.4.89 01:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Wutsje at 01:42, 8 June 2022 UTC: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10) --Krdbot 07:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- File:Ali Ramezan Nejadi.jpg
- File:Before meeting.jpg
- File:Hair photography.jpg
- File:In hotel.jpg
- File:Ali in nature.jpg
- File:Ali in park.jpg
Self-promotion, out of project scope, item is deleted on Wikidata
Jianhui67 T★C 05:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Thallada (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, personal image Gampe (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
according to the proposal --Gampe (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:Scope a text pdf (with some logos), looks an attempt at either a resume or to create an article by uploading a pdf. MKFI (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 181.203.4.89 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also COM:OOS. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright holder Copyright, NYTECH Corp, 03 181.203.4.89 00:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:Scope, attempt to create an article by uploading a PDF. MKFI (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Company marketing material. Claimed own work, but file EXIF shows two different authors: miro pochyba and matej hakar.
- File:Str 14 CMYK ri.jpg
- File:Proxenta Residence ext2.jpg
- File:Tabáň.jpg
- File:PROXENTA Kesselbauer 5.jpg
- File:03 foto Pavol Kozik DK 082021.tif
MKFI (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, spam. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. If the info is really useful, then it should be written directly into some article. Taivo (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Unused selfie. The photo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
advertisement Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photographs by Derek Hatfield
[edit]Unused personal vacation photos, non-notable people, out of scope.
- File:Antigua (3419067307).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419067549).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419067637).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419067717).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419068203).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419068377).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419068571).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419280819).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419282035).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419875874).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419876602).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419876698).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419876810).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419876882).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419877120).jpg
- File:Antigua (3420088084).jpg
- File:Antigua (3420091326).jpg
- File:Aziel (100783596).jpg
- File:Aziel and Kodiak (100783776).jpg
- File:Aziel and Minneapolis (234868222).jpg
- File:Aziel First Morning (2736095125).jpg
- File:Aziel in Duluth (100783601).jpg
- File:Aziel in mouth (234869046).jpg
- File:Aziel looking impressed (234868062).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419883286).jpg
- File:Butterfly Farm St. Maarten (3419219203).jpg
- File:Butterfly Farm St. Maarten (3420030248).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photographs by Derek Hatfield 2
[edit]Unused personal vacation photos, non-notable people, out of scope.
- File:Antigua (3419281057).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419281145).jpg
- File:Antigua (3419284061).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419069869).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419069945).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419070011).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419073243).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419354243).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419880076).jpg
- File:Barbados (3419881806).jpg
- File:Castle Danger - Duluth - Spring 2008 (2601408469).jpg
- File:Castle Danger - Duluth - Spring 2008 (2602230678).jpg
- File:Castle Danger - Duluth - Spring 2008 (2602236240).jpg
- File:CRW 0700 RJ (100783608).jpg
- File:Dad Resting at our First Hotel (175757106).jpg
- File:Delorean (175759194).jpg
- File:Derek @ Gargantua (99791679).jpg
- File:Derek on Turtle (234869031).jpg
- File:Dinnertime (510053223).jpg
- File:Drinking, Resting at Magic Kingdom (175757304).jpg
- File:DSC00083 (175765731).jpg
- File:DSC00117 (175767564).jpg
- File:DSC00118 (175767619).jpg
- File:Ferry to Magic Kingdom (175758370).jpg
- File:Fresh Fish! (510050467).jpg
- File:German Guy (1871526399).jpg
- File:Getting Ready (1871518251).jpg
- File:Getting Water for Tea (1871541257).jpg
- File:Glenn "Chip" Burt (510034368).jpg
- File:Glenn & the M&Ms (510050195).jpg
- File:Goof Shot (100783634).jpg
- File:Greatest Dad (5774002854).jpg
- File:Hiking Club Guy (1871527265).jpg
- File:It's Hot (175756596).jpg
- File:Jan Eating (510030290).jpg
- File:Jaws (175761107).jpg
- File:Jaws (175761160).jpg
- File:Kid's Playground (175759450).jpg
- File:Kristin, Kev and Aziel (510027832).jpg
- File:Last day Cruise (3419371423).jpg
- File:Lilly (510033340).jpg
- File:Lunchtime (510031210).jpg
- File:Lunchtime (510035678).jpg
- File:Me & Aziel in the Solarium (3420037784).jpg
- File:Me (234868281).jpg
- File:Me @ Gargantua Harbour Lookout (99792002).jpg
- File:Me, Again (234868261).jpg
- File:Megan & Kristin (510051425).jpg
- File:Mel's Diner Happy Days (175759595).jpg
- File:Mickey's Living Room (175767243).jpg
- File:Minneapolis Queen (234868396).jpg
- File:Minneapolis Queen take 2 (234868360).jpg
- File:Minnesota 0677 (100783687).jpg
- File:Minnesota 0678 (100783691).jpg
- File:Mmm, food (510056781).jpg
- File:Mom and Magic Kingdom (175758239).jpg
- File:NASA Space Shuttle (175766305).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as out of scope. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photographs by Derek Hatfield 3
[edit]And more unused personal vacation photos, non-notable people, out of scope.
- File:Nice Day (2688564691).jpg
- File:Packing up (510056511).jpg
- File:Pluto (175767059).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 3 (2415832377).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 4 (2415848657).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2415872487).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2415872687).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2416693246).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2416693312).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2416697586).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2416699144).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 5 (2416699230).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 6 (2415895645).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 6 (2415895699).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416733396).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416733866).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416734014).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416734340).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416734630).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416735056).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 7 (2416735846).jpg
- File:Princess Caribbean Cruise - Day 8 (2416752112).jpg
- File:Randy (510028904).jpg
- File:Randy (510051503).jpg
- File:Ryan "Mr. Flip Flops" Sitch (510049451).jpg
- File:Ryan and Lilly (510055483).jpg
- File:Ryan Hatfield (510054441).jpg
- File:Ryan Takes a Picture (510055149).jpg
- File:Sea Lion (1871524445).jpg
- File:Sea Lion (1871525437).jpg
- File:Sea Lion (1871536113).jpg
- File:Sea Lion Area (1872348760).jpg
- File:Segway (175761924).jpg
- File:Self Portrait (175757422).jpg
- File:Serenade of the Seas (3419157045).jpg
- File:St. Maarten St. Martin (3420056018).jpg
- File:St. Maarten St. Martin (3420056176).jpg
- File:St. Thomas (3419179855).jpg
- File:St. Thomas (3419180929).jpg
- File:St. Thomas (3419181941).jpg
- File:Still Snow (132992395).jpg
- File:Sunset (510033792).jpg
- File:Sunset (510034058).jpg
- File:Sunset (510034220).jpg
- File:Todd (510029522).jpg
- File:Tuesday Ultimate - Just Disc League (28745200887).jpg
- File:Tuesday Ultimate - Just Disc League (42728790155).jpg
- File:Tuesday Ultimate - Just Disc League (42728790965).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (29932790908).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (29932791338).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (29932802838).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (42899038485).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (42899042645).jpg
- File:Tuesday vs Honey Badgers (42899049465).jpg
- File:Where are we? (175756489).jpg
- File:Where are we? (510036072).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused random image of nondescript scrubbery, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Also added:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused blurry photo of indistinguishable bird, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. Also added:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - low quality, personal photo Mindmatrix 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Also added:
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of the project scope. Promotional. Edslov (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
These equivalent images contain a chemistry error: ammonia over the reaction arrow should not have a negative charge. The image would be better served by text anyway. Marbletan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all three files as {{BadGIF}} and chemically incorrect content. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
These two chemical reaction images from the same uploader have a typography error: as a chemical formula H2O should be H2O. There are also quality issues including low resolution and a hand-drawn reaction arrow. These images would be better served by text anyway. Marbletan (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: both per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
_07.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_07.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of project scope because unusable poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
_07.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
_07.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope, personal image Gampe (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- according to the proposal --Gampe (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
asking for deletion of a superfluous duplicate of my own photo (see Category:Filippo Mellana) Gnom (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
copyvio - see metadata that read "Copyright holder www.peterleducfoto.com" Hoyanova (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This is my photo and this is never used so Jayesh1322 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
File EXIF shows "Author Seungho Choi TRAUMEREi Copyright holder Studio CLAUSE". VRT permission from studio needed. MKFI (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Website screenshot. Uploader may be authorized to upload this, but VRT permission is needed. MKFI (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a screenshot from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMwBBAIFlM . Needs COM:VRT permission if the "own work" claim is true. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a screenshot from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMwBBAIFlM . Needs COM:VRT permission if the "own work" claim is true. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Chinmay Mandlekar by HBM 1.jpg
- File:Chinmay Mandlekar 1 HBM.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 10 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 9 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 8 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 7 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 6 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 4 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 5 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 3 by HARISH MANE.jpg
- File:Avinash Dharmadhikari 2 by HARISH MANE.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Boboyev1996 (talk · contribs)
[edit]About 20 of this uploader's images have already been deleted as claimed own-work that is actually available on one or many websites that are not free. This is a bulk nom COM:PCP as the rest of their uploads. The already-deleted ones are in multiple styles, similar to the ones here.
- File:Chap tomonlama varikotsele.jpg
- File:Tuguncha (Papula) kattaligi 1smgacha bo'ladi.jpg
- File:Derma qavatdagi patalogiylar.jpg
- File:Buyrakning qon bilan ta'minlanishi.jpg
- File:Plazmada renin faolligini tekshirish uchun buyrak venalaridan qonni alohida olish.jpg
- File:Aterosklerotik torayishlarning turlari.jpg
- File:Buyrak gipertenziyasida epigastral sohada shovqin eshitilish nuqtalari.jpg
- File:Nefrogen vazorenal arterial gipertenziya.jpg
- File:Buyrakning yukstaglomerulyar kompleksi.jpg
- File:Sog'om va gipertenziyaga uchragan buyraklar.jpg
- File:Nefrogen arterial gipertenziya.jpg
- File:Nefrogen gipertenziya.jpg
- File:Yelenskiy shinasi.jpg
- File:Gipsli bog'lam.jpg
- File:Diteriks shinasi.jpg
- File:To'rli (Filberg) shinasi.jpg
- File:Fanerli shina.jpg
- File:Simli(Kramer) shinasi.webp
- File:Kech tug'ma karditlarning EKG tekshiruvi.jpg
- File:Kardit.jpg
- File:Nerv artiritik diatez.jpg
- File:Limfatik diatez.jpg
- File:Allergik diatez bolalarda.jpg
- File:Eksudativ kataral diatez 2.jpg
- File:Eksudativ katara diatez 1.jpg
- File:Bolalarda uchraydigan diatezlar.jpg
- File:Shistosomozning mikroskop ostida ko'rinishi.jpg
- File:Buyrakdagi ko'p kamerali exinokokkoz. UTT tekshiruvida ko'rinishi.jpg
- File:Buyrakdagi exinokokkoz granulalari.jpg
- File:Erkaklar jinsiy a'zolarida sil.jpg
- File:Pastga tushuvchi sistogramma.png
- File:Antegrad pieloureterogramma.png
- File:Ekskretor urografiya.png
- File:Buyrak xastaliklarini davolashning zamonaviy usuli.jpg
- File:Trixomonoz.webp
- File:Pielonefrit.jpg
- File:Uretrit.jpg
- File:Bakteriuriya.jpg
- File:Siydik yo'llari infeksiyasi.jpg
- File:Qo'shimcha buyrak.jpg
- File:Buyrakning qo'shaloq anomaliyasi.jpg
- File:Buyrak anomaliyalari.jpg
- File:Selektiv angiografiyada aniqlangan buyrak arteriyasi anevrizmasi.jpg
- File:Normada insonda buyraklar ko'rinishi va joylashuvi.jpg
- File:Buyrakning normal qon tomir tizimi.jpg
- File:Gemospermiya.jpg
- File:Nekrospermiya.jpg
- File:Azoospermiya.jpg
- File:Oligoozospermiya.jpg
- File:Aspermatizm bu erkaklarda uchraydigan kasallik.jpg
- File:Spermaning o'zgarishi.jpg
- File:Gematuriya – siydikda qon bo‘lishi.jpg
- File:Piuriya.jpg
- File:Oligouriya.jpg
- File:Anuriya.jpg
- File:Peshob analizi.jpg
- File:Peshob ajralishining buzilishi.jpg
- File:London Imperial kolleji gerbi.jpg
- File:London Imperial kolleji.jpg
- File:Ayollar sartaroshi.jpg
- File:Erkaklar sartaroshi.jpg
- File:Valensiya jamoasining uy stadioni - Mestalia.jpg
- File:Valensiya jamoasining uy stadioni - Mestalia Stadium.jpg
- File:Luji Pecci sa'nat markazi.jpg
- File:Zara logotipi.jpg
- File:Bestning Manchestr uchun urgan ilk goli.jpg
- File:Manchestrda Best haqiqiy dahoga aylandi.jpg
- File:Footbal Best.jpg
- File:Jorj Best.jpg
- File:33-цитаты-от-легендарного-Джорджа-Беста-4.jpg
- File:Deportivo Alaves logo (2020).png
- File:Logo zakovat.png
_kattaligi_1smgacha_bo%27ladi.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_shinasi.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_shinasi.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
DMacks (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Boboyev1996 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW - photograph of a photograph. Evidence of permission from original photographer needed.
Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Nevermind, screenshot from this video (direct thumb) - Derivative work of non-free content (F3). --Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Simple text in a low resolution, poor quality file format. If needed anywhere it should instead be the text: RCOOH + H2O ⇌ RCOO- + H3O+ Marbletan (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. That's indeed a really poor-resolution image of plain-text. DMacks (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Could be easily replaced by TeX. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This file has huge margins that make it useless. It is in an inappropriate file format. If needed anywhere it should instead be the text:
- [Mn(TC-5,5)] + excess NO → [Mn(NO2)(TC-5,5)] + N2O
- [Fe(TC-5,5)] + excess NO → [Fe(NO)(TC-5,5-NO2 )] + N2O + NO2
Marbletan (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not even complex enough to require TeX. DMacks (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
TOO-Malaysia is deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO-Malaysia. So this page is unnecessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
TOO-Malaysia is deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:TOO-Malaysia. So this page is unnecessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pauline.PV (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW - of newspaper/publication
- File:Sonosvision - "Les prix pixel-ina".jpg
- File:Article dans Revue Bock - tintin montpellier.jpg
- File:Nuit - article issu du journal banc titre.jpg
- File:Midi Libre gerardo armesto val1986.jpg
- File:Article du Midi libre, "Récit de voyage au Brésil", 3 mai 2014.jpg
- File:Midi Libre Celleneuve "Les regards de Paul Coudsi sur le Brésil" 2015-03-24.png
- File:Midi Libre 7 décembre 2001 "Poucet voudrait devenir l'ogre du monde modulaire".jpg
- File:Article à propos de Paul Coudsi et son film Stylo dans le Journal BAT.jpg
- File:Interview ars elektronika de Paul Coudsi.jpg
- File:Cahiers du cinéma avril 88 stylo.jpg
- File:Digital Business Globe 15 janvier 2002.jpg
- File:Défis - Paul Coudsi à cpnçu un logiciel pour les enfants - Valéry Froger.jpg
- File:Palmares de l'Union internationale des associations techniques cinématographique.jpg
- File:Lettre des studios Disney à Paul Coudsi.jpg
- File:Prix ars electronica 98 décerné à Paul Coudsi.jpg
- File:Script du montage pou l'exposition "Les capitales européennes des nouveaux design" du centre Pompidou.jpg
- File:La lettre de l'image - Imagina news.jpg
- File:Prix d'honneur, Le Stylo.jpg
- File:Liste de prix décerné à Paul Coudsi.jpg
- File:Prix d'honneur pour Stylo.jpg
- File:Coupure de presse "explore au doigt et à l'oeil".jpg
Эlcobbola talk 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ermaalthefair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE. Perhaps attack pictures since the name is given.
- File:Blond slut undressing.jpg
- File:Blond wife.jpg
- File:Spreading vagina.png
- File:Going down on Sarah Elizabeth Windsor.png
- File:Sarah Elizabeth Windsor topless.png
- File:Unidentified woman, 27 September 2019.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not cencored, but this seems to be out of scope. We already have better images than these ones. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep File:Blond slut undressing.jpg and File:Sarah Elizabeth Windsor topless.png which could be used to depict a woman undressing. Delete the rest Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: 2 kept per Gbawden. ~riley (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ermaalthefair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs stolen from amateur porn sites - either lower res with no EXIF or with many disparate cameras (e.g., C300Z,D550Z, EX-S500, DSC-RX100, CLT-L09, etc.), elsewhere before upload (e.g., File:Unshaven vagina.jpg is here; File:Hairy vagina.jpg is here; etc.), user history of copyvios, etc. Duck/PRP.
- File:Sexy blond undressing.png
- File:Unshaven vagina.jpg
- File:Two-fingered spread.jpg
- File:Spreading labia.jpg
- File:Topless blond.jpg
- File:Topless blond.png
- File:Blond in Paris.jpg
- File:Spread labia majora.jpg
- File:Blond girl posing.jpg
- File:Beautiful clitoris.jpg
- File:Topless woman posing.png
- File:Hairy nude reclining.jpg
- File:Labia majora.png
- File:Topless pose.png
- File:Natural public hair.jpg
- File:Blond portrait.jpg
- File:Hairy vagina.jpg
- File:Closeup of spreading vagina.jpg
- File:Closeup clitoris of young wife.jpg
- File:Beautiful spread labia.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can assure you that all of the photos I have uploaded are my own own work and there is no breach of copyright. I believe most of the pictures are worthy of a place on Wikipedia, but I totally accept a collective choice to remove any that are deemed inappropriate. Ermaalthefair (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 181.203.4.89 01:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work! 181.203.4.89 01:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work! 181.203.4.89 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false claims. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Cannot see any link to a website where this image was published under the specified licence, and no proof that the uploader is the owner. This image appears to be the same one that appears on Rowland's webpage, which is copyrighted. Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The file is an image of a mural of Ruth First in Soweto, South Africa created by British artist Ben Slow, who is still still alive. Per COM:FOP South Africa, there are no free FOP in South African copyright law, and works are protected by copyright for 50 pma. This means that the file is therefore locally copyrighted in South Africa, and is unfree for Commons. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK delete Victuallers (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader concurs. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader admitted that the picture is a still of a non free song video clip. 217.169.235.31 08:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Scan; Selfie? Dirk Lenke (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused, uncat. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
False Map باسم (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a fictitious map with no educational value. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 09:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not own work. Author is written on bottom right corner: NorNikel. VRT-permission from company is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Image sous copyright https://www.dupuis.com/auteurbd/mazel-lucy/3601 Les Amis de Spirou (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: small resolution image, a cropped highres version is used in Raytheon website: https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/racr MKFI (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake மலர்விழி.சி (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Claim of ownership is not credible and logo is complex enough to be copyrightable. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Unused badly made map, without source; there are better maps supported with sources; also it is not used in articles.Kfager1 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, not useful. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Kareem4kareem (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Self-promotion User is the writer of the article in the image. MexTDT (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Buenos días.
Introduje por error el artículo de opinión escrito por beatriz Camiña, pero veo que finalmente no se borró de su página. Si ese es el problema por el cual han borrado la página de Beatriz Camiña Pinós, les pido por favor que lo borren del todo de su biografía ya que no queremos que salga publicado en Wikipedia.
Me gustaría, por favor, que se procediera a la restauración del artículo de Beatriz Camiña Pinós, sin la publicación de dicho artículo
Espero noticias suyas
Muchas gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatriz Camiña Pinós (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- To the admin that takes this case: The uploader has been blocked indefinitely on eswiki for promotional and political use. The user name is the same of that of the deleted biography which restoration has also been rejected. The message above from said user has the intention of using this Wikimedia project to restore the article on eswiki, a blatant sabotage attempt. MexTDT (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Tiny photo without metadata. Own work is unlikely, probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also uncat, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
so i can redo it. it is my picture. Fredman1 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Previously published in https://www.facebook.com/simranjeetsam8/photos/a.305355181651161/370635021789843/?type=3&theater. Uploader is apparently the subject, photographer unknown. MKFI (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 09:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the same image used on the ALP website, which is copyrighted. Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Googling the uploader's name suggests that they previously worked as an electorate officer for Elliot. The image used on the ALP website appears to be a lower resolution. I don't think it is implausible that the uploader is the copyright holder. ITBF (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, by Raymond on 15th of June with reason "This is the same image used on the ALP website, which is copyrighted." Taivo (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio from [1] あずきごはん (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a much larger file than on that website ([2]), 10,62 MB plus Exif data, and in another format, JPEG instead of PNG. So maybe it IS the uploader's own work? --Rosenzweig τ 13:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](https://www.baiko.ac.jp/university/wp-content/themes/baiko/img/juken/crosslight/new_building/overview_img01.png){kind=link}
Deleted, by Raymond on 15th of June with reason "©新井隆弘写真事務所". Taivo (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Trabajo propio? 181.203.4.89 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
500px provided description: met this amazing woman after 7 years again! 181.203.4.89 01:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- Keep This file was originally CC-BY licensed[3]. Per Commons:500px licensing data, the information was later removed by 500px, not the uploader. Joofjoof (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, unused personal photo. Taivo (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
La cantante muere décadas antes de su foto que es "own work"! 181.203.4.89 01:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The titel says together with Ann Christy, so the decease of Christy is not relevant for 'own work'. It is up to Lichengroen to clearify how their relation to the picture is. RonnieV (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work! 181.203.4.89 01:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Own work! 181.203.4.89 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work! 181.203.4.89 01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This image is cropped from an image by Lichengroen. It is not stated as made by Ann Christy, but as someone else, together with Christy. RonnieV (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Own work? 181.203.4.89 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that this is the uploader's own work. Uploader has made no other contributions, indicating they may not have checked for the appropriate licence. Uploader's image of the same subject was previously deleted. Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, small size, ITBF has uploaded copyvios as late as in October 2021. Taivo (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I don't understand the language the source page is written in, but from a machine translation, it does not appear to be licensed under the CC BY-SA. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete file:Dalitha kathalu.jpg due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Image is of a copyrighted work of art by a living artist, photographed in the United States. Derivative work, non-free content, no freedom of panorama. I don't know how to mass-nominate a category, but this user uploaded over 40 pictures of this work. Photographed work: Each One Every One Equal All (2021) by Nick Cave 19h00s (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, this is all files in Category:Every_One_-_Each_One_-_Equal_All Mabalu (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Other files
- File:Every One Each One Equal All.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All 002.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All 003.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All 004.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All 005.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All 006.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 001.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 002.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 003.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 004.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 005.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 006.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 007.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 008.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All March 2022 009.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 001.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 002.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 003.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 004.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 005.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 007.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 008.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 009.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 010.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 011.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 012.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 013.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 014.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 015.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 016.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 017.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 018.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 019.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 020.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 021.jpg
- File:Every One Each One Equal All May 2022 0706.jpg
- File:Times Sq-42 St shuttle platforms Sep 2021 19.jpg
- File:Times Square - Bryant Park Passageway.jpg
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Post-deletion comment
- Hello @19h00s: . You may want to use the VFC tool to mass-nominate images in a category; see Help:VisualFileChange. Regards JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low resolution and identical copy of file:Peter McIntyre with Walter Nash.jpg. Schwede66 04:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Urheberrecht; keine gültige Lizenz; Bär ist keine einfache geometrosche Figur Nordprinz (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Наверняка не собственная работа и нет подтверждения что свободная лицензия. Fluttershy — talk 05:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
copyrighted image, see EXIF Gampe (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-UK-unknown" That isn't camera data, that is Adobe Photoshop data. My Adobe Photoshop adds whatever I place in the copyright field, cropping a photo in Adobe Photoshop doesn't transfer the copyright of the original creator to the person making a cropped version, cropping forms a derivative copy. --RAN (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, evidence of anonymous work is needed to restore the photo. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
_Kirche_(Westheim_(Pfalz)_Church)_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_23277.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Kirche_(Westheim_(Pfalz)_Church)_-_geo.hlipp.de_-_23277.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low res and non-used duplicate of file:Westheim kirche.JPG. P170 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
looks like a derivative from some old-time photo, not sure if it is really self-made rubin16 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Was cropped from File:Fred Kipp with Montreal Royals.jpg before it was replaced with a cleaner version without watermark/imprint. David Bier is original photographer based on the original upload. The notice for full versions says its Public domain based on when it was taken and belief that copyright wasn't renewed. This version should probably be updated with proper attribution/license and maybe cropped with cleaner version. Can be kept if the public domain information is accurate, I don't usually look into old copyrights and if they have expired/renewed. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Image is widely available on the web, dating back to at least 2014, and is unlikely to be teh uploader's own work as claimed Meters (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
there is no source to prove the license rubin16 (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Maria Tenazi died in 1930, more than 90 years ago, and the Armenian licensing was expired after 70 years. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence of anonymous work. Unknown does not mean anonymous. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Carl_Lutz,_Fortepan_and_Archiv_f%C3%BCr_Zeitgeschichte and disclaimer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Fortepan Fortepan license claims cannot be assumed to be true, they routinely lie Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- "... If the identity of the author cannot be established, the term of protection is 70 years from the first day of the year following the first publication of the work.[LXXVI/1999-2019 Art.31(3)]..." See: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list H#Hungary. PD-Hungary tag should apply. Ooligan (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Fortepan is an important resource, an official non-profit partner of the state funded Robert Capa Centre of Hungarian Photography, and they don't "lie routinely". There are cases when their licence is not applicable but this digital photograph was donated (with a lot of other historical images) by the Hungarian Museum of Transport to Fortepan with the explicit wish to publish it under Fortepan licence. Their cooperation was published on the museum website: https://kozlekedesimuzeum.hu/hu/hirek/egyedulallo-fotodokumentaciot-tett-kozze-a-kozlekedesi-muzeum-es-a-fortepan. Zello (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this is applicable to this photo and you verified Fortepan claim, please mention it in its description as required by instruction on Category:Images from Fortepan which explains that Fortepan often lies/misleads about copyright status Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was already mentioned in the licence under the label "Donor". The instruction only says that you should not accept Fortepan licences blindly. Blanket rejection and deletion of perfectly legal images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises. In this case a PD-HU-unknown licence would be also perfectly applicable but that's beside the point because the debate is not about this single image but the fate of every Fortepan picture on Commons. Zello (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- See also for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&oldid=664507736 discussion about Fortepan images in general Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was already mentioned in the licence under the label "Donor". The instruction only says that you should not accept Fortepan licences blindly. Blanket rejection and deletion of perfectly legal images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises. In this case a PD-HU-unknown licence would be also perfectly applicable but that's beside the point because the debate is not about this single image but the fate of every Fortepan picture on Commons. Zello (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, if you have evidence, that this is anonymous work, please present it and the file can be restored. If not, it will be restored in 2048 /120+1 years from creation). I'll delete file:Chamberlin és Levine fortepan 132570.jpg due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_fel%C3%A9_n%C3%A9zve._Fortepan_75655.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_fel%C3%A9_n%C3%A9zve._Fortepan_75655.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Carl_Lutz,_Fortepan_and_Archiv_f%C3%BCr_Zeitgeschichte and disclaimer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Fortepan Fortepan license claims cannot be assumed to be true, they routinely lie Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_felé_nézve._Fortepan_75655.jpg){kind=link}
Keep Fortepan is an important resource, an official non-profit partner of the state funded Robert Capa Centre of Hungarian Photography, and they don't "lie routinely". There are cases when their licence is not applicable but you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts that the application is problematic. This is generally not the case with named private donors who always donate their photographs (or the photographs they inherited) to the site under Fortepan licence. Zello (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_felé_nézve._Fortepan_75655.jpg){kind=link}
- Category:Images from Fortepan has clear "Do not blindly accept the boilerplate license on fortepan.hu. Fortepan can only issue a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for images whose copyright it actually owns, but the rights to many images on fortepan.hu in reality belong to someone else. Unless the original copyright owner or their heirs have explicitly stated that they used to own the copyright and they have transferred the image rights to fortepan.hu, you should not assume that the blanket CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is valid. For really old imagery (PMA+70, basically more than 100 years old) you can use a PD-expired license. For background and details see this page. Summary: every image should be checked individually.".
- "you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts" - in this case "No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable" is sufficient Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- the reasoning that you generally don't trust Fortepan (which is an important digital archive with a lot of cooperations with museums, public archives and other institutions, and it has several awards and exhibitions) is not sufficient for proving individually that you have reasonable doubts. It means that you should prove that Fortepan can not have the copyright of a given picture for some reason. A typical example for this when the donor or the original photographer (whose heirs are the donors) was not named but there is no such deficiency here. Blanket rejection and deletion of all donated images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises. Zello (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- See also for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&oldid=664507736 discussion about Fortepan images in general Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- the reasoning that you generally don't trust Fortepan (which is an important digital archive with a lot of cooperations with museums, public archives and other institutions, and it has several awards and exhibitions) is not sufficient for proving individually that you have reasonable doubts. It means that you should prove that Fortepan can not have the copyright of a given picture for some reason. A typical example for this when the donor or the original photographer (whose heirs are the donors) was not named but there is no such deficiency here. Blanket rejection and deletion of all donated images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises. Zello (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, 1969 German photo, likely copyright violation. I do not mark the image for undeletion due to weak educational value. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
,_Bielatalstrasse_az_Elba_felé_nézve._Fortepan_75655.jpg){kind=link}
Versehentlich PNG hochgeladen, das sieht man in den Artikeln unscharf. JPG ist jetzt vorhanden. Sciencia58 (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
File:(Voronyezsi terület, hoholszkiji járás), a felvétel a település déli határánál készült. Fortepan 27219.jpg
[edit],_a_felv%C3%A9tel_a_telep%C3%BCl%C3%A9s_d%C3%A9li_hat%C3%A1r%C3%A1n%C3%A1l_k%C3%A9sz%C3%BClt._Fortepan_27219.jpg){kind=link}
,_a_felv%C3%A9tel_a_telep%C3%BCl%C3%A9s_d%C3%A9li_hat%C3%A1r%C3%A1n%C3%A1l_k%C3%A9sz%C3%BClt._Fortepan_27219.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Carl_Lutz,_Fortepan_and_Archiv_f%C3%BCr_Zeitgeschichte and disclaimer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Fortepan Fortepan license claims cannot be assumed to be true, they routinely lie Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Fortepan is an important resource, an official non-profit partner of the state funded Robert Capa Centre of Hungarian Photography, and they don't "lie routinely". There are cases when their licence is not applicable but this is not one of them: the photos were donated by the heir of the photographer, painter Tamás Konok Jr. to Fortepan with the explicit wish to publish them digitally under Fortepan licence. The donation was even published on his own blog: https://konok.hu/fortepan-blog-muveszember-munderban/ Zello (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- If this is applicable to this photo, please mention it in its description as required by instruction on Category:Images from Fortepan Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was already mentioned in the licence under the label "Donor" (although with a slight mistake that instead of Tamás Konok, it should be "Heir of Tamás Konok"). The instruction only says that you should not accept Fortepan licences blindly. Blanket rejection and deletion of perfectly legal images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises.Zello (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- See also for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&oldid=664507736 discussion about Fortepan images in general Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was already mentioned in the licence under the label "Donor" (although with a slight mistake that instead of Tamás Konok, it should be "Heir of Tamás Konok"). The instruction only says that you should not accept Fortepan licences blindly. Blanket rejection and deletion of perfectly legal images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises.Zello (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Carl_Lutz,_Fortepan_and_Archiv_f%C3%BCr_Zeitgeschichte and disclaimer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Fortepan Fortepan license claims cannot be assumed to be true, they routinely lie Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Fortepan is an important resource, an official non-profit partner of the state funded Robert Capa Centre of Hungarian Photography, and they don't "lie routinely". There are cases when their licence is not applicable but you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts that the application is problematic. In this case the UVATERV company, the owner of this huge company archive, had a cooperation with Fortepan to save and digitalize thousands of their own photographs damaged in a fire, and publish them under Fortepan licence. The cooperation was widely reported in the media (and obviously praised for saving this precious resource), one example: http://hg.hu/cikkek/varos/17045-paratlan-kepdokumentacio-az-50-es-evekbol-elkeszult-a-fortepan-uvaterv-leletmentese Zello (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Images from Fortepan has clear "Do not blindly accept the boilerplate license on fortepan.hu. Fortepan can only issue a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for images whose copyright it actually owns, but the rights to many images on fortepan.hu in reality belong to someone else. Unless the original copyright owner or their heirs have explicitly stated that they used to own the copyright and they have transferred the image rights to fortepan.hu, you should not assume that the blanket CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is valid. For really old imagery (PMA+70, basically more than 100 years old) you can use a PD-expired license. For background and details see this page. Summary: every image should be checked individually.".
- "you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts" - in this case "No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable" is sufficient Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- The instruction only says that you should not accept Fortepan licences blindly. Blanket rejection and deletion of perfectly legal images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises.Zello (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
See also for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&oldid=664507736 discussion about Fortepan images in general Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no aauthor no permission, cannot be a selfie as is claimed Hoyanova (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This is not a selfie. It is a professional photo taken with permission by © Nathalie Hennis SachaHoedemaker (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. But, then you should write her name into the author-field, instead of your one. Also, Nathalie Hennis needs to confirm the choosen free license per direct mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org . --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, the photo will be restored after the permission will be received and accepted. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not clear enough Sahar ash (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dragibus93 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW - newspaper scans
- File:Azouzi Le matin du Sahara.jpg
- File:Bouillon de culture Azouzi Mohamed.jpg
- File:Mohamed Azouzi Réécrire l'écriture du vécu.jpg
- File:Galerie Soulages.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 10:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bonjour, en faisant mes recherches sur l'artiste Azouzi Mohamed j'ai trouvé des articles de journaux le concernant en format papier. Je me suis donc permis de les prendre en photos étant donné qu'ils ne sont pas disponible sur le net. J'ai bien sur cité à chaque fois le nom du journal auquel correspondait chaque article.
- Cordialement, Dragibus93 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission from article authors. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
also:
- File:Christian Keeling (cropped).jpeg
- File:Brendan McKay with the Durham Bulls.jpeg
- File:Paris Kea.jpeg
- File:Paris Kea (cropped).jpeg
- File:Iam Gibaut.jpeg
- File:Joel James (basketball).jpeg
- File:Kenny Williams (basketball, born 1996).jpeg
- File:Sam Perkins at his basketball camp in 2019.jpeg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
i mistakenly transferred them to commons but it seems GFDL files licensed after 2018 are no longer eligible for Commons FMSky (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, often as uploader's request on uploading day, sometimes as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
COM:Derivative work: modified version of https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=149238990545273&set=ecnf.100063775177950 with the background removed. MKFI (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: small resolution image, versions without background are widely published: https://asiannews.in/manavguru-gears-up-to-help-heal-every-disease-disorder-in-9-180-days-2/ MKFI (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation, smaller version used as Linkedin picture: https://gh.linkedin.com/in/stella-agyemang-duah-4b22a332 MKFI (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. License says own work but is clearly the logo taken from official sources (e.g. charlixcx.co.uk) and likely meets originality threshold for copyright protection 195.89.103.118 10:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- the "likely meets the originality threshold for copyright protection" part is totally wrong, that image can't have copyright protection because they are red simple letters Adrianmartinezuwu (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, red letters are simple, but the crash marks are not. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm the originator of this file. This file is outdated and must be deleted. Thanks. Stalderstalder (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
It's me on this image and it's outdated. 84.226.64.45 10:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm the originator of this file. This file is outdated and must be deleted. Thanks. Stalderstalder (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, logo of non-notable company, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm the originator of this file. This file is outdated and must be deleted. Thanks. Stalderstalder (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, logo of non-notable company, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm the originator of this file. This file is outdated and must be deleted. Thanks. Stalderstalder (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, logo of non-notable company, out of scope. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Image pas libre de droit LucasBourret (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, clearly, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Argentina for stamps is 50 years after the date of publication, which hasn't passed. I don't think the licensing rational is valid either. Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- So the stamp created itself then? Interesting. And you called me a hooligan. Smh. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did it in a friendly way due to constant contacts. Matsievsky (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah Ok. I'll accept that. I didn't know we were friendly. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- De facto. Matsievsky (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah Ok. I'll accept that. I didn't know we were friendly. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did it in a friendly way due to constant contacts. Matsievsky (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- So the stamp created itself then? Interesting. And you called me a hooligan. Smh. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, will be undeleted in 2046 (50+1 years from publication). Some stamps are ineligible for copyright (see threshold of originality), but this is a complex stamp. Taivo (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright in Argentina for stamps is 50 years after the date of publication, which in this case hasn't passed yet. I don't think the licensing rational is valid either. Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only part of the stamp that is copyrightable is the emblem, which is not subject to copyright. The tag specifically says that emblems of municipalities are not subject to copyright in Argentina. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your saying. "The only part is copyrightable is the emblem, which is not subject copyright" doesn't make any sense. That said, assuming the emblem isn't copyrightable, it's only 10% of the image and I assume the rest of it is. Obviously just because an image contains an emblems of a municipality doesn't mean everything else in the image is then automatically in the public domain and this seems like a unique work to me. Although, I'm willing to be wrong the copyright rules for Argentina clearly state that ""The ownership of anonymous intellectual works belonging to institutions, corporations or legal persons shall last for 50 years from the date of publication of those works." The government of Argentina is an institution." I don't see why that wouldn't apply to stamps or this image in particular. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The emblem is the only part that is necessarily able to be copyrighted on the grounds that it's sufficiently creative, but it is not copyrighted because it is the symbol of a municipality. Sorry for not being more clear with what I meant, I realize I came off confusingly. The rest of the stamp is simply text on a white background, which I don't believe is copyrightable. The only part of the stamp that can be considered part of the design is the emblem, which is in the public domain. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK. That makes more sense. It seems like the copyright rules contradict themselves or at least the copyright article does. So I'm not going to say your wrong, but I'm not going to say your right either. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The emblem is the only part that is necessarily able to be copyrighted on the grounds that it's sufficiently creative, but it is not copyrighted because it is the symbol of a municipality. Sorry for not being more clear with what I meant, I realize I came off confusingly. The rest of the stamp is simply text on a white background, which I don't believe is copyrightable. The only part of the stamp that can be considered part of the design is the emblem, which is in the public domain. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your saying. "The only part is copyrightable is the emblem, which is not subject copyright" doesn't make any sense. That said, assuming the emblem isn't copyrightable, it's only 10% of the image and I assume the rest of it is. Obviously just because an image contains an emblems of a municipality doesn't mean everything else in the image is then automatically in the public domain and this seems like a unique work to me. Although, I'm willing to be wrong the copyright rules for Argentina clearly state that ""The ownership of anonymous intellectual works belonging to institutions, corporations or legal persons shall last for 50 years from the date of publication of those works." The government of Argentina is an institution." I don't see why that wouldn't apply to stamps or this image in particular. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, the coat of arms is ineligible for copyright and the rest does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was previously kept because the tag said that emblems made by the Argentinian government aren't copyrighted, but that does not seem to be the case. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator and change in the guideline about emblems since I originally nominated the image for deletion. Also, thanks for renominating it. I hadn't actually noticed that the guideline had changed. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Загружено по ошибке Arman Militosyan (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. We have that in .svg. Taivo (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Загружено по ошибке Arman Militosyan (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, unused file. Courtesy deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for 2D art. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Derivative works. Yann (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, copyrighted posters are here main objects, not de minimis. Taivo (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
per COM:FOP Japan. According to the [4][5], these files are photo taking the public wall art. No source and permission of these art are indicated. Commons cant' keep these file.
Netora (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Satellitenbild in der Nacht über Norddeutschland bis Skandinavien in Heroldsbach aufgenommen? Pep CeMor (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Google Translate: Ja, das ist wahrscheinlich richtig, aber warum haben Sie das Bild zum Löschen nominiert? Askeuhd (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll give the nominator a chance to respond, but if nothing is heard I'll close as an invalid nomination. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, NASA photo, source exists. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Satellitenbild mit Wolkenbildung von 2012 - wozu? Pep CeMor (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Google Translate: Ja. Es ist Teil der Sammlung von Bildern, die von der NASA hochgeladen wurden. Aus welchem Grund haben Sie es zur Löschung vorgeschlagen? Askeuhd (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll give the nominator a chance to respond, but if nothing is heard I'll close as an invalid nomination. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, NASA photo, source exists. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Privates Hundebild in Privatauto - wozu? Pep CeMor (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, I see here educational value. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S0707-0030, Norbert Dürpisch.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It‘s not a duplicate, it‘s a crop that sizes better in the infobox, not too large.2A02:3032:3:5D7B:7161:88D6:8AAC:43E 14:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, the crop is used and so in scope. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
really own work?? Xocolatl (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, copyrighted screenshot. Taivo (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Copyright permissions TMCF78 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, courtesy deletion. Small photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Due to the numerous artifacts, I highly doubt the image is an own work by the user, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Also:
- a very similar image (the only difference is the size) had been previously uploaded in 2006 on OrthodoxWiki with the mention the image was copyrighted. Therefore, it is clear that MPCGRB.jpg is not own work (unless it is the same user who uploaded both images which seems unlikely).
- it is very likely that File:Coat of arms of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.svg and File:Coat of arms of MPC.png are derived from this file, and that therefore they are under some infringements too, and should also be deleted.
Veverve (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Because of privacy concerns for myself and the person in the picture. I have been able to change my username on Wikipedia to what i currently have and i would also want to remove this media as it includes my full name. I'm the copyright holder for the image so please remove this image along with any information provided when uploaded. Vita in motu (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment Vita in motu is the original uploader of this file. Bovlb (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It has been up for 10 years with an irrevocable license,
910 years more than the clawback period we allow. The problem with deleting it, is that there may be downstream users who need the entry to verify the license. Imagine someone republishing the image, then getting sued for copyright infringement, then trying to prove it was released under a CC license 10 years ago, with the evidence now deleted. The image is also in use, at both Wikidata, and Norwegian Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)- I will guarantee you that this image will not be used elsewhere. This is a private picture that I regret uploading in the first place and I'm basically withdrawing Wikipedia's rights to publish it as I'm the original copyright holder. Vita in motu (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The license that you released it under is irrevocable, someone may already have reused it, we have a 7 day clawback period, that expired 10 years ago. The image is already being used by other projects and may have been used by any number of downstream users in good faith. By deleting it, we would be removing evidence of the original license, putting downstream users in legal jeopardy. A clever person might delete an image just to be able to sue a downstream user. You wrote: "I will guarantee you that this image will not be used elsewhere" is a statement that you cannot make with any degree of certainty. --RAN (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Image currently in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, mostly per Richard. Taivo (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Replaced by Category:Crimp terminals and connectors— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and redirect per COM:CATRED. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "Terminals and connectors" are two distinct groups. Crimp connectors is a valid subset of that. BNCs are connectors, not terminals. Ring and forks are terminals, not connectors. Spades are usually considered as terminals. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, per Andy. But problem is that the category is empty. @Andy Dingley: please add some files into the category. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Updater500 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: withdraw copyright permission
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as file does not qualify for speedy.-- Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
--Jon Kolbert I am respectfully requesting again that this photo be deleted. As a new contributor at the time, I made a mistake. I have learned that the photo is owned by the university for which the individual is employed for marketing purposes. It was a miscommunication on my part as a new contributor at the time. Thank you.
{{copyvio|Professional headshot/photo owned by individual's employer/university--SEE HERE where the photo is copyrighted by the university https://photos.sfasu.edu/pages/search.php }} Updater500 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
See here where the university owns this photo: https://photos.sfasu.edu/pages/search.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Updater500 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|copyright violation can be found by typing subject's name in this webpage-https://photos.sfasu.edu/pages/home.php}} Updater500 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|copyright violation can be seen by typing subject's name here in simple search box https://photos.sfasu.edu/pages/home.php}} Updater500 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Professional headshot/photo owned by individual's employer/university. It is a copyright violation Updater500 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, in my opinion the uploader is not a trustable user and I'll delete all his uploads as copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work. The presence of the copyrighted poster goes beyond de minimis. Colin M (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Perhaps, but it also arguably falls under fair use. If it doesn't, can it be cropped so the image can be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, here are three posters, all copyrighted, and if we crop them all out, then nothing will remain. Taivo (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Der Stürmer
[edit]These photos/scans of front pages of German Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer all feature caricatures by "Fips", that is de:Philipp Rupprecht. Rupprecht died in 1975, and his work is still copyrighted. Additionally, photos and texts on these front pages may also still be copyrighted. So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2046, 70 years after Rupprecht's death, unless they contain additional text or photographs still copyrighted then.
- File:01940 0660 (2) Der Stürmer.jpg
- File:Der Stürmer Deutsches Wochenblatt Sonder-Nummer Januar 1936 German nazi propaganda antisemitic magazine Caricature of Alfred Fabian (1897-1950) by Fips Die Juden sind unser Unglück Holocaust exhibition HL-senteret Oslo Norway 2021 A.jpg
- File:Der Stürmer Deutsches Wochenblatt Sonder-Nummer Januar 1936 German nazi propaganda antisemitic magazine Caricature of Alfred Fabian (1897-1950) by Fips Die Juden sind unser Unglück Holocaust exhibition HL-senteret Oslo Norway 2021 B.jpg
- File:Stürmer Seckendorf.jpg
_Der_St%C3%BCrmer.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Fips_Die_Juden_sind_unser_Ungl%C3%BCck_Holocaust_exhibition_HL-senteret_Oslo_Norway_2021_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Fips_Die_Juden_sind_unser_Ungl%C3%BCck_Holocaust_exhibition_HL-senteret_Oslo_Norway_2021_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 21:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, in my opinion it's safe to undelete them in 2046. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be copyrighted, unlikely own work, eg [6], [7] etc. Gumruch (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Btspurplegalaxy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This image isn't posted under any official site from the White House Yann (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- This Tweet from ABC News links the picture and says that The White House released it: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1532011482971611139?cxt=HHwWhoC9pfWU5sIqAAAA. Sorry for any confusion, I assumed that since the Rolling Stone said "via @whitehouse" in its caption, that it was PD. Beulagpinkeu (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is where the original image was uploaded [8] Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can I change the source, theN? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can change the source, but it won't change anything since the image still doesn't come from any of the official White House sites. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can I change the source, theN? Beulagpinkeu (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 07:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Im EXIT steht: Fotograf=Sadat Bodi, also ist das mit "Own work" und Author=Sandra Altmann eine URV. Zudem steht in Desription: fotografiert von Dominik Vogel Jbergner (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is an VRTS email received for “File:Sandra Altmann (Autorin).jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2022060110009026. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: There is a VTRS ticket but is wrong, the image isn't free. --Ezarateesteban 23:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- also crop file:Sofia Rotaru Pesnya Goda 2014 (cropped).jpg
I cannot verify the license. Small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: copyright violation. --Ezarateesteban 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Not useful. The user uploads dozens of almost the same images without worrying about categorization and usability. Xocolatl (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Stifle (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This isn't in the public domain in Norway because copyright there is 70 years after publication and it was published in 1983. Adamant1 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Norwegian stamps are covered by {{PD-NorwayGov}}. There are two levels of rights here; both stamp and art. Therefore, the first licence tag is used together with {{PD-old}} as the artist Gustav Vigeland died in 1943. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Orland I assume your talking about Gustav Vigeland. If so, he might have created the statue that the drawing is based on, but there's zero evidence he's the artist of the drawing/stamp. Otherwise, can you provide proof that he created the stamp? In the meantime, PD-NorwayGOV isn't valid for stamps because obviously they aren't "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities." So the only thing that would work here is evidence that Gustav Vigeland created the stamp. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Among Norwegian wikipedians, we interpret "other statements which concern the public exercise of authority" as to include these stamps. If you and this community disagree, you will have to delete all of Stamps of Norway issued after 1955. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Correcting myself: not all of Norwegian stamps. Some, such as this one are faithful reproductions of a two dimensional work of art, but if you begin questioning {{PD-NorwayGov}}, there's no ratio left for angry boy and many other images. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Orland: Not to say the opinions of Norwegian wikipedians doesn't matter, but at least from what I can tell arguments along the lines of "other statements which concern the public exercise of authority" haven't been valid when it comes to stamps of other countries. Maybe Norway is an exception, but I highly doubt it. Otherwise I'd like to see evidence. Not to be rude, but trying to get this kept by cherry picking one sentence of PD-NorwayGOV as a keep rational without saying what the sentence applies to, "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions", just comes off as insincere. Obviously not everything a government does is a "public exercise of authority" and not every "public exercise of authority" by a government (Norwegiaan or otherwise) is automatically in the public domain. Acting otherwise or like PD-NorwayGOV doesn't apply to three very specific things that have nothing to do with stamps is just disingenuous. The same goes for your whole "you have to delete everything to delete one thing" argument. In the meantime if you want to argue stamps are "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions" or prove this was drawn by Gustav Vigeland then I suggest you do so. Otherwise, this is pretty likely to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I understand your concern, but finding coverage in one single sentence in a law is what laws are about. And Norwegian copyright laws might obviously be different from other countries' copyright laws. As it says on the stamp (bottom left), this image is an engraving by Knut Løkke-Sørensen, most likely based on a photo by an anonymous photographer. KLS was an engraver emplyed by Bank of Norway, who made banknotes and stamps for a long period. Most of his stamps are based on elder photos like here. this and this and some other are also engraved by „L-S“ Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've cited Norway's laws several times and it has nothing to do with ones in other countries. If the image is an engraving by Knut Løkke-Sørensen who is still alive, and copyright in Norway is Life + 70 years when we know who the artist is, then I don't really see how you can make an argument that the image is in the public domain. You can't even argue that it is PD if the engraving is based on an anonymous photograph because it's still 70 years past the publication date in that case, which obviously hasn't passed yet. That's literally what the law in Norway is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you said yourself, "Maybe Norway is an exception". Copyright laws apply slightly differently from country to country. That's why the works of Czesław Słania and other Designers of stamps are represented here. If {{PD-NorwayGov}} applies here, it will be of no relevance to the case whether no:Knut Løkke-Sørensen is alive, or passed away last year. If PD-NorwayGov doesn't apply, then we'll have to delete both this stamp image and others. I'll invite other norwegian wikipedians into this discussion, perhaps they have a clearer understanding of this than I do. Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but the mere existence of other images on Wikipedia that might also violate copyright laws doesn't negate this nomination or really have anything to do with it. You can't just point to other files as a reason why this one shouldn't be deleted. Especially not on it's own. Outside of that I don't really care if you ping other norwegian wikipedians, but it does come off like canvasing/brigading. At the end of the day if the artist of the stamp has been dead 70 years or not as the law stipulates should be pretty easy to answer that doesn't require a "Norwegian perspective" to decide. In the meantime, if you want to litigate or question the 70 year thing the place to do it would be Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway or a similar forum. I have zero issue with that, but the guidelines are the guidelines, and this isn't the correct forum to try and change them if you think their wrong. I'm happy to have the image undeleted once you have Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway changed if you ever do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Adamant1. I fear that you might be misinterpreting me. I may have been vague, so it might have been my own fault. It's not the 70 year rule that are questioned here, but the range and limits of PD-NorwayGov. In my message on the no:wp noticeboard (here of diff here) I tried to be very specific: i was not canvassing, but rather asking for qualified opinions. And I did not try to use other files as an argument or reason, rather pointing out the eventual consequences. Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate that there is a discussion about it, but it would really should taken place on a none Norwegian language discussion board so non-Norwegian speakers and people who don't have a vested interested in stamps being PD could participate. This is a global project after all. It also should have taken place on Commons. Wikipedia is a different project and things determined there don't determine policy on Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but the mere existence of other images on Wikipedia that might also violate copyright laws doesn't negate this nomination or really have anything to do with it. You can't just point to other files as a reason why this one shouldn't be deleted. Especially not on it's own. Outside of that I don't really care if you ping other norwegian wikipedians, but it does come off like canvasing/brigading. At the end of the day if the artist of the stamp has been dead 70 years or not as the law stipulates should be pretty easy to answer that doesn't require a "Norwegian perspective" to decide. In the meantime, if you want to litigate or question the 70 year thing the place to do it would be Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway or a similar forum. I have zero issue with that, but the guidelines are the guidelines, and this isn't the correct forum to try and change them if you think their wrong. I'm happy to have the image undeleted once you have Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway changed if you ever do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you said yourself, "Maybe Norway is an exception". Copyright laws apply slightly differently from country to country. That's why the works of Czesław Słania and other Designers of stamps are represented here. If {{PD-NorwayGov}} applies here, it will be of no relevance to the case whether no:Knut Løkke-Sørensen is alive, or passed away last year. If PD-NorwayGov doesn't apply, then we'll have to delete both this stamp image and others. I'll invite other norwegian wikipedians into this discussion, perhaps they have a clearer understanding of this than I do. Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. If bank notes and stamps fall within the scope of ÅVL § 14 first part; _and_ the artwork mentioned (engraving by Knut Løkke-Sørensen) are created for that spesific use - it will fall within PD-NorwayGov. The last sentence in ÅVL §14 is possibly a show-stopper; if the note or stamp itself is to be seen as a piece of art; and not a public document using artwork created for that special us.
- As i read the law. How that is judged by a court, i dont know. One should be able to predict the legality of a given action by reading the law. IP-laws are not easy readings. Andrez1 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since you bring it up I find it hard to believe that currency would have to follow the 70 after the death of the artist rule but stamps wouldn't, or at least if stamps were PD that they wouldn't have explicitly said so in the law. As far as I know in cases where the law is ambiguous, and I don't really think it is, Commons defaults to the precautionary principle. So whatever direction we go with it the file should be deleted. The only reason it wouldn't be deleted is if someone can figure out what the copyright law explicitly says about stamps, and I really don't see that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If stamps or notes fall within the scope of ÅVL § 14 first part; and the artwork are created for the spesific use; it will not be protected by copyright. Any rule of 70 years after the death of the artist is not relevant. The Norwegian copyright law does not mention stamps. If or not it fall within the scope of the law have to be shown by works preceding the law or court descisions. Inclusions of these material in commons rely on it beeing within ÅVL § 14. Exclusion ditto on not beeing within the scope of ÅVL § 14. Andrez1 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- A norwegian source points to a norwegian court desiscion Rt-2001–872 (Løkke Sørensen/Frimerke) in a case about if IP-rights where passed to employer/client. It could be spot on on both stamps, Løkke Sørensen and the problem on hand.
- I do not have access to the document, it could be in th interst of all to get that. Andrez1 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blind end. The document mentioned is probably this. It was close, but not on ÅVL§14. I guess you can feed it trough google translate or something like that to read it.
- What is needed is works on the law preceding the law, legal comments on the law, or court verdicts related to ÅVL§14. It could take time to get. Andrez1 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The right to make copies of notes is not, or not solely regulated by IP-law. The norwegian Criminal Law chapter 29 regulates that. I se no problem until someone intentionally make copies and try to set them in sirculation as bona fide cash. Not a problem commons even should think about preventing. Andrez1 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If currency isn't regulated by IP-law how come COM:CUR Norway says it's not OK to upload images of Norwegian currency because it's protected by copyright then? You'd think it would be fine to if there's no IP issues involved in doing so. The fact that no one in this discussion can give an answer to anything that matches what COM:CUR Norway says is exactly why I think this is an issue that won't and shouldn't be resolved in a deletion discussion. It really needs to be discussed and clarified somewhere else, like the talk page of COM:CUR Norway. -Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who keeps the right to make copies of norwegian currency and on what ground is interesting. If that is related to intellectual property or fraud laws, my guess is fraud laws or other special laws. You complain to much on not getting answers. Andrez1 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Where have I complained about not getting answered? I could really care less if people answer me. I don't even think I've asked any questions. If your referring to my comment that it should be discussed on somewhere like COM:CUR Norway, that's not a complaint, but this isn't a discussion page for general chit-chat about copyright and I prefer the discussion stay on topic. Otherwise, it just devolves into one side trying to Gish gallop the other. We aren't going to resolve anything by discussing the obtuse, hypotheticals anyway. Nor are they even considered by the closer most of the time anyway. Whereas, I do think this can be resolved going forward, if not in this specific deletion request, by discussing it on a forum specifically related to Norwegian copyright law. Or I guess people from Norway can just canvas each other and flood every DR with of topic tripe when it comes up. It's your choice. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is in the common interest to clarify the matter. If or not bank notes and stamps fall within the scope of ÅVL § 14 first part; seems to bee the key question.
- On that i know that i dont know. And that this need to be answered. There is no attempt to flood the discussion, it have been mentioned in norwegian no:wp noticeboard, you have got the link to that and you are free to read. Google translate or something like it will help you get a impression.
- My point there beeing that if Norwegian Central Bank's (Norges Bank) document shown in COM:CUR Norway stays unchallenged the use of ÅVL§14, (and by that the PD-NorwayGov) is gone. (still some possibility in rendering notes in limited dpi and with "SPECIMEN" marking. If it not will fall within ÅVL§14 the central bank makes copyright-claim so it will be problematic to upload to commons on an aproved PD or CC license)
- If the situation on stamps are almost like. It could likewise be necessary to challenge that. On that matter legal advice will be needed. If that will happen, i do not know, but i will support it. Not to win or loose, but to clarify the matter. Andrez1 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would have preferred the discussion happen on a general talk page where it won't likely just be Norwegian users who have an interest in favoring stamps/bank notes being PD, and that people who speak other languages besides Norwegian can participate in, but at least there is a discussion. Outside of that, I'm not trying to "win" anything either. I wouldn't have been involved in this past the first few comments myself if Orland had of just made a reasonable case for why the stamp was PD from the start and not pinged a bunch of people who clearly aren't capable of having a coherent discussion about it. I could really give a crap about this at the end of the day though. Which is why I said I'd be happy to do an un-deletion request if the file is deleted and it ultimately turns out it shouldn't have been. The only thing I do care about is having the copyright law clarified so there won't be canvassing or a bunch of double talk next time. That's it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is really heavy stuff, my belif is on the need to se that PD-NorwayGov relies on ÅVL§14 who relies on the norvegian constitution §100 (in english). The "There shall be freedom of expression." relies upon material access to channels and documents. "Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever." and "The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse."
- What wikipedia does on a good day is to "facilitate" an "enlightened public discourse".
- The current use of the material in Liste over kunstverk på norske frimerker fall within that scope of enabling an "enlightened" public discourse.
- It is not the "authorities of the state" who have created the condition that "facilitate" an "enlightened public discourse". And it can not be seen as needed. It will violate constitutinonal principles on division of power (EN:WP [Separation of powers]) if any "open and enlightened public discourse" are under control of what it is supposed to control. Andrez1 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep on the argument above. Andrez1 (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- The quote "Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies." is what directly links the constitutional §100 to ÅVL§14. This right to information can be seen narrowly to political discourse. Or in a broader sense that what material is needed to express or enlighten any subject is protected by the law.
- The stamp will by that fall within the scope of "other statements which concern the public exercise of authority," (ÅVL§14) Andrez1 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- By the broader sense, that is. If a reproduction of the stamp in question is used in a political discourse; it will include itself as "other statements". Andrez1 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrez1: What exactly does this image have to do with "the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies" and how exactly is this image being used as part of "political discourse" by being hosted on Commons though? It should be obvious that arbitrarily saying "keep because this is part of politically discourse" or whatever isn't a legitimate way to determine what Commons can or can't legally host. Least of which because literally everything is or can be political. In the meantime the law specifically says it applies to "documents" and "proceedings" and stamps aren't either. So I don't really how you can argue the image should be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your first quote is narrowly focusing on the second part of the sentence. "Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities (...)" is enough.
- Your question "how exactly is this image being used as part of "political discourse" by being hosted on Commons though?" - is also somewhat misleading. It is not Wikipedias function to be used as part of a political discourse. What wikipedia can do is provide information, a material prerequsite of an "enlightened public discourse". If a spesific "political discourse" have happened, will happen or never happen; is of lesser importance.
- The stamp, and other stamps in similar circumstance List of artwork on norvegian stamps is there to be used or not, for whatever argument, by everyone.
- GRL§100 "Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression." Part of the material basis of being abel to "speak their mind frankly" lays in access to information. Holding back or limiting access to information (unless prescribed by law) will bee seen as a constitutional breach.
- To argue that this material have to be within narrow definition of "documents" and "proceedings" (and not mentioning ÅVL§14 "other statements") is somewhat in conflict with GRL §100 "Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual or for other weighty reasons." When there is no known limitation on use of this material - prescribed by law - my layman understanding of this is that use of the stamp in question, under a PD-NorwayGov-licence, is legally OK.
- With the limitation that I only see what I see. I do not know what I dont. Andrez1 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your the one being misleading by repeatedly saying "Wikipedia" as if they are the same site. Obviously they are different projects and have different guidelines about what files they can host. Wikipedia generally has a lower bar to hosting an image then Commons does. While I agree that the image can probably be hosted on Wikipedia since it's being used for "political discourse" or whatever as part of an article, that's a different question then if it can hosted on Commons legally or not. I'm sure you understand the distinction.
- @Andrez1: What exactly does this image have to do with "the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies" and how exactly is this image being used as part of "political discourse" by being hosted on Commons though? It should be obvious that arbitrarily saying "keep because this is part of politically discourse" or whatever isn't a legitimate way to determine what Commons can or can't legally host. Least of which because literally everything is or can be political. In the meantime the law specifically says it applies to "documents" and "proceedings" and stamps aren't either. So I don't really how you can argue the image should be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- By the broader sense, that is. If a reproduction of the stamp in question is used in a political discourse; it will include itself as "other statements". Andrez1 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would have preferred the discussion happen on a general talk page where it won't likely just be Norwegian users who have an interest in favoring stamps/bank notes being PD, and that people who speak other languages besides Norwegian can participate in, but at least there is a discussion. Outside of that, I'm not trying to "win" anything either. I wouldn't have been involved in this past the first few comments myself if Orland had of just made a reasonable case for why the stamp was PD from the start and not pinged a bunch of people who clearly aren't capable of having a coherent discussion about it. I could really give a crap about this at the end of the day though. Which is why I said I'd be happy to do an un-deletion request if the file is deleted and it ultimately turns out it shouldn't have been. The only thing I do care about is having the copyright law clarified so there won't be canvassing or a bunch of double talk next time. That's it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Where have I complained about not getting answered? I could really care less if people answer me. I don't even think I've asked any questions. If your referring to my comment that it should be discussed on somewhere like COM:CUR Norway, that's not a complaint, but this isn't a discussion page for general chit-chat about copyright and I prefer the discussion stay on topic. Otherwise, it just devolves into one side trying to Gish gallop the other. We aren't going to resolve anything by discussing the obtuse, hypotheticals anyway. Nor are they even considered by the closer most of the time anyway. Whereas, I do think this can be resolved going forward, if not in this specific deletion request, by discussing it on a forum specifically related to Norwegian copyright law. Or I guess people from Norway can just canvas each other and flood every DR with of topic tripe when it comes up. It's your choice. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Who keeps the right to make copies of norwegian currency and on what ground is interesting. If that is related to intellectual property or fraud laws, my guess is fraud laws or other special laws. You complain to much on not getting answers. Andrez1 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If currency isn't regulated by IP-law how come COM:CUR Norway says it's not OK to upload images of Norwegian currency because it's protected by copyright then? You'd think it would be fine to if there's no IP issues involved in doing so. The fact that no one in this discussion can give an answer to anything that matches what COM:CUR Norway says is exactly why I think this is an issue that won't and shouldn't be resolved in a deletion discussion. It really needs to be discussed and clarified somewhere else, like the talk page of COM:CUR Norway. -Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since you bring it up I find it hard to believe that currency would have to follow the 70 after the death of the artist rule but stamps wouldn't, or at least if stamps were PD that they wouldn't have explicitly said so in the law. As far as I know in cases where the law is ambiguous, and I don't really think it is, Commons defaults to the precautionary principle. So whatever direction we go with it the file should be deleted. The only reason it wouldn't be deleted is if someone can figure out what the copyright law explicitly says about stamps, and I really don't see that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've cited Norway's laws several times and it has nothing to do with ones in other countries. If the image is an engraving by Knut Løkke-Sørensen who is still alive, and copyright in Norway is Life + 70 years when we know who the artist is, then I don't really see how you can make an argument that the image is in the public domain. You can't even argue that it is PD if the engraving is based on an anonymous photograph because it's still 70 years past the publication date in that case, which obviously hasn't passed yet. That's literally what the law in Norway is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I understand your concern, but finding coverage in one single sentence in a law is what laws are about. And Norwegian copyright laws might obviously be different from other countries' copyright laws. As it says on the stamp (bottom left), this image is an engraving by Knut Løkke-Sørensen, most likely based on a photo by an anonymous photographer. KLS was an engraver emplyed by Bank of Norway, who made banknotes and stamps for a long period. Most of his stamps are based on elder photos like here. this and this and some other are also engraved by „L-S“ Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Orland: Not to say the opinions of Norwegian wikipedians doesn't matter, but at least from what I can tell arguments along the lines of "other statements which concern the public exercise of authority" haven't been valid when it comes to stamps of other countries. Maybe Norway is an exception, but I highly doubt it. Otherwise I'd like to see evidence. Not to be rude, but trying to get this kept by cherry picking one sentence of PD-NorwayGOV as a keep rational without saying what the sentence applies to, "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions", just comes off as insincere. Obviously not everything a government does is a "public exercise of authority" and not every "public exercise of authority" by a government (Norwegiaan or otherwise) is automatically in the public domain. Acting otherwise or like PD-NorwayGOV doesn't apply to three very specific things that have nothing to do with stamps is just disingenuous. The same goes for your whole "you have to delete everything to delete one thing" argument. In the meantime if you want to argue stamps are "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions" or prove this was drawn by Gustav Vigeland then I suggest you do so. Otherwise, this is pretty likely to be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Correcting myself: not all of Norwegian stamps. Some, such as this one are faithful reproductions of a two dimensional work of art, but if you begin questioning {{PD-NorwayGov}}, there's no ratio left for angry boy and many other images. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Among Norwegian wikipedians, we interpret "other statements which concern the public exercise of authority" as to include these stamps. If you and this community disagree, you will have to delete all of Stamps of Norway issued after 1955. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Orland I assume your talking about Gustav Vigeland. If so, he might have created the statue that the drawing is based on, but there's zero evidence he's the artist of the drawing/stamp. Otherwise, can you provide proof that he created the stamp? In the meantime, PD-NorwayGOV isn't valid for stamps because obviously they aren't "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities." So the only thing that would work here is evidence that Gustav Vigeland created the stamp. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime, there's zero reason you or anyone else who wants the image to continue to be used in the article can't just upload it to Wikipedia. I have zero problem with that, but images that are being used in Wikipedia articles get deleted from Commons all the time if they aren't PD. There's no Template:PD-We're using it on Wikipedia or whatever for a reason. An image being used on www.rando_political_discourse_blog.com doesn't automatically make it fair use on Commons. My suggestion if you want the image to continuing being used in a Wikipedia article is to upload it to Wikipedia. Then they can sort out if it's fair use for their website or not. That's out of the scope of this discussion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Used or not used (or hosted) on Commmons, some wikipedia, facebook, twitter, 4chan, 8kun, whatever; does not really matter. An image of the stamp have been placed on commons and used in an somewhat relevant article. That does not make the use legal or illegal.
- (There is a lengthy norvegian NOU 1999: 27 discussing the norvegian constitution §100. including the material side of Freedom of speech. Here. Do not take that as a final pointǃ I have not read it since then.)
- The PD-NorwayGov relies on ÅVL§14 who relies on the norvegian constitution §100. (A free speech "There shall be freedom of expression." - guarantee.)
- The ÅVL (Åndsverksloven) is an IP-law. It aims at protecting intellectual property. The constitutions §96 & §105 (and other human rights declaration) guarantee the right to property.
- If the state or any state body or the municipalities where given permission to claim intellectual property rights on any document it would effectively undermine everyone else (except the state an municipalities themselves.) from taking part in an "open and enlightened public discourse". (On the state & municipalities & "any other subject whatsoever.")
- To guarantee the public access to this material the state is denied the right to claim intellectual property rights on its own documents.
- The PD-NorwayGov -license is somewhat missing in its translation to english. The first line of §14. The (Norwegian) "Åndsverklovens § 14. Åndsverk som ikke har opphavsrettslig vern". is translated to (Unofficial English translation) "Åndsverklovens § 14".
- The missing part is of importance as the ÅVL§14 states exceptions to the law. It should have been something like "Intellectual-works-law § 14. Intellectual works ("åndsverk" as defined in §2) who do not have copyright/IP-legal protection."
- If the image of the stamp in question falls whithin the ÅVL§14 exceptions to the ÅVL-IP-property law; I belive it does; it will fall within the scope of Commons PD-NorwayGov -license. It will not have copyright/IP-legal protection.
- It is in the public domain, not as a gift from the norvegian goverment; but guaranteed by the norvegian constitution. As I view it. Andrez1 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a norvegian "postallaw". The norvegian postloven §18
- "§ 18.Frimerker
- Det kreves tillatelse fra myndigheten for å utgi frimerker eller andre frankeringsmidler påført «Norge» eller «Noreg»."
- Google translatesː
- "§ 18. Stamps
- Permission is required from the authority to issue stamps or other franking means affixed to "Norway" or "Norway"."
- Commons use of the stamp should be read according to Magrittes "This is not a pipe".
- It is not a stamp, it is a photograpy/scan of a stamp. Andrez1 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, but your the one that brought up it's usage on Wikipedia as part of political "discourse" or whatever so....Outside of that, "It is not a stamp, it is a photograpy/scan of a stamp" is a none argument. Really nothing you've said is. Nor is repeatedly citing the law without saying exactly how it applies in this case. Literally the only things we have established here with the longwinded crap from you and the other people who were canvased is that there's a law that says something and "mumble mumble...political discourse or whatever..so keep." Obviously the Norwegian government needs permission to use someone's art work in their stamps. That's literally how copyright law works. That doesn't mean crap about the ability of Commons to legally host the image though, anymore then it does for say an image of a movie poster or book cover. Going by that logic we could host an image of a Marvel movie poster because he film was released by Paramount Pictures and they had permission from Marvel to distribute it. Sure dude. That's not how this works. We would still need explicit permission from both parties and/or the artists, which we clearly don't have in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- If (my stance) this stamp falls within the scope of PD-NorwayGov (=ÅVL§14); the artwork by Løkke Sørensen is created for this document, and falls within the ÅVL§14 second section;
- - "Intellectual works ("åndsverk" as defined in §2) which have not been produced specially for use in documents specified in the first paragraph, and from which parts are quoted or which are reproduced in a separate appendix, are not covered by this provision. Nor shall the first paragraph apply to poetry, musical compositions or works of art."
- - and is by that covered by the 1.st section of the ÅVL§14.
- (If the stamp is to be seen as a work of art, who is the artist?) Andrez1 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The artwork by Løkke Sørensen is created for this document." Stamps aren't documents though. Nor is this stamp being used in one. Anymore then currency, which isn't PD either BTW, is a document. What ÅVL§14 pertains to is laws, regulations, recordings of cancel meetings, and the like where they are solely created by a government employee and there is a legal, public interest being served by having them in the public domain. In the meantime, there's also zero evidence that the term "document" means everything put out by the government and there's plenty of evidence, like with currency, that the law doesn't consider commissioned, artistic works to be "documents" or PD. At least not when they aren't specifically being used as part of a law or similar, like a draft for a bridge included in a public hearing or something along those lines. Ultimately if you think otherwise that would have to resolved in court, which is outside of the scope of this DR. That said, if you think stamps are documents I'd love to know where you draw the line. Is your line that anything is a document if it means said thing can be legally hosted on Commons or are things produced by the Norwegian government that you don't think are documents? Also, why aren't you open to just uploading the image to Wikipedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Like Coin and Banknote and Ration stamps; Postage stamp is a document which can be excanged to buy commodities and services.
- If these kind of document succeeded the Barter trade or a Gift economy, whatever. These dokuments work in a marked economy.
- Where i draw the line? In this discussion my stance is that the stamp in question falls within ÅVL§14 and by that PD-NorwayGov. Andrez1 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why are banknotes not PD in Norway then? I don't disagree that stamps "document" that an exchange has occurred or whatever, but most countries don't consider stamps a form of currency and when that keep rational has been used before by me and others the file was still deleted. So either the law of the country in question has to explicitly say stamps are currency or prior consensus leans toward deleting the file. Other then that, there's a difference between the philosophical concept "documenting something" and "a document." The law clearly pertains to the later because it says ""Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities." In other words, "documents" can be access by the public. Not everything that "documents something" can be. Like if a person writes graffiti in a state building you don't automically have the right to access said graffiti if it was created in an otherwise restricted area just because it otherwise "documents something" (a crime being committed, whatever the person wrote, Etc. Etc.) and Norwegians have a right to access documents. Nor can a Norwegian demand the post office give hem free stamps simply because there's a "guarantee the public access" clause to public documents or whatever. The fact that stamps are a product that Norwegian's have to pay for access to is enough evidence in itself that they aren't covered by ÅVL§14 or public domain. Either way though, prior consensus from other deletion discussions is clear that "stamps are a form of currency" isn't a valid keep rational. I can find some prior discussions about it when I have some free time. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- As i understand notes and coins; the right to produce and set in circulation are a state monopoly legally organised by the norvegian Lov om Norges Bank og pengevesenet mv. (sentralbankloven) (central-bank-law). §1-3.Sentralbankvirksomheten (...) (3) Norges Bank skal utstede pengesedler og mynter, legge til rette for det sentrale oppgjørssystemet og overvåke betalingssystemet.
- There is really no room for a private enterprise in this marked; the Lov om straff (straffeloven) here chapter 29 is enough to prevent any such attempt.
- The same applies to stamp. A state monoply with sole right to produce and sell stamps. Lov om posttjenester (postloven) §18 regulates that. "§ 18.Frimerker
- Det kreves tillatelse fra myndigheten for å utgi frimerker eller andre frankeringsmidler påført «Norge» eller «Noreg». Slik tillatelse kan bare gis til leveringspliktig tilbyder."
- The same applies; There is really no room for a private enterprise in this marked; the Lov om straff (straffeloven) here chapter 29 is enough to prevent any such attempt.
- These protection are not done within a framwork of IP-law. It is special law and criminal law.
- However; there is a "© Norges Bank" on a couple of notes i just checked. (one dated 2001; when will the copyright expire?)
- I am not arguing a right to free printing of notes, coins and stamps. The right to make such documents to work as legal tender does not belong to all.
- A image of a pipe is not a pipe. To avoid crossing the line to producing de facto pipes; and the problem applied on notes; there is advice given by the bank under wich condition the image of a note can be shown.
- The central bank is no opinion-police and their advise have to be evaluated up against legal practice on what constitutes counterfeiting. A image of a note could have a {{Counterfeiting}} tag along with it.
- A image of a stamp is not a stamp. To avoid crossing the line to producing de facto stamps; Do not do that. The image ("NK934 norwegian stamp vigeland abel.jpg") depicting the stamp in question; can hardly be used for that purpose. Andrez1 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. An image of a board game isn't the board game, but there's still rules like Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games because a board game an image is still an original design. Same goes for images of statues, plaques, books and a lot of other things where you can't say copyright doesn't apply just because you did a 1/1 digital recreation of the physical work. The only instance where that wouldn't apply is in cases of de-minimums, like with board games the standard is that "hotographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image." Even in that case it's still a "possibly might be allowable" though. I can't just do a 1/1 scan of a board game and be like "images of pipes aren't pipes brah" or whatever. In this case de-minimums doesn't work because the stamp doesn't constitute a minimal part of the image. If it was an image of someone sorting stamps where the design was incidental you couldn't make that argument though. As far as the image being used to produce de facto stamps or not, 100% images like this one could be used to make forgeries, which is mainly why images of currency are copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Norvegian state Bank have some opinions on how good a photograph/scan should not be. They are not to decide or enforce this; thats up to the courts and the police.
- If the stamp in question falls within ÅVL§14 may also be a matter of understanding on what constitute a Document. My understandig is that stamp is a document. A stamp can be used to purchase the travel of a letter. Unused it documents the intention to be used as a payment for a service. Used it should document the traveled one-time-journey. Andrez1 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to disagree about the document thing since I feel like that talking point has ran it's course. That said, stamps don't document "the traveled one-time-journey" or whatever, postmarks do. All a stamp does is indicate that postal fees have been paid for, that doesn't make them legal tender though. Nor do legal experts consider them means of payment.
- Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant. An image of a board game isn't the board game, but there's still rules like Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Board_games because a board game an image is still an original design. Same goes for images of statues, plaques, books and a lot of other things where you can't say copyright doesn't apply just because you did a 1/1 digital recreation of the physical work. The only instance where that wouldn't apply is in cases of de-minimums, like with board games the standard is that "hotographs of a game in progress may possibly be allowable provided that the copyright elements are incidental and de minimis to the overall image." Even in that case it's still a "possibly might be allowable" though. I can't just do a 1/1 scan of a board game and be like "images of pipes aren't pipes brah" or whatever. In this case de-minimums doesn't work because the stamp doesn't constitute a minimal part of the image. If it was an image of someone sorting stamps where the design was incidental you couldn't make that argument though. As far as the image being used to produce de facto stamps or not, 100% images like this one could be used to make forgeries, which is mainly why images of currency are copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why are banknotes not PD in Norway then? I don't disagree that stamps "document" that an exchange has occurred or whatever, but most countries don't consider stamps a form of currency and when that keep rational has been used before by me and others the file was still deleted. So either the law of the country in question has to explicitly say stamps are currency or prior consensus leans toward deleting the file. Other then that, there's a difference between the philosophical concept "documenting something" and "a document." The law clearly pertains to the later because it says ""Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities." In other words, "documents" can be access by the public. Not everything that "documents something" can be. Like if a person writes graffiti in a state building you don't automically have the right to access said graffiti if it was created in an otherwise restricted area just because it otherwise "documents something" (a crime being committed, whatever the person wrote, Etc. Etc.) and Norwegians have a right to access documents. Nor can a Norwegian demand the post office give hem free stamps simply because there's a "guarantee the public access" clause to public documents or whatever. The fact that stamps are a product that Norwegian's have to pay for access to is enough evidence in itself that they aren't covered by ÅVL§14 or public domain. Either way though, prior consensus from other deletion discussions is clear that "stamps are a form of currency" isn't a valid keep rational. I can find some prior discussions about it when I have some free time. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The artwork by Løkke Sørensen is created for this document." Stamps aren't documents though. Nor is this stamp being used in one. Anymore then currency, which isn't PD either BTW, is a document. What ÅVL§14 pertains to is laws, regulations, recordings of cancel meetings, and the like where they are solely created by a government employee and there is a legal, public interest being served by having them in the public domain. In the meantime, there's also zero evidence that the term "document" means everything put out by the government and there's plenty of evidence, like with currency, that the law doesn't consider commissioned, artistic works to be "documents" or PD. At least not when they aren't specifically being used as part of a law or similar, like a draft for a bridge included in a public hearing or something along those lines. Ultimately if you think otherwise that would have to resolved in court, which is outside of the scope of this DR. That said, if you think stamps are documents I'd love to know where you draw the line. Is your line that anything is a document if it means said thing can be legally hosted on Commons or are things produced by the Norwegian government that you don't think are documents? Also, why aren't you open to just uploading the image to Wikipedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, but your the one that brought up it's usage on Wikipedia as part of political "discourse" or whatever so....Outside of that, "It is not a stamp, it is a photograpy/scan of a stamp" is a none argument. Really nothing you've said is. Nor is repeatedly citing the law without saying exactly how it applies in this case. Literally the only things we have established here with the longwinded crap from you and the other people who were canvased is that there's a law that says something and "mumble mumble...political discourse or whatever..so keep." Obviously the Norwegian government needs permission to use someone's art work in their stamps. That's literally how copyright law works. That doesn't mean crap about the ability of Commons to legally host the image though, anymore then it does for say an image of a movie poster or book cover. Going by that logic we could host an image of a Marvel movie poster because he film was released by Paramount Pictures and they had permission from Marvel to distribute it. Sure dude. That's not how this works. We would still need explicit permission from both parties and/or the artists, which we clearly don't have in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime, there's zero reason you or anyone else who wants the image to continue to be used in the article can't just upload it to Wikipedia. I have zero problem with that, but images that are being used in Wikipedia articles get deleted from Commons all the time if they aren't PD. There's no Template:PD-We're using it on Wikipedia or whatever for a reason. An image being used on www.rando_political_discourse_blog.com doesn't automatically make it fair use on Commons. My suggestion if you want the image to continuing being used in a Wikipedia article is to upload it to Wikipedia. Then they can sort out if it's fair use for their website or not. That's out of the scope of this discussion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- To quote a pretty knowledgeable user from this discussion "almost all commentators of the law take the position that stamps do not constitute means of payment (eg W Egloff in D Barrelet and W Egloff (eds), Das neue Urheberrecht (4th edn, Stämpfli 2020), art 5 para 5; RM Hilty, Urheberrecht (Stämpfli 2011) para 130; R von Büren and MA Meer in R von Büren and L David (eds), Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (3rd edn, Helbing & Lichtenhahn 2014) para 379 (stating that stamps are "not official means of payment because they have no legal exchange rate and do not have to be accepted for payment"); see also P Gilliéron in J de Werra and P Gilliéron (eds), Propriété intellectuelle (Helbing & Lichtenhahn 2013) Art. 5 LDA para 8 (stating that the term "means of payment" refers to "currency that has an official exchange rate in a given country"))."
- I guess what this utimately comes down to is, should the closer go with your opinion that stamps are means of payment or the opinions of multiple users and almost all legal commentators that they aren't? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Enligtening discussion. My point is this stamps as documents who fall within the scope of ÅVL§14 (seen in light of constitutional §100). Andrez1 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Except that wasn't your point, or at least not the only one. To quote from your last message, "it documents the intention to be used as a payment for a service." Obviously stamps aren't documents of the intention to make a future payment if they aren't means of payment. Period. That said, it's pretty obvious your working backwards from your own conclusions and don't ultimately care what the law or legal experts have to say about it. Which is why you've changed your point like 7 times and done a lot of back peddling throughout this discussion, instead of just conceding that your wrong. The closer will ultimately weigh the various arguments and close this based on the evidence regardless. But it still would have been nice if you just took my word in the first place that stamps aren't means of payment and not bludgeoned the discussion to try and win the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you say so. Andrez1 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to give an opinion on this, but starts further below from the margin. --GAD (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you say so. Andrez1 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Except that wasn't your point, or at least not the only one. To quote from your last message, "it documents the intention to be used as a payment for a service." Obviously stamps aren't documents of the intention to make a future payment if they aren't means of payment. Period. That said, it's pretty obvious your working backwards from your own conclusions and don't ultimately care what the law or legal experts have to say about it. Which is why you've changed your point like 7 times and done a lot of back peddling throughout this discussion, instead of just conceding that your wrong. The closer will ultimately weigh the various arguments and close this based on the evidence regardless. But it still would have been nice if you just took my word in the first place that stamps aren't means of payment and not bludgeoned the discussion to try and win the DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Enligtening discussion. My point is this stamps as documents who fall within the scope of ÅVL§14 (seen in light of constitutional §100). Andrez1 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess what this utimately comes down to is, should the closer go with your opinion that stamps are means of payment or the opinions of multiple users and almost all legal commentators that they aren't? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the question would be if the stamp is a separate "åndsverk" (the word used in Norwegian law for protected intellectual property). The intellectual property act defines in § 2 "åndsverk" as expressions of original and individual creative work of the mind. Then we should ask if this "drawing" is an original and individual creative work, or is it just a skilled reproduction of Vigeland's work. We probably would need a courtroom decision to be sure. Regards, GAD (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt the drawing is a just a "skilled reproduction" of Vigeland's work given that the original work is a statue, which obviously a drawing inherently can't be a copy of. Outside of that, we don't need a courtroom decision thanks to the Precautionary principle. In no way does "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted" mean "wait until it goes to court to decide if the file should be deleted or not." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not speculate in not being sued. That said, Norwegian law has a rule about photos that may be seen as an analogue. Photos are divided into two categories with different copyright rules. Photographic "åndsverk" have the same protection as paintings and sculptures, while less strict rules apply to "plain photos". The distinction is not very clear, but I think that if the stamp had carried a photo of the monument it would have been considered as a "plain photo". One could argue (but I admit this to be a little speculative) that in 1983, when this stamp was issued, engravings were the equivalent to photos, that were almost never used in the production of Norwegian stamps. This analogy would not give instant help, though, as plain photos are protected until 15 years after the death of the creator (Løkke-Sørensen died last Xmas) and 50 years after creation (2033??). A possible solution might be to check if the copyright has been transferred to Posten Norge (publisher) ot Bank of Norway (Løkke-Sørensens employer). Regards, GAD (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said. Except files aren't and shouldn't be kept just because there's some inherent ambiguity in who created the photo of the statue that the engraving is based on Etc. Etc. At that point your so many levels away from the point in this discussion that it's essentially worthless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not speculate in not being sued. That said, Norwegian law has a rule about photos that may be seen as an analogue. Photos are divided into two categories with different copyright rules. Photographic "åndsverk" have the same protection as paintings and sculptures, while less strict rules apply to "plain photos". The distinction is not very clear, but I think that if the stamp had carried a photo of the monument it would have been considered as a "plain photo". One could argue (but I admit this to be a little speculative) that in 1983, when this stamp was issued, engravings were the equivalent to photos, that were almost never used in the production of Norwegian stamps. This analogy would not give instant help, though, as plain photos are protected until 15 years after the death of the creator (Løkke-Sørensen died last Xmas) and 50 years after creation (2033??). A possible solution might be to check if the copyright has been transferred to Posten Norge (publisher) ot Bank of Norway (Løkke-Sørensens employer). Regards, GAD (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I highly doubt the drawing is a just a "skilled reproduction" of Vigeland's work given that the original work is a statue, which obviously a drawing inherently can't be a copy of. Outside of that, we don't need a courtroom decision thanks to the Precautionary principle. In no way does "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted" mean "wait until it goes to court to decide if the file should be deleted or not." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been away for a week or so, and see that the discussion goes on. I first thought that Andrez1's stand is a little far-fetched, but thinking it through I find s/he might be close to a valid argument. Norwegian law (§ 14) states that publications with a nature of state act of authority ("myndighetsutøvelse") have no legal copyright protection. A stamp in itself is not an act of authority, it's more a receipt showing that you have prepaid postage. However, at some point the postal authorities have decided to issue this stamp, and that is an act of authority. I vaguely remember, perhaps on a stamp exhibition in a century long gone, to have seen a document with a stamp illustration and the signature of the postmaster-general (or some other guy). Such a document (even if the process now might be digitized) would therefore be free based on § 14. And as the picture of the stamp obviously is made for this act of authority also the picture will be free. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that Andrez1 is right. If this is good enough for the image to be placed on Commons, will then depend on whether it conforms with US law in addition. Regards, GAD (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I disagree for the reasons I've already gone into, but it's not really worth continuing to beat this obviously dead horse by repeating them. Except I will say that any kind of arguments like "it's an act of authority because it's an act of authority" are just circular. Like I said before, the law makes a distinction between works created by government employees that are PD and ones that aren't. There is no blanket exception in the law. So by implication, that must mean there are things made by government employees that are acts of authority and things that aren't. The question is, which would this fall under and from what I can tell that hasn't been answered. Making a blanket pronouncement that it must be an act of authority because the government decided to issue it doesn't answer the question either. Everything created by the government is "issued" by the government. Yet not everything issued by them is public domain. So the question is, what uniquely makes this an act of authority and something else the government issues that isn't PD not one? If that can't be answered then the status quo, I.E. abiding by the precautionary principle, should be followed. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. Neither Commons:Stamps nor Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway says anything about Norwegian stamps. I don't see this stamp as a document per {{PD-NorwayGov}}, and if it were created for a document, artwork is still not covered by the PD exemption. No evidence to the contrary, like a court decision saying otherwise, was presented, and arguments trying to justify keeping this file with the Norwegian constitution seem rather far-fetched. Since the artist no:Knut Løkke-Sørensen died in 2021, the file can be restored in 2092. US copyrights (URAA) for this 1983 stamp should have expired by then as well. --Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The location is not South Shulin Station. Solomon203 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is a redirect, not a file (or at least it was until you blanked it). When files are moved (which is what happened here, the file is now at File:TRA ED886 at Shulin Marshalling Yard 20200722.jpg), a redirect is put in place in case the file is used outside of the Mediawiki sites. It doesn't matter if the redirect is from an incorrect title. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the train is "at" Shulin Marshalling Yard?--Kai3952 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should ask the person who asked for the file to be moved. I simply assumed good faith that they weren't trying to vandalize things by requesting it be moved someplace it wasn't. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the train is "at" Shulin Marshalling Yard?--Kai3952 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: we usually keep redirects. --Rosenzweig τ 12:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Collages need source and license for every used image. Especially the 1972 photo is unlikely own work. Taivo (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both images are from my own work. They can be used by Creative Commons at all. 95.127.197.60 19:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: found at [9] from 2013. If this is really the uploader's own work, please send a COM:VRT permission. --Rosenzweig τ 11:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that the photo was taken on May 30 - the weather should be warmer. The metadata is empty. This is the first and only upload by a member. All this together calls into question the authorship of the uploader. — Redboston 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The photo was taken on 7.04.2022 as well as this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB4zuMp_o-g&t=1s
- The place of shooting is the urban-type settlement of Borodyanka in the Kiev region of Ukraine Saburonagadzima (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are right that the date was incorrect. Thank you. I've fixed Saburonagadzima (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can Gerashchenko public this video with CC BY-SA license? Or can you download this photo with original EXIF data? It would remove most of the doubt. — Redboston 23:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: couldn't find it on the web before it was uploaded here, so I'll assume it is the uploader's own work. --Rosenzweig τ 12:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Balatonföldvár vasútállomás, 1935, Erdélyi Mici és Ráday Imre, Fortepan 53263 (részlet 02).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/01#Carl_Lutz,_Fortepan_and_Archiv_f%C3%BCr_Zeitgeschichte and disclaimer at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Fortepan Fortepan license claims cannot be assumed to be true, they routinely lie Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Fortepan is an important resource, an official non-profit partner of the state funded Robert Capa Centre of Hungarian Photography, and they don't "lie routinely". There are cases when their licence is not applicable but you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts that the application is problematic. This is generally not the case with named private donors who always donate their photographs (or the photographs they inherited) to the site under Fortepan licence. Zello (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Images from Fortepan has clear "Do not blindly accept the boilerplate license on fortepan.hu. Fortepan can only issue a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for images whose copyright it actually owns, but the rights to many images on fortepan.hu in reality belong to someone else. Unless the original copyright owner or their heirs have explicitly stated that they used to own the copyright and they have transferred the image rights to fortepan.hu, you should not assume that the blanket CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is valid. For really old imagery (PMA+70, basically more than 100 years old) you can use a PD-expired license. For background and details see this page. Summary: every image should be checked individually.".
- "you should prove individually that you have reasonable doubts" - in this case "No evidence that CC-BY-SA-3.0 by Fortepan is applicable" is sufficient Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- the reasoning that you generally don't trust Fortepan (which is an important digital archive with a lot of cooperations with museums, public archives and other institutions, and it has several awards and exhibitions) is not sufficient for proving individually that you have reasonable doubts. It means that you should prove that Fortepan can not have the copyright of a given picture for some reason. A typical example for this when the donor or the original photographer (whose heirs are the donors) was not named but there is no such deficiency here. Blanket rejection and deletion of all donated images (like this and other 160.000) is not the reasonable caution that the instruction advises. Zello (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
See also for https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny&oldid=664507736 discussion about Fortepan images in general Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: This photo (available at Fortepan here) was apparently “donated” to Fortepan by a person named Romák Éva, who is named as donor. So while we know that the photo was taken in 1935 in Hungary, we don't know anything about the author (= the photographer) nor if this photo was published before (and when and where, if that is the case). We cannot ascertain at all if the donor had the right to put the photo under a free license. I could keep such a photograph only if it were at least 120 years old, with {{PD-old-assumed}}. As it is not, I have deleted it. The file can be restored in 2056 with PD-old-assumed. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)