Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/08/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_por_David_Siqueiros.jpg){kind=link}
_por_Diego_Rivera.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Profile_Picture.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Incercare Biblioteca Științifică Medicală (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Test, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete No metadata, found on the web at various locations in different sizes ([1],[2]). Given uploader's prior claims of ownership on three different images that have since been deleted as copyright violations, I consider it highly likely this is yet another copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
![[1]](https://img1.dinamalar.com/cini/CNewsImages/NTLRG_20190801140019467520.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://st1.latestly.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/pjimage-7-380x214.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Lo subí por error 4acr.4 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Suhayl091 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Being blurry isn't the main problem. If this is a copyrighted screenshot, it has to be deleted for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry, Nonsense Suhayl091 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Keep, it's not blurry, it's a standard kit right arm png file, 31 × 59 pixels. This nomination is nonsense. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Question For my edification: What is a kit right arm? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: In this context, "kit" is the uniform worn by an association football (soccer) team; in this case the portion of the whole kit is the right arm (or sleeve) of the shirt (from the perspective of a viewer of the front of the player), the team is ACF Fiorentina (an Italian football club), the years worn are 2017-2018, and the uniform type is "tb". You may see how this file is used as a part of the 2017-18 Fourth uniform above the text "2017–18" in ACF Fiorentina kits#Fourth. On enwiki, en:Template:Infobox football club uses such kit files, and there are counterparts on 102 other language Wikipedias. en:Template:Football kit does too, and has counterparts on 106 other language Wikipedias. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would have never figured that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: You're welcome. I'm not a fan of the sport, but I've seen these types of kit files before and helped rename some of them. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would have never figured that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: obviously no valid reason for deletion. Nominator seems to not have understood what these files are used for. --Rosenzweig τ 07:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This photo violated the copyright. Nt (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This photo violated the copyright. Kid990 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This flag is WP:OR so I suggested deleting it, explained on talk page, here: [[3]]93.136.10.179 23:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- This flag is in use in many projects. Before we can consider deletion, please replace it, accordingly. This will help us avoid disturbing so many projects. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: still in use, use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Fix --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This flag https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Serbia_(1281).svg is WP:OR, explained on talk page, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_Serbia#Flag_of_Stefan_Vladislav it should be deleted. We have a problem with it on the English wikipedia, they keep bringing it back. Edit war lasts 4 years with that flag. look here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Serbia&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia_(medieval)&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Vladislav&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Serbian_flags&action=history 78.1.7.81 23:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep: In use & it's not a good idea trying to solve wp disputes here on Commons. --Achim55 (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --James F. (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
The basic rule of Wikipedia is violated, which is Original Research. There is no source ie RS which provides a reconstruction of flag from 1281. Using the modern Serbian flag as a template for two colors on some fabric from 1281. actually represents and fringe theory because the academic sources that would reconstruct that flag from 1281. the not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy close – no valid reason for deletion. If rules of Wikipedia are violated on a Wikipedia, then that's something for the Wikipedia to solve. Please don't bring the conflict over. As long as some Wikipedians want to use the image, it is in scope for Commons – and by now I assume the file already has an educational use in illustrating this conflict on Wikipedia, regardless of its original notability. –LPfi (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Kept: no valid reason for deletion. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. Rights belong to Volkswagen/DDB. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This photo appears to be out-of-scope, namely that it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
word mark no longer in use since Mills College merged with Northeastern University on June 30, 2022. Jennifer1121 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Historical and in use on several Wikipedias. Please do not request deletion of images just because they are historical and no longer used by an institution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --James F. (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Bogus PD-Old claim - Facebook source with no author or date indicated. In such cases, we use {{PD-old-assumed}}, which requires 120 years from creation, thus earlier than ca. 1902 (2022 - 120). As subject was born 1892 and is clearly much older than 10-years-old, this does not quality. COM:EVID of PD status needed. Эlcobbola talk 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The correct license id PD-Brazil-Photo. --RAN (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Licence template has been fixed. --James F. (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Info out of date (from 2015) and not relevant since Mills College merged with Northeastern University on June 30, 2022. Jennifer1121 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. It's called history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --James F. (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: advertisement: "Coming soon in Spring 2018" - unused Enyavar (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: "user flag" by non-contributor; see also only other file: File:Republic of Semih Map.jpg Enyavar (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Personal fantasy logos, images, diagrams and maps. No notable/relevant work of fiction provided.
- File:Dragon Colosse.png
- File:Sectis Terrae Map.png
- File:Terre de Feu Zoom.png
- File:Monde Pont.png
- File:Monde Bulle.png
- File:Empires-Unis Zoom.png
- File:Continent2 Relief.png
- File:Edenae.png
- File:Continent2 Noms.png
- File:Continent2 Noms Vieux.png
- File:Continent1 Relief.png
- File:Continent1 Noms.png
- File:Cite du Volcan Interieur.png
- File:Cite du Volcan.png
Enyavar (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La Maison du Poivre Officiel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertisements, probably previously published, so permission from copyright holder needed.
- File:Cultivateur-poivre-de-kampot 600x600.webp
- File:Oeuf-au-plat-a-la-loiseau-mdp 600x600.webp
- File:Ot de medaillons HD 1024x1024.webp
- File:Paysage-de-kampot 1024x1024.webp
- File:Image principale de la maison du poivre site officielle.jpg
- File:Piece de boeuf grillée au poiver de Kampot.jpg
- File:Poivre noir en gros plan.jpg
- File:Recolte du poivre sur un arbre tuteur.jpg
- File:Bienvenue a kampot.jpg
- File:Tri du poivre par les femmes.jpg
Yann (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Uploader needs to verify their identity and copyright; then upload non-watermarked pictures (which they probably won't do).
- Also tacking onto the nomination list:
- --Enyavar (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La Maison du Poivre Officiel (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Unused text diagrams, should be in wiki-markup if needed, out of scope.
- File:Schema recapitulatif de la recolte du poivre blanc.png
- File:Deroulement de la culture du poivre.png
- File:Schema recapitulatif de la recolte du poivre noir.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal document, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
No apparent educational use, simply a handwritten note that is unused ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 22:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 (1234128902) (2).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused out of focus photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Yeah, unusable per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by IntheMixHoldtheTrophy (talk · contribs)
[edit]fantasy flags, by a user who enjoys adding communist symbols on random flags much like User:GeorgiPergelov2009
- File:Flag of People's Monarchy of Germany.svg
- File:Flag of The Krusty Krab.svg
- File:Flag of Communist Lithuania.svg
TFerenczy (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IntheMixHoldtheTrophy (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Unused logos, no educational value, out of scope. And most are above COM:TOO.
- File:Pop Core TV.png
- File:Logo of Pop Core TV.jpg
- File:Radio Viva-Hit.jpg
- File:Logo of Dropship.png
- File:Logo of Dropship.svg
- File:PBS Kids (2022).svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 (1233267037).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused out of focus photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 (1233268925).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused out of focus photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 (1233280027).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused out of focus photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Bad quality collage without educational use Drakosh (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. And the "category" for it is "photo" in Russian (or Ukrainian, whatever). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
and File:Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 (1233278971).jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused out of focus photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: One of about four which perhaps might have been more helpfully nominated in a single group. My initial concern was the that these were the only instances of Dun Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures 2007 represented but many remain in the category of a suitable category so I am not concerned. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete this and all the blurry photos of this festival nominated for deletion above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete obviously very bad quality and totally useless. Dronebogus (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Image appears on the net, at https://www.rainews.it/tgr/fvg/articoli/2021/03/fvg-nave-crociera-in-costruzione-trasferimento-chiatta-porto-nogaro-guardia-costiera-51bba59e-07df-40d0-8e90-fdb89d328860.html (with notation © tgr fvg). No idea if it's theirs, as it also appears at https://www.telefriuli.it/cronaca/il-piu-grande-manufatto-mai-costruito-dai-cantieri-di-porto-nogaro-mar-172/2/218513/art/ with more photos in the series, but either way there needs to either be a license mentioned at the source, or permission from the copyright owner needs to be sent to COM:VRT, and I don't see either here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Since this image has been realised by me - with friends - and after that it has been sent to several journalists depending by local and national italian media (for example "Rai News" and "Friuli.it", as correctly noticed), I have to re-affirm strongly that this work, with the support of my friends, has been created by my own genius and,since now, I have to reserve all possible *even legal* action to defend my right to publish it also in this way.
- Reading in the reason for which it has been requested the deletion of the image the following words "there needs to either be a license mentioned at the source", I would like to know:
- 1- how to create a license to be mentioned
- 2- how this licence can be mentioned at the source
- I would be sincerity grateful if this application for deleting would be denied
- I sincerely believe in sharing information and knowledge as a instrument to raise awareness and consciousness, and this tool is really amazing
- Thanks for listening and for any help that will may come — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benetnash (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Per the instructions at Commons:Volunteer Response Team: If a copyrighted file is uploaded by someone who is not the copyright holder, then the copyright holder needs to explicitly grant permission for the distribution of the file under a free license. If the file was previously published without a free license on an external website, then the copyright holder will need to establish their identity, even if they are the uploader. This would be the second, highlighted situation, where your image was published on external websites (in the same or higher resolution) before upload here. The policy is in place because there is constant uploading of Internet images here, most of which are not uploaded by the copyright owners and need to be deleted (since only the copyright owner can legally apply a license to a work). Accounts here are effectively anonymous, making it difficult or impossible to verify ownership claims.
- One option, usually easier when the website is under control of the copyright owner, is to simply mention the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license in the image credits on the website where it was published, which would then go through {{LicenseReview}} and be fine. A second way is to communicate, via private emails, with the Volunteer Response Team (VRT); email address and instructions are on that page. Was the image first published in a different Internet forum, where those publishers noticed it and asked to use them? If so, the license could be noted there as well, if someone who can verify has access to the forum. Given that both versions I found had different copyright notices, it did seem likely that there was an earlier, common source. Neither credit another author, unfortunately.
- A third possibility might be to upload a version with a higher resolution than was published before, especially with original EXIF information. The uploaded image is the exact same dimensions and crop as the "tgr fvg" link mentioned above -- indeed it is byte-for-byte the same exact file, which makes it look like it was copied from that site and uploaded. The second link has a slightly higher resolution version, with a wider crop (though with a watermark added).
- We definitely appreciate the sharing of images; they are very cool photos. However, the policies are also very careful about copyright, especially when images are copied from previously-published sources. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note -- the uploader did later upload apparently original photos of a sister ship in the same location (and situation) a year later, File:Porto Nogaro - Mar 173 in uscita dal porto.jpg and others.
File already exists:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apataelurus_kayi_holotype_dentary_-_Scott_1938.png Magnatyrannus (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Porque é Sem sentido Saturnow (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, file in use. --Wdwd (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Image -LAB historical trail.png Enyavar (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no indication of renunciation of any copyright of the photograph in the link provided Ederporto (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Delete There are no guarantees that the image is actually free. Minerva97 (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Not PD-USGov, on the source site state.gov it is tagged "shutterstock". Achim55 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Support deletion per above. "[shutterstock]" in alt=. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the photographer of this image, I'm asking to delete it ASAP, such picture should only be available on Microstock websites that I'm contributing with. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Riyad.jpg 129.208.102.87 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD-USGov, tagged "shutterstock", allegedly by https://wajdram.com/. --Achim55 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Codewastaken (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. All images are from various sources without source and permission.
- File:XXXTentacion2018.jpg
- File:Ford attempt 9-22-75.png
- File:Sarah jane moore.jpg
- File:Ijcsly.jpg
- File:Badtour.webp
Smooth O (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 07:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO Hong Kong, which is very low similar to COM:TOO UK.
- File:RTHK DAB 32.svg
- File:RTHK DAB 33.svg
- File:RTHK DAB 34.svg
- File:RTHK DAB 35.svg
- File:RTHK TV 31.svg
- File:RTHK TV 31A.svg
- File:RTHK TV 32.svg
- File:RTHK TV 33.svg
- File:RTHK TV 33A.svg
Wcam (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 07:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This photograph is not within project scope, namely that it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 07:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
User uploaded two copyvio press photos of football trophies claimed as own work, this is very likely a third. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 18:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obsoleto JohnAC1997 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep Explain why obsolete. Obsolete because it is historical and replaced by a newer COA? Or obsolete because we have a better version at Commons? --RAN (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)--RAN (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
chybný obrázek Miloš Křivan (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
chybný obrázek Miloš Křivan (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wrong format ArdiPras95 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
chybný obrázek Miloš Křivan (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ich erbete als Hochlader die Löschung. Die Datei gehört zu dem Artikel "Turnerschaft Borussia Jena", der gelöscht wird, da er die Relevanzkrierien nicht erfüllte.So ist die Datei realisitsch gesehen nicht nützlich für BIldungszwecke. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Rage deletion, the image is still of value to Commons and Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Zudem ist die Datei nicht "mein eigenes Werk". Die Angabe ist falsch. Ich habe inzwischen Zweifel, ob ich das Urheberrecht eingehalten habe. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- The license is correct and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I Would like to cancel my deletion request, but don't know how to manage this! Sachßenspiegel (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 20:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ich erbete als Hochlader die Löschung. Die Datei gehört zu dem Artikel "Turnerschaft Borussia Jena", der gelöscht wird, da er die Relevanzkrierien nicht erfüllte.So ist die Datei realisitsch gesehen nicht nützlich für BIldungszwecke. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Rage deletion, the image is still of value to Commons and Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Zudem ist die Datei nicht "mein eigenes Werk". Die Angabe ist falsch. Ich habe inzwischen Zweifel, ob ich das Urheberrecht eingehalten habe. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- The license is valid and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I Would like to cancel my deletion request, but don't know how to manage this! Sachßenspiegel (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Ich erbete als Hochlader die Löschung. Die Datei gehört zu dem Artikel "Turnerschaft Borussia Jena", der gelöscht wird, da er die Relevanzkrierien nicht erfüllt.So ist die Datei realisitsch gesehen nicht nützlich für BIldungszwecke. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion other than "my feelings were hurt when my article was deleted, so I am going to rage delete all I uploaded". --RAN (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Zudem ist die Datei nicht "mein eigenes Werk". Die Angabe ist falsch. Ich habe inzwischen Zweifel, ob ich das Urheberrecht eingehalten habe. Sachßenspiegel (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- The license is correct and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I Would like to cancel my deletion request, but don't know how to manage this! Sachßenspiegel (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation. Low image resolution and missing EXIF data. Cannot pass VRT verification.
- File:新鮮多根硬皮馬勃截面(2).jpg
- File:採摘的彩色豆馬勃(2).jpg
- File:採摘的多根硬皮馬勃(2).jpg
- File:彩色豆馬勃截面.png
- File:中藥材馬勃.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃截面.png
- File:熟成多根硬皮馬勃截面.jpg
- File:新鮮多根硬皮馬勃截面.jpg
- File:松樹林下發現的彩色豆馬勃.png
- File:採摘的新鮮彩色豆馬勃.jpg
- File:採摘的新鮮多根硬皮馬勃.jpg
- File:成熟彩色豆馬勃孢子自然飛散.jpg
- File:成熟彩色豆馬勃內部.jpg
- File:成熟多根硬皮馬勃.jpg
- File:成熟彩色豆馬勃.jpg
- File:彩色豆馬勃成菇.jpg
- File:彩色豆馬勃幼菇.jpg
- File:彩色豆馬勃菇體下之菌絲.jpg
- File:彩色豆馬勃菌絲.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃成菇.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃成熟開裂.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃新生幼菇.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃成菇撐開土層表面.jpg
- File:多根硬皮馬勃菌絲.jpg
- File:採摘的彩色豆馬勃.jpg
- File:採摘的多根硬皮馬勃.jpg
- File:松樹林下土中的彩色豆馬勃.jpg
- File:松樹林下土中的多根硬皮馬勃.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
SCP-2000 11:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Porque é Uma selfie, Embaçado, Sem sentido Saturnow (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use as a user page image in German Wikipedia. Per COM:INUSE, "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.". --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
copyvio https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cape-malay-cuisine-south-africa/index.html?gallery=9 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:6D53:739B:A1CF:473B 08:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, clear copyvio. Htonl (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
this photo shows a rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) and not a bush hyrax (Heterohyrax brucei) 130.60.105.157 10:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Proof? I'd support deletion with proof. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In use. If you're sure the description is wrong, just change it. If you're not sure, have a discussion on the file's talk page. This kind of objection is no good reason for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Ikan Kekek. If the file name and description are wrong, they can be changed. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree, I work with bush and rock hyrax in Serengeti and the photo clearly portrays a rock hyrax and not a bush hyrax. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.206.112.11 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Cropped pirated image, incorrect copyright notice -- Google "Mia Khalifa Outdoor Lingerie Patreon Set Leaked" Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
bad quality, gibberish in description + author fields make me think it's not own work by uploader. the picture looks like downscaled press photo. — Dudek1337 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal/fantasy flag, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This photo does not originate from the website it was taken from — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.60.112.126 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't see anything but whitespace in either thumbnail or the second version's svg file, only in the older upload's original svg file. It is therefore useless. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jeff G. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. The file name states it was taken from Instagram. FlyingAce (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- yes, that image should be removed Usuarioeditor9 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://hstore.oomph.co.id/video/view/11902/wisata-mata-air-sodong?o_msisdn=x&o_spid=0, which is from February 2021 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 15:00, 22 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1) --Krdbot 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not in the public domain in the US by virtue of publication date or public domain elsewhere due to author death year (1974) Hekerui (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_por_David_Siqueiros.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_por_David_Siqueiros.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
painting not in the public domain in the US by virtue of publication date or public domain elsewhere due to author death year (1974) Hekerui (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
_por_David_Siqueiros.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
_por_David_Siqueiros.jpg){kind=link}
_por_Diego_Rivera.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_por_Diego_Rivera.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not in the public domain in the US by virtue of publication date or public domain elsewhere due to author death year (1957) Hekerui (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
_por_Diego_Rivera.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
_por_Diego_Rivera.jpg){kind=link}
No evidence this is original, I see many copies of this on the web, and "Ethernet ports" Doug Weller (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Puma Punku contains a number of my works. The presence of Metadata can serve as proof of their originality. --Brattarb (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Brattarb haven’t checked metadata but you assert you took these on site? Why are they called Ethernet ports? Doug Weller (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I see some good photos in that category. Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Brattarb haven’t checked metadata but you assert you took these on site? Why are they called Ethernet ports? Doug Weller (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: image is consistent with uploader's other upload from the series in 2011, all copies on the web are likely copies of Commons. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want this photo anymore Cam200 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of poor image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want this photo anymore Cam200 (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment You asked for a courtesy deletion, it was deleted in August, 2022, you uploaded it again and added a caption on September 25, 2022, and now you're asking for it to be deleted again. Please explain what you're doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of poor compositional, unusable image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Dubious Flickr account TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- TwoWings, the account was confirmed years ago. The kind gentlemen behind it has provided hundreds of excellent photographs to the Commons. See Category:Photographs by John Mathew Smith. Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: Sorry then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Surtsicna. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not own work. Random internet images taken from various sources.
- File:Ladygagameat.jpg
- File:Vestitomarilyn.jpg
- File:Teschioconleorecchie.jpg
- File:Zarechnij1.jpg
- File:MitradiSanGennaro.jpg
- File:Maeklongmarket.jpg
- File:Bambini che protestano boh.png
- File:Lui.png
- File:Collana di San Gennaro.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is by the same uploader as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Menara Burung.png, and this file appears to be a Google Streetview screenshot just like in the other case, only that I can't see the Google logo in the image for this one. Should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 10:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, confirmed Streetview screenshot of June 2019. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This logo is not the logo of the team, and was not uploaded by the team. I am the Chief Information Officer of Haas F1 Team and can confirm this logo is not correct. 80.0.91.178 10:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and text only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and text only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- this is {{PD-text}}, but the quality of the scan is atrocious and near unintelligible, so Delete as out of scope. -- 2A02:908:121:6600:1C:BE96:7E33:60B3 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and text only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- this would be {{PD-text}}, but given that the text is almost unintelligible in the scan provided, it is probably out of scope. Delete -- 2A02:908:121:6600:1C:BE96:7E33:60B3 04:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and text only, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DrVenizelos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: All these files are unused and display a fictional alternate history without an indication that this is based on a relevant work of fiction. --> Personal fantasy maps are not in Scope.
Enyavar (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not a meaningful contributor. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no evidence that the central photo between the two books is the work of the uploader, it is undocumented, probably not free and too prominent to be de minimis. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no evidence that the photo on the book cover in the center is the work of the uploader. The two photos on the sides could be in the public domain but their authorship and publication histories are undocumented. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
_Profile_Picture.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Profile_Picture.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
User's page image that No longer in use. ชาวไทย (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
_Profile_Picture.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
_Profile_Picture.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Tekatanbaklava (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:SCOPE, unused photographs of non-notable person/people.
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, see https://www.ashmolean.org/djed-djehuty-iuef-ankh-mummy Lone-078 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, see https://www.ashmolean.org/djed-djehuty-iuef-ankh-mummy Lone-078 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image that wouldn't use in article, and I am the author wish to delete this *angys* (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, many alternatives available in its category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
probable copyright violation unless permission can demonstrated - see COM:Toys Headlock0225 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
probable copyright violation unless permission can demonstrated - see COM:Toys Headlock0225 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Translation of the description (Brazilian Portuguese): VARZEA PTA SEEN FROM UP HERE. Varzea (Paulista) is a municipality north of the city of Sao Paulo. I can see only clouds here. Non educutional. Out of scope. Nemracc (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning to Keep, could be transferred to Category:Clouds in Brazil, and the file name renamed as "Clouds above São Paulo state, Brazil - panoramio.jpg". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- This could be done, but would not change anything. It is non educational and out of scope. The photo is one of the many uploaded by "Panoramio upload bot ", shortly before Panoramio was discontinued. In the end, you can't be sure if the photo was even taken above the clouds of Brazil. --Nemracc (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, low res, redundant and no value over innumerable better cloud pics already on Commons. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Private photo of a person (personality rights?) and a car (with a clearly legible license plate). Not a photo of the village. 217.239.7.174 21:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
it was a mistake ChemGrout (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: talk pages don't get deleted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Tunnel of "Avenue 23 de maio" in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The photo is blurred, meaningless and could be from anywhere in the world. Road, wall, light. The photo was taken from inside the car, hence the reflection. Poor quality. Out of scope. Nemracc (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Author is misleading. Mydramalist does not own the copyright on this, they are just a reviews website, and they don't appear to claim this is cc-by-sa anyway ( https://mydramalist.com/39661-love-and-redemption/photos ). Poster art is presumably owned by the TV network and no evidence provided they think it's cc-by-sa. Can be transferred to en.wiki on claim of fair use but unlikely to be Commons-worthy. SnowFire (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When you scan something, or rephotograph a 1687 document it is your own work, even though it doesn't transfer the copyright to you. --RAN (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: PD-old. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
this is not a picture Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
this is not a picture Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
AWESOME also copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- You don't have to remove categories in order to DR, if/when the file is deleted it will naturally no longer be in the categories. Arlo James Barnes 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
derivative work, original not in the public domain in the US by virtue of publication date or public domain elsewhere due to author death year (1957) Hekerui (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
copyvio https://mg.co.za/article/2019-01-22-marais-makes-comeback-as-ff-western-cape-premier-candidate/ 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:6D53:739B:A1CF:473B 07:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
copyvio https://www.sa-venues.com/attractionswc/capewinelands-attractions.htm 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:6D53:739B:A1CF:473B 07:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
copyvio https://cape.urcsa.net/2019/04/30/leraarspos-george/ 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:6D53:739B:A1CF:473B 08:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 9hSZW5qQGd7s (talk · contribs)
[edit]Redundant to higher res File:Trefac.jpg. These are three smaller. unused versions of the same photo, with a logo above the image.
Lord Belbury (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- As you wrote, those files are no need.
- I am beginner for wikipedia. 9hSZW5qQGd7s (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO so per COM:BOOK A09090091 (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patryk2710 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: in exif is copyrighted
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The source-site is clearly under a CC-BY-SA license. What in the EXIF-data makes you think this is invalid? -- Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Same problem with:
.jpg){kind=link}
In EXIF-data is "copyrighted" (chronione prawem autorskim) Patryk2710 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Patryk2710, every image, which is not in the public domain, is copyrighted. That is not a problem per se. What our policy COM:L requires, is that the copyright-holder has released the image under a free license, which does not make it "not copyrighted", but gives a permission to use it under certain conditions. An image marked as "All rights reserved" would not be o.k., of course.--Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for this information. Patryk2710 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Túrelio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a 1933 publication seemingly of European/British origin. It's too recent to automatically apply PD status, and it's certainly not a work of US federal Gov. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
1932 publication of British/European origin. It's too recent for PD-assumed, and it's not a work of US gov. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Editor04082022 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent bulk COM:NETCOPYVIO - generally low res and lacking exif, elsewhere before upload (e.g., File:Festadelgrano Santa croce.jpg is here; File:Festa del grano foglianise Duomo di Orvieto.png is here (direct), etc), uploader history of copyvios, etc. Duck/PRP issue.
- File:Foglianise dal Monte Caruso.png
- File:Festa del grano foglianise Duomo di Orvieto.png
- File:Festadelgrano Santa croce.jpg
- File:Festa del grano foglianise pacchiane.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
More suspiciuous images (I asked for speedy deletion of some 10 more):
- File:Mastella 2022.jpg
- File:DUOMO ORVIETO FESTA DEL GRANO.jpg (the EXIF field "Software" has value "Google")
--Decan (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Da es sich um meine persönliche Unterschrift handelt, möchte ich sie doch lieber nicht öffentlich präsentieren und um eine Löschung bitten! Andediek (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrea.pizzola (talk · contribs)
[edit]The linked it.wikipedia.org sources both have a big yellow box saying, in English, "This file cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons!", perhaps because they aren't in the public domain in the US?
- File:Umberto mandelli presso stabilimento mandelli sistemi 1955.jpg
- File:Mandelli Sistemi nel 1932 anno della sua fondazione.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Lord Belbury I did insert the correct license tag,
 |
The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation.
|
 |
 |
This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy. In particular, these are in the public domain in the United States only if:
|
|
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:
 For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings. |
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo is corrently licenced, but no indication of the author and license of the original work. Possible copyvio, as there is no FOP for such artworks in the US Darwin Ahoy! 16:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivated work of copyrighted work of art. No indication of a free license for the original work, FOP does not apply. Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a professional press photo, I doubt it's own work — Dudek1337 (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Depicted poster is rather above threshold of originality and seems to be installed indoors, which would exclude freedom-of-panorama exception for Germany. Eventually, Caritas of Germany might be asked to release it under compatible free license. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Artwork by Marigard Bantzer (1905-1999) and no indciation they were living in the US at publication date. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work, published in the U.S., requires compliance with U.S. formalities. There is no notice; thus, it is
PD-US-no notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: published in Chicago, PD-US-no-notice. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Tagged by Minorax for a speedy deletion as non-free Flickr file. In fact, at the moment of upload the file had a compatible license and this is still valid, cause CC licenses are irrevocable. At the moment of Minorax' review the file has been properly marked with {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag. Xunks (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: LR passed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
remainder of move from user space Aeroid (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Epifantsev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images belong to Gennadiy Golobokov, a Soviet artist who died in 1978, no the Flickr uploader. Looking at {{PD-Russia}}, I think the images are still protected by copyright.
- File:Gennadiy Golobokov - Prozhyanie.jpg
- File:Gennadiy Golobokov - NII Genetiki.jpg
- File:Gennadiy Golobokov - Velikoe koltso Vselennoi. Kontakt.jpg
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, with the resolution consistent of being a screenshoot of a video on the web. 218.234.179.190 15:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, with the resolution consistent of being a screenshoot of a video on the web. 218.234.179.190 15:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Screenshot from Parliamentary footage - not free licence. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-free logo, same discussion as Commons:Deletion requests/File:OKR.svg. 2001:4451:827B:A100:8998:60B8:FD8D:9DA3 06:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Non-free logo, same discussion as Commons:Deletion requests/File:OKR.svg. 2001:4451:827B:A100:8998:60B8:FD8D:9DA3 06:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Diese Datei ist fehlerhaft benannt. Sie wurde ein zweites Mal unter der richtigen Bezeichnung (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Klosterkirche_St._Johann_Kloster_Oesede.jpg) und wird so auch auf Wikipedia.de genutzt Karbohut (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Das nicht von dem LA betroffene Foto hat aber aufgrund von Nachbearbeitung eine bessere Qualität (perspektivische Verzerrung). Insofern sollte eher das schiefe und verzerrte Bild gelöscht werden. --Giorgio Michele (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No permission and never "own work" Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, could be speedy deleted. --217.239.7.174 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Rather it appears that the "author" of the article uploaded his initial version of "his" article to commons (therefor "own work"). Do we have a rule forbading that? --Matthiasb (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably not own work: personality, small size, many copies on the web. Yann (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
essa imagem viola o Artigo 5 da Constituição Federal de 1988. Sob uso indevido de imagem não autorizado pela Atriz, sendo assim obrigatória sua retirada, sob pena de ordem judicial.
Constituição Federal de 1988
Nós, representantes do povo brasileiro, reunidos em Assembléia Nacional Constituinte para instituir um Estado Democrático, destinado a assegurar o exercício dos direitos sociais e individuais, a liberdade, a segurança, o bem-estar, o desenvolvimento, a igualdade e a justiça como valores supremos de uma sociedade fraterna, pluralista e sem preconceitos, fundada na harmonia social e comprometida, na ordem interna e internacional, com a solução pacífica das controvérsias, promulgamos, sob a proteção de Deus, a seguinte CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL.
Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes:
I - homens e mulheres são iguais em direitos e obrigações, nos termos desta Constituição ;
II - ninguém será obrigado a fazer ou deixar de fazer alguma coisa senão em virtude de lei;
III - ninguém será submetido a tortura nem a tratamento desumano ou degradante;
IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato;
V - é assegurado o direito de resposta, proporcional ao agravo, além da indenização por dano material, moral ou à imagem;
VI - e inviolável a liberdade de consciência e de crença, sendo assegurado o livre exercício dos cultos religiosos e garantida, na forma da lei, a proteção aos locais de culto e a suas liturgias;
VII - e assegurada, nos termos da lei, a prestação de assistência religiosa nas entidades civis e militares de internação coletiva;
VIII - ninguém será privado de direitos por motivo de crença religiosa ou de convicção filosófica ou política, salvo se as invocar para eximir-se de obrigação legal a todos imposta e recusar-se a cumprir prestação alternativa, fixada em lei;
IX - é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença;
X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação;
XI - a casa é asilo inviolável do indivíduo, ninguém nela podendo penetrar sem consentimento do morador, salvo em caso de flagrante delito ou desastre, ou para prestar socorro, ou, durante o dia, por determinação judicial; (Vide Lei nº 13.105, de 2015) (Vigência)
XII - e inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal; (Vide Lei nº 9.296, de 1996)
XIII - e livre o exercício de qualquer trabalho, ofício ou profissão, atendidas as qualificações profissionais que a lei estabelecer;
XIV - e assegurado a todos o acesso à informação e resguardado o sigilo da fonte, quando necessário ao exercício profissional;
XV - e livre a locomoção no território nacional em tempo de paz, podendo qualquer pessoa, nos termos da lei, nele entrar, permanecer ou dele sair com seus bens;
XVI - todos podem reunir-se pacificamente, sem armas, em locais abertos ao público, independentemente de autorização, desde que não frustrem outra reunião anteriormente convocada para o mesmo local, sendo apenas exigido prévio aviso à autoridade competente;
XVII - é plena a liberdade de associação para fins lícitos, vedada a de caráter paramilitar;
XVIII - a criação de associações e, na forma da lei, a de cooperativas independem de autorização, sendo vedada a interferência estatal em seu funcionamento;
XIX - as associações só poderão ser compulsoriamente dissolvidas ou ter suas atividades suspensas por decisão judicial, exigindo-se, no primeiro caso, o trânsito em julgado;
XX - ninguém poderá ser compelido a associar-se ou a permanecer associado;
XXI - as entidades associativas, quando expressamente autorizadas, têm legitimidade para representar seus filiados judicial ou extrajudicialmente;
XXII - é garantido o direito de propriedade;
XXIII - a propriedade atenderá a sua função social;
XXIV - a lei estabelecerá o procedimento para desapropriação por necessidade ou utilidade pública, ou por interesse social, mediante justa e prévia indenização em dinheiro, ressalvados os casos previstos nesta Constituição ;
XXV - no caso de iminente perigo público, a autoridade competente poderá usar de propriedade particular, assegurada ao proprietário indenização ulterior, se houver dano;
XXVI - a pequena propriedade rural, assim definida em lei, desde que trabalhada pela família, não será objeto de penhora para pagamento de débitos decorrentes de sua atividade produtiva, dispondo a lei sobre os meios de financiar o seu desenvolvimento;
XXVII - aos autores pertence o direito exclusivo de utilização, publicação ou reprodução de suas obras, transmissível aos herdeiros pelo tempo que a lei fixar;
XXVIII - são assegurados, nos termos da lei:
a) a proteção às participações individuais em obras coletivas e à reprodução da imagem e voz humanas, inclusive nas atividades desportivas;
b) o direito de fiscalização do aproveitamento econômico das obras que criarem ou de que participarem aos criadores, aos intérpretes e às respectivas representações sindicais e associativas;
XXIX - a lei assegurará aos autores de inventos industriais privilégio temporário para sua utilização, bem como proteção às criações industriais, à propriedade das marcas, aos nomes de empresas e a outros signos distintivos, tendo em vista o interesse social e o desenvolvimento tecnológico e econômico do País;
XXX - é garantido o direito de herança;
XXXI - a sucessão de bens de estrangeiros situados no País será regulada pela lei brasileira em benefício do cônjuge ou dos filhos brasileiros, sempre que não lhes seja mais favorável a lei pessoal do "de cujus";
XXXII - o Estado promoverá, na forma da lei, a defesa do consumidor;
XXXIII - todos têm direito a receber dos órgãos públicos informações de seu interesse particular, ou de interesse coletivo ou geral, que serão prestadas no prazo da lei, sob pena de responsabilidade, ressalvadas aquelas cujo sigilo seja imprescindível à segurança da sociedade e do Estado; (Regulamento) (Vide Lei nº 12.527, de 2011)
XXXIV - são a todos assegurados, independentemente do pagamento de taxas:
a) o direito de petição aos Poderes Públicos em defesa de direitos ou contra ilegalidade ou abuso de poder;
b) a obtenção de certidões em repartições públicas, para defesa de direitos e esclarecimento de situações de interesse pessoal;
XXXV - a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito;
XXXVI - a lei não prejudicará o direito adquirido, o ato jurídico perfeito e a coisa julgada;
XXXVII - não haverá juízo ou tribunal de exceção;
XXXVIII - e reconhecida a instituição do júri, com a organização que lhe der a lei, assegurados:
a) a plenitude de defesa;
b) o sigilo das votações;
c) a soberania dos veredictos;
d) a competência para o julgamento dos crimes dolosos contra a vida;
XXXIX - não há crime sem lei anterior que o defina, nem pena sem prévia cominação legal;
XL - a lei penal não retroagirá, salvo para beneficiar o réu;
XLI - a lei punirá qualquer discriminação atentatória dos direitos e liberdades fundamentais;
XLII - a prática do racismo constitui crime inafiançável e imprescritível, sujeito à pena de reclusão, nos termos da lei;
XLIII - a lei considerará crimes inafiançáveis e insuscetíveis de graça ou anistia a prática da tortura, o tráfico ilícito de entorpecentes e drogas afins, o terrorismo e os definidos como crimes hediondos, por eles respondendo os mandantes, os executores e os que, podendo evitá-los, se omitirem; (Regulamento)
XLIV - constitui crime inafiançável e imprescritível a ação de grupos armados, civis ou militares, contra a ordem constitucional e o Estado Democrático;
XLV - nenhuma pena passará da pessoa do condenado, podendo a obrigação de reparar o dano e a decretação do perdimento de bens ser, nos termos da lei, estendidas aos sucessores e contra eles executadas, até o limite do valor do patrimônio transferido;
XLVI - a lei regulará a individualização da pena e adotará, entre outras, as seguintes:
a) privação ou restrição da liberdade;
b) perda de bens;
c) multa;
d) prestação social alternativa;
e) suspensão ou interdição de direitos;
XLVII - não haverá penas:
a) de morte, salvo em caso de guerra declarada, nos termos do art. 84, XIX;
b) de caráter perpétuo;
c) de trabalhos forçados;
d) de banimento;
e) cruéis;
XLVIII - a pena será cumprida em estabelecimentos distintos, de acordo com a natureza do delito, a idade e o sexo do apenado;
XLIX - é assegurado aos presos o respeito à integridade física e moral;
L - às presidiárias serão asseguradas condições para que possam permanecer com seus filhos durante o período de amamentação;
LI - nenhum brasileiro será extraditado, salvo o naturalizado, em caso de crime comum, praticado antes da naturalização, ou de comprovado envolvimento em tráfico ilícito de entorpecentes e drogas afins, na forma da lei;
LII - não será concedida extradição de estrangeiro por crime político ou de opinião;
LIII - ninguém será processado nem sentenciado senão pela autoridade competente;
LIV - ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal;
LV - aos litigantes, em processo judicial ou administrativo, e aos acusados em geral são assegurados o contraditório e ampla defesa, com os meios e recursos a ela inerentes;
LVI - são inadmissíveis, no processo, as provas obtidas por meios ilícitos;
LVII - ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória;
LVIII - o civilmente identificado não será submetido a identificação criminal, salvo nas hipóteses previstas em lei; (Regulamento)
LIX - será admitida ação privada nos crimes de ação pública, se esta não for intentada no prazo legal;
LX - a lei só poderá restringir a publicidade dos atos processuais quando a defesa da intimidade ou o interesse social o exigirem;
LXI - ninguém será preso senão em flagrante delito ou por ordem escrita e fundamentada de autoridade judiciária competente, salvo nos casos de transgressão militar ou crime propriamente militar, definidos em lei;
LXII - a prisão de qualquer pessoa e o local onde se encontre serão comunicados imediatamente ao juiz competente e à família do preso ou à pessoa por ele indicada;
LXIII - o preso será informado de seus direitos, entre os quais o de permanecer calado, sendo-lhe assegurada a assistência da família e de advogado;
LXIV - o preso tem direito à identificação dos responsáveis por sua prisão ou por seu interrogatório policial;
LXV - a prisão ilegal será imediatamente relaxada pela autoridade judiciária;
LXVI - ninguém será levado à prisão ou nela mantido, quando a lei admitir a liberdade provisória, com ou sem fiança;
LXVII - não haverá prisão civil por dívida, salvo a do responsável pelo inadimplemento voluntário e inescusável de obrigação alimentícia e a do depositário infiel;
LXVIII - conceder-se-á "habeas-corpus" sempre que alguém sofrer ou se achar ameaçado de sofrer violência ou coação em sua liberdade de locomoção, por ilegalidade ou abuso de poder;
LXIX - conceder-se-á mandado de segurança para proteger direito líquido e certo, não amparado por "habeas-corpus" ou "habeas-data", quando o responsável pela ilegalidade ou abuso de poder for autoridade pública ou agente de pessoa jurídica no exercício de atribuições do Poder Público;
LXX - o mandado de segurança coletivo pode ser impetrado por:
a) partido político com representação no Congresso Nacional;
b) organização sindical, entidade de classe ou associação legalmente constituída e em funcionamento há pelo menos um ano, em defesa dos interesses de seus membros ou associados;
LXXI - conceder-se-á mandado de injunção sempre que a falta de norma regulamentadora torne inviável o exercício dos direitos e liberdades constitucionais e das prerrogativas inerentes à nacionalidade, à soberania e à cidadania;
LXXII - conceder-se-á "habeas-data":
a) para assegurar o conhecimento de informações relativas à pessoa do impetrante, constantes de registros ou bancos de dados de entidades governamentais ou de caráter público;
b) para a retificação de dados, quando não se prefira fazê-lo por processo sigiloso, judicial ou administrativo;
LXXIII - qualquer cidadão é parte legítima para propor ação popular que vise a anular ato lesivo ao patrimônio público ou de entidade de que o Estado participe, à moralidade administrativa, ao meio ambiente e ao patrimônio histórico e cultural, ficando o autor, salvo comprovada má-fé, isento de custas judiciais e do ônus da sucumbência;
LXXIV - o Estado prestará assistência jurídica integral e gratuita aos que comprovarem insuficiência de recursos;
LXXV - o Estado indenizará o condenado por erro judiciário, assim como o que ficar preso além do tempo fixado na sentença;
LXXVI - são gratuitos para os reconhecidamente pobres, na forma da lei: (Vide Lei nº 7.844, de 1989)
a) o registro civil de nascimento;
b) a certidão de óbito;
LXXVII - são gratuitas as ações de "habeas-corpus" e "habeas-data", e, na forma da lei, os atos necessários ao exercício da cidadania. (Regulamento)
LXXVIII - a todos, no âmbito judicial e administrativo, são assegurados a razoável duração do processo e os meios que garantam a celeridade de sua tramitação. (Incluído pela Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 2004) (Vide ADIN 3392)
LXXIX - é assegurado, nos termos da lei, o direito à proteção dos dados pessoais, inclusive nos meios digitais. (Incluído pela Emenda Constitucional nº 115, de 2022)
§ 1º As normas definidoras dos direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata.
§ 2º Os direitos e garantias expressos nesta Constituição não excluem outros decorrentes do regime e dos princípios por ela adotados, ou dos tratados internacionais em que a República Federativa do Brasil seja parte.
§ 3º Os tratados e convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos que forem aprovados, em cada Casa do Congresso Nacional, em dois turnos, por três quintos dos votos dos respectivos membros, serão equivalentes às emendas constitucionais. (Incluído pela Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 2004) (Vide ADIN 3392) (Vide Atos decorrentes do disposto no § 3º do art. 5º da Constituição)
§ 4º O Brasil se submete à jurisdição de Tribunal Penal Internacional a cuja criação tenha manifestado adesão. (Incluído pela Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 2004 BrennoM (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Personality rights requests should be made by the subject directly to the VRT. --Krd 12:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
never own work Mef.ellingen (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The composer is a Chinese, according to Chinese copyright law, the melody's copyright is life+50 years. The composer died in 2010, which means the melody is still in copyright until 2061 in China, and 2058 in the United States (publish+95 years). Billytanghh (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It is performed by the US Navy. As such, this recording is a work of the US government SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The performance is PD, but the melody is not. The melody still under copyright in both the country of origin and the US.--Billytanghh (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This national anthem does not belong to China or the United States, so it is not subject to the laws of China or the United States, but of the country to which it belongs. 95.52.115.241 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- While the national anthem does not belong to China or the United States, the composer was indeed a Chinese but not Bissau-Guinean, where the anthem belongs. Hence, Chinese copyright laws applies.--Billytanghh (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Both China and Guinea-Bissau are pma 50, so it will be PD in 2061. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
lower-res duplicate of File:Panem Map Fan-made.png Enyavar (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No specic renewal located, so license was updated in good faith. However, other searches suggest the artwork was by a European artist... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a name for the artist, and a death date? --RAN (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have a name - Mathilde Ritter , but no death date yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete According to VIAF, Mathilde Ritter was born in 1899, but the death date seems to be unknown. The original story in German by Alexei Remison seems to have been published in either 1928 or 1930. [4]. This is well within the range of URAA retroactive copyright (1996 minus 70), and in case of missing formalities, a term of 95 years past first publication is also still active. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Also nominated (illustrations by M. Ritter:
- File:In the mouse's house - (IA inmouseshouse00sixt).pdf, originally published in 1929 in Germany as the 2nd edition of a book by Albert Sixtus (d. 1960)
- File:Around the world at play,a picture book of a German play fair; (IA aroundworldatpla00ritt).pdf, contemporary publication in Germany as "Ohne Geld durch die Welt. Ein Spielbilderbuch" with text by Carl Ferdinands (d. 1945). [5] De728631 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Low resolution, no metadata HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Roundhouse Studios logo.webp just with more black. IceWelder [✉] 16:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Strakhov as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Posted to source as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons.
elsaltodiario.com has a CC BY-SA 3.0-es license. Nevertheless, according to elsaltodiario.com/info/licencia "Aviso: esta licencia no afecta al uso de los recursos gráficos (fotografías, imágenes o video). Cada recurso gráfico lleva su propia licencia. Por defecto, no son CC." the license does not include multimedia content, at least by default. According to the source for this image, attribution is "ÁLVARO MINGUITO (©)". That leads me to think this picture is not intended to be free-licensed. Strakhov (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The license was changed on 4 August 2022. Previous to that date, El Salto used to publish all of their content (including images) under the CC 3.0 BY-SA license (see archive), except for the images tagged as «NO CC» (an example of which can be seen in the caption of the main image here, the rest of them can be checked through this query). This was also confirmed by their Twitter official account through a DM to me in 2021. Nacaru (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Wow. The license has been changed... precisely today? O_o Strakhov (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- By the way, I'm totally in for keeping the image, if that's really true that the license has been changed today. Strakhov (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, apparently the author of the photographs got annoyed and changed his mind because people were, according to him, "profiting off his work" and made them change it today. Nacaru (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment According to this webpage snapshot dated on August 4, 2022 04:23:11 the main page did not include the current "Licencia de uso" hyperlink to this page, but a generic link to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es. So it may be true until today they licensed all their content by default, including pictures, with a CC BY-SA license. Strakhov (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Given the history that these files have been uploaded prior to 4 August 2022 when the copyright license on the website had explictly been indicated as CC BY SA, I tend to be in favor Keep for this and all other related files. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'll tell you the story by way of relief: A few days ago during a Wikiherramientas session I said that the photographs of El Salto had free licenses and that they could be uploaded to Commons. Later, I did the same thing and, silly me, shared the result on Twitter tagging the photographer. Later he contacted me and told me of his intention to change the licenses of the photographs in El Salto, something that he was quick to do. And this was the result: losing a media outlet that did not realize that the licenses used for its photographic material could be uploaded to Commons. This caused great discouragement in me, and I reconsidered my continuity in the project, and in my general collaboration in Wikipedia (I had been thinking about the idea for a while due to emotional exhaustion). That, in short, is the story. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: CC licenses are not revokable. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DarwIn as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted photo: https://www.elsaltodiario.com/culturas/roberta-marrero-poes%C3%ADa-todo-era-ser-fuego-chulos-travestis-trans.
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:AMP 0632.jpg I think the deletion needs at least some discussion. Strakhov (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Given the history that these files have been uploaded prior to 4 August 2022 when the copyright license on the website had explictly been indicated as CC BY SA, I tend to be in favor Keep for this and all other related files. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that. In that case, Keep. Darwin Ahoy! 00:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per my argument at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AMP_0632.jpg. Nacaru (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: CC licenses are not revokable. --IronGargoyle (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Судя по этому, эта картинка не является утверждённым гербом. Jim Hokins (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Судя по этому, эта картинка не является утверждённым гербом. Jim Hokins (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Судя по этому, эта картинка не является утверждённым гербом. Jim Hokins (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Судя по этому, эта картинка не является утверждённым флагом. Jim Hokins (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Судя по этому, эта картинка не является ни утверждённым флагом, ни утверждённым гербом. Jim Hokins (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Professional photograph, uploaded by a single edit account. VRT permission is required. 188.123.231.46 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems to largely duplicate <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instagram_Glyph_Gradient_RGB_logo.svg> but with lower quality. Mhawk10 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, Mhawk10, the format of the deletion requests page for August 4 was all messed up. Please re-add the name of the file you're nominating for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I fixed the format more or less correctly, but is my vote for deletion visible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- This happened, but AntiCompositeNumber seems to have fixed it. Mhawk10 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Copyright is not an issue according to the file description of the linked image. However, Delete as low-quality duplicate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Copyright is not an issue according to the file description of the linked image. However,
- Comment Nevermind; I see the claim that this is too simple a form to be over Com:Too. Seems doubtful to me, but OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that something like the Nikon logo does not pass the threshold of originality (authority), it's possible that the IG logo doesn't pass TOO simply because of the fading. Mhawk10 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Surprising. Thanks, most instructive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:REDUNDANT. Was used on a wikidata item Peyman without relevance, which I removed. Not used on the projets. --Ellywa (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Deriviative work of a copyrighted logo, based on via discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russian Olympic Committee flag.svg 2001:4451:827B:A100:8998:60B8:FD8D:9DA3 06:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Russian_Olympic_Committee_flag.svg Tholme (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- The special RPC emblem is possibly created by IPC, which is based in Germany. If IPC really owns the copyright, then COM:TOO can be used as licensing. Of course I'm not so sure about it, as the exact detail of the emblem (including the original designer) remains unknown, also I'm not really familiar with judicial practice of threshold of originality. --№.N (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The uploader did not give sufficient evidence that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence, per COM:EVID. This is not a state symbol, so the template PD Russia is not appliccable. Therefore the file has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Noemí Casado (talk · contribs)
[edit]Three postcards and what looks like a professional photo portrait of a person, presumably from Spain, probably from the 1920s. These are not simple photographs, so {{PD-Spain-photo}} does not apply. We also do not know if they are in any way anonymous, since we don't know where and when they were published and don't see the context they were taken from, what's printed on the back of the postcards etc. So unless they are convincingly shown to be either in the public domain or under a free license, the files should be deleted and only be restored when enough years have passed to use {{PD-old-assumed}}. For Spain, that would be 130 years because of the duration=80 parameter to reflect the 80 years term still used for older works.
- File:AMERICAN LAKE. TERRASSES.jpg
- File:LLAC I BARQUES.jpg
- File:L'artur Costa.jpg
- File:EntradaAmerican.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 09:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep They appear to me as simple photographs, pressing the shutter on a camera, something a monkey can do. The images don't have the complexity of what most people would think of as an art photo, like in this image: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg. If the law was meant to give special status to commercial photography they would have used that term in the wording. --RAN (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_09633u.jpg){kind=link}
- I disagree. These are not amateur snapshots, but professionally produced portraits and postcards. A photograph doesn't have to be art to be considered not simple. --Rosenzweig τ 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- If the license was meant to provide special status for commercial photography, the wording would have included commercial photography in Spanish. In a simple photograph, you press the shutter, whether in a studio, or outdoor, or in your home. --RAN (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- A photograph also doesn't have to be commercial to be considered not simple. Please stop with your straw man arguments. --Rosenzweig τ 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- You said the images were "professional … not simple photographs" in your deletion argument, professional_photography=commercial_photography, a person who takes photographs and asks for money in exchange for the image that is produced. So, not a strawman argument, just quoting the exact argument that you made for deletion. --RAN (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you want the distinction between simple photographs and not simple photographs to be clearer to everyone, please cite some case law so we can look at what courts have ruled as simple or not-simple. --RAN (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all. Per the documentation at PD-Spain-photo. Simple photos are not "[works of] artistic character of the photographic reproduction [in fact representation], which everyday use and the law only accept as converging when the photographer adds to the work a product of his/her intelligence, an act of personal character that transcends a simple reproduction...". Arguments made above say that photos do not need to be art to be protected by the longer term, but Spanish law pretty clearly insists that they do. The images in this deletion request to not meet this art standard. They are simple photographs and should be kept. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Interesting discussion. I tried to understand the Spanish copyright law, https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1996/BOE-A-1996-8930-consolidado.pdf . It appears that (art 10) “Son objeto de propiedad intelectual todas las creaciones originales literarias, artísticas o científicas expresadas por cualquier medio o soporte, tangible o intangible, actualmente conocido o que se invente en el futuro, comprendiéndose entre ellas: ….(a, b, c…f, g) h: Las obras fotográficas y las expresadas por procedimiento análogo a la fotografía.” Translated with Google translate: “All original literary, artistic or scientific creations expressed by any means or support, tangible or intangible, currently known or invented in the future, are subject to intellectual property, including: ….(a, b, c…f , g) h: Photographic works and those expressed by a procedure analogous to photography.”
So I conclude that photographic works are in general protected (with the normal duration valid within EU). However, an exception to this general rule has been made in Article 128:
“La protección de las meras fotografías = Artículo 128. De las meras fotografías. Quien realice una fotografía u otra reproducción obtenida por procedimiento análogo a aquélla, cuando ni una ni otra tengan el carácter de obras protegidas en el Libro I, goza del derecho exclusivo de autorizar su reproducción, distribución y comunicación pública, en los mismos términos reconocidos en la presente Ley a los autores de obras fotográficas. Este derecho tendrá una duración de veinticinco años computados desde el día 1 de enero del año siguiente a la fecha de realización de la fotografía o reproducción.” “Protection of mere photographs = Article 128. Of mere photographs. Whoever takes a photograph or other reproduction obtained by a procedure similar to that, when neither one nor the other have the nature of protected works in Book I, enjoys the exclusive right to authorize its reproduction, distribution and public communication, in the same terms recognized in this Law to the authors of photographic works. This right will have a duration of twenty-five years computed from January 1 of the year following the date of taking the photograph or reproduction.”
So “Las meras fotografías” are protected for a more limited time, 25 years. The next question would be, what does “Las meras fotografías” mean?
I did find two Spanish texts to explain.
- Per [6] (from a law firm). Translated: “The difference between photographic work or mere photography is established in the Spanish Intellectual Property Law. In order for a photograph to be considered by law as a photographic work, it must meet certain requirements such as originality and that it be artistic. Mere photography, on the other hand, is one where the creative participation of the author is minimal, there is nothing original about it. This photograph does not have any new contribution that the author has made, which has only limited itself to reflecting a reality.” (The website gives in the following text advice how to protect your “mere photo”.)
- Per [7]) (blog of a lawyer). Translated: “What is considered a mere photograph? This is any photograph that does not have the nature of a photographic work. Therefore, most of the photos are included in this category.” (Follows the law text).
Based on these interpretation the images as listed by Rosenzweig for deletion can be kept imho. In these four photos, though technically difficult to make, especially in the 1920’s, the photographer has made a “mere” registration of reality, without adding artistic content. So the photos appear correctly licensed with {{PD-Spain-photo}}. --Ellywa (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 197.47.91.244 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F3 Ankry (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Undeleted per COM:UDR. It is unclear which non-free file the image is derivative of. Please, elaborate. Ankry (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The uploader did not indicate which photos they used as a basis. Might be their own. Many aerial views exist on Commons, in Category:Aerial_views_of_the_Temple_Mount#/media/File:DOME_OF_THE_ROCK.jpg. Possibly incorrectly licensed per CC-BY-SA4.0 but I consider the source material de minimis. Therefore decided to keep. --Ellywa (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded as user's own work, but user confirms (on their enwiki user talk page) that this is not the case. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This is correct it's not my work, I only updated it and misread what I was meant to be saying. I will upload again confirming it's not my work unless I can edit this info anywhere my end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibreTW (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. In addition, not educational usefull, not used on the project, therefore the logo is also out of COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
irrelevante 188.26.220.158 17:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Soy el autor de esta foto. El archivo es un fragmento de un cartel informativo de especies animales y vegetales que se pueden observar en una playa de Torrevieja. Forma parte de un proyecto de colaboración entre el Ayuntamiento de esa población y la Asociación ecologista ANSE. Como no existe ningún otro archivo referido a esta asociación y que pueda ser usado para su artículo en Wikipedia, consideré oportuno crearlo. No sé cuál es el motivo por el que un usuario anónimo considera que es un archivo irrelevante y su opinión prevalece sobre la de un usuario registrado. B.N.Sanchez. (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Can also be kept based on COM:FOP Spain. --Ellywa (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
stickers from polish newspaper, no evidence that uploader has copyrights Gintek (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is an edit to this file (File:020190726 130417 (2) " Strefa wolna od LGBT ".jpg). The stickers were photographed inside the garbage can and I didn't think that was appropriate, so i removed the background. Matinee71 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
_%22_Strefa_wolna_od_LGBT_%22.jpg){kind=link}
- Show us the original pic in the garbage can. That may be more appropriate as it will be unedited. I'm no expert on copyright but I think the only copyright of an original photo is owned by the photographer. We wouldn't ask Coca-Cola for permission to use your photo of a Coke can, by the same token. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Besides the other considerations mentioned, the simple text and design would be below COM:TOO in some jurisdictions. Buidhe (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Derivative work of file licensed with CCBYSA. @Matinee71: , please give the source in future if you crop or edit another photo. I corrected the file page for now. --Ellywa (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
אני העליתי את התמונה הזו לפני כמה שנים, אני לא מעוניינת שהיא תקושר לעמוד שלי. 213.137.70.202 19:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's a perfectly nice cat picture, but if you want to delete it, I think that's OK because we have a large number of cat pictures. But can you establish that you are the same user as User:Lihi Laszlo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's me. Thank you. I'm replying from the user. 2A02:5080:1306:9E00:8CA4:D312:ACA1:9AEC 12:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, too long ago for a COM:COURTESY deletion. Is used on a user page on hebrew Wikipedia. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
