Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/09/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Copyright Duosdebs01 (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Bleki19 (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-king-charles-makes-first-address-nation-2022-09-09/. --Achim55 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyright Duosdebs01 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. --Achim55 (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Random photo from internet Mykoslabel (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Mykoslabel. I am surprised by your deletion query, where you say that my photo is a random photo from the internet. The original photo was taken by me on August 1, 2021, and I just edited it with the GIMP program to make a perspective correction. You can see from the metadata that they are the same image.
- For 15 and a half years I have uploaded 1228 images of street signs to Wikimedia Commons, and I am surprised that this is the first deletion query I receive for being Random photo from internet (you do not specify the link). I ask the administrators to check if what I say is true.
- A cordial greeting. Drow male (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim55 (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Loufre53 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I had previously tagged this for lack of evidence of permission, but the uploader reverted my application of the tag without explanation. VRT has not received any emails regarding this file. As such, I am nominating this file for deletion for lacking evidence of permission. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete It's a mediocre photo of a random person, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal/promotional logo. Out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nour Photography (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files as commercial for Nour Photography, out of project scope!
Ras67 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, promotional. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible Copyright Violation that was unknown to me. AnthonyCIorio (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 19:33, 10 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: Derivative work: clearly copied from https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/king-charles-iii-man-whos-24972706. --Krdbot 01:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
child protection + uploaded to wikipedia without my consent (the person in the photo is me) .polishcatsmybeloved (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Darey popoola aka Darey p code (talk · contribs)
[edit]Appears to be using Commons as a COM:WEBHOST, possibly promoting own art.
- File:Bringing back our life back.jpg
- File:Ultimately universe.jpg
- File:To Make a wish.jpg
- File:Blackity & Whiteity.jpg
- File:Happen is Happened.jpg
- File:Graceful.jpg
- File:Young Queen Elizabeth 1957.jpg <-- this one might be in COM:SCOPE. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- File:Yellow Frame.jpg
- File:Believe with your dreams.jpg
- File:Colourless.jpg
- File:Frozen eyes.jpg
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Queen Elizabeth's file has a watermark so scope doesn't apply and permission is needed. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 04:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal signature of non-notable subject. Out of project scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 04:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution with no EXIF data. Possible copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal/promotional logo. Out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
COM:SCREENSHOT violation, taken from YouTube SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:youtube.com/user/officialageofempires
[edit]Overzealous marketing team, same reasons as discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Videos by Bandai Namco.
- File:HOW DO YOU TURN THIS ON Red Bull Wololo 5 Teaser.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV The Holy Roman Empire.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- DE - Mexico Civilization Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Developer Discussion (V1.3 Update).webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Abbasid Dynasty vs Mongols Teil 1 von 2.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - The French.webm
- File:Logo Age of Empires II Definitive Edition - Lord of the West.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - Hands on History Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Weapons of War - Palings.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Traces of History - The Abbasid Dynasty.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Xbox & Bethesda Games Showcase - Gameplay Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor- Tuning Packs.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - October Update Preview.webm
- File:Age of Empires III DE - Mexico Civilization Overview.webm
- File:GUI während Spiel Age of Empires II Definitive Edition.png
- File:AoE II DE, isometrische Perspektive Dorf 20210126 03.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Delhi Sultanate vs The Rus Teil 2 von 2.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Patch 11963 Developer Discussion (VOD).webm
- File:Offizielle Concept Art von Age of Empires IV.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Chinese.webm
- File:Age Of Empires IV Gameplay Trailer - X019.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor- Publishing Mods.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- Definitive Edition - Available Now.webm
- File:The Teutons Event - Age of Empires II- DE.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV The Abbasid Dynasty.webm
- File:Age of Empires III - Definitive Edition, Nahaufnahme ländlicheres Dorf.png
- File:Age of Empires IV- Multiplayer Match.webm
- File:AoE II DE, Kampagnenansicht 20210126 02.png
- File:Age Of Empires II- Definitive Edition - 2021 Year In Review.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - Winter Celebration!.webm
- File:HANDS ON HISTORY - FACE OF BATTLE.webm
- File:WOLOLO.wav
- File:Age of Empires IV Behind the Scenes.webm
- File:Update 40220 Overview - Age of Empires II- DE.webm
- File:GUI während Spiel Age of Empires IV.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - Balance Team Roundtable Discussion (VOD).webm
- File:Age Of Empires III- Definitive Edition - Knights of the Mediterranean - AVAILABLE NOW.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Weapons of War - Nest of Bees.webm
- File:Age Royale - Age II- DE Battle Royal Debut Tournament.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV French vs Chinese Teil 1 von 2.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Season One Review (VOD).webm
- File:AoE II DE, isometrische Perspektive Dorf 20210126 01.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - Traces of History - The 100 Years' War.webm
- File:Logo AoE III DE - The African Royals.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - 2v2 Showmatch.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Road to Ranked - Part 2.webm
- File:Age of Empires III DE Overview - The Hausa & Ethiopians.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - New Years Celebration Event!.webm
- File:Zeitalteraufstieg Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization 03.png
- File:Age of Empires IV The Mongols.webm
- File:Xbox Games Extended Age of Empires IV.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- Definitive Edition - United States Civilization Overview.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - Birthday Anniversary Event.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Patch 10257 Developer Discussion (VOD).webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Developer Discussion (UGC - MegaRandom).webm
- File:Age of Empires III - Definitive Edition, ländlicheres Dorf.png
- File:AoE Weekly Livestream July 18 2019.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Gamescom 2021 Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Weapons of War - Trebuchet.webm
- File:Logo Age of Empires II Definitive Edition.png
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor Interface 002.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Rus.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- Definitive Edition - Dawn of the Dukes - AVAILABLE NOW.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- Definitive Edition - Overview.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- 1812 Edition.webm
- File:Age of Empires III DE Overview - The Hausa & Ethiopians Part 2.webm
- File:Adam Isgreen and Bert Beeckman.png
- File:Dorf Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization.png
- File:Age Of Empires IV - Accolades Trailer.webm
- File:Summer World Tour - Age of Empires II- DE.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV French vs Chinese Teil 2 von 2.webm
- File:Heimatstadt Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization 01.png
- File:Kathedrale Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization 05.png
- File:AoE Weekly Livestream - July 11 2019.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - The English.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - Age of Empires III- DE Celebration Event!.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - Lords of the West - AVAILABLE NOW.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor- Content Editor Interface.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor- Customizing The Editor.webm
- File:Age Of Empires II- Definitive Edition - Dynasties Of India Trailer.webm
- File:Logo AoE III DE United States Civilization 02.png
- File:Logo von Age of Empires III - Definitive Edition.png
- File:Überfall Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization.png
- File:GUI Editor Age of Empires II Definitive Edition.png
- File:Logo Age of Empires II Definitive Edition - Dawn of the Dukes.png
- File:AoE Weekly Livestream - August 1st 2019.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Season Two- Map Monsters Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Official Launch Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires III - Definitive Edition, ein befestigtes Fort.png
- File:HANDS ON HISTORY - MONGOL HEAVY CAVALRY.webm
- File:AoE Weekly Livestream - June 27 2019.webm
- File:Schiff USA AoE III DE 03.png
- File:Age of Empires III- DE - The African Royals Official Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Siege of Dover Campaign Highlights.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- DE Overview- The Inca.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - Battle Royale Deep Dive.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Season One- Festival of Ages Trailer.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- DE Overview- The Swedes.webm
- File:Logo AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization 02.png
- File:Age of Empires II- Definitive Edition - Greatest Medieval Technologies.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Delhi Sultanate vs The Rus Teil 1 von 2.webm
- File:Age of Empires- Fan Preview - Naval Teaser.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - November Update Preview.webm
- File:AOE Weekly Livestream July 25 2019.webm
- File:XBOX Plays Age of Empires IV - The Siege of Kiev Campaign Playthrough.webm
- File:AoE II DE, isometrische Perspektive Stadt 20210126 04.png
- File:Age of Empires III- Definitive Edition - Tycoon Mode.webm
- File:Age of Empires III- Definitive Edition - Knights of the Mediterranean Teaser.webm
- File:Age of Empires III - Definitive Edition, ausgebautes Dorf.png
- File:Age of Empires IV Abbasid Dynasty vs Mongols Teil 2 von 2.webm
- File:HANDS ON HISTORY - THE GARDEROBE.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - September Update Preview.webm
- File:Age of Empires II- DE - May-hem Event!.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV- Rus vs Delhi Sultanate (VOD).webm
- File:Age of Empires IV Content Editor Interface 001.png
- File:HANDS ON HISTORY - ARMOR.webm
- File:Heimatstadt USA AoE III DE 01.png
- File:Age of Empires IV - The Delhi Sultanate.webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Patch 11009 Developer Discussion (VOD).webm
- File:Age of Empires IV - Traces of History - Naval Warfare.webm
- File:Age of Empires III Definitive Edition - Overview.webm
- File:Desperados Mexikaner AoE III DE - Mexico Civilization.png
- File:Age of Empires III DE - Mexico Civilization Trailer (AUDIO DESCRIPTION).webm
- File:Age of Empires IV- Hands on History - The Trebuchet.webm
- File:Age Of Empires II- Definitive Edition - Dynasties of India - AVAILABLE NOW.webm
BevinKacon (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @BevinKacon Discussion already in progress at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Age of Empires II DE - May-hem Event!.webm as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP No one knows whether these videos were incorrectly licensed as CC-BY. Furthermore, the videos may contain other copyrighted stuff that were derived elsewhere. You can't pluck something off the internet, and release them with a CC license. Feel free to contact the publisher to clarify whether the videos were meant to be released with such license. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment Some files can't be undeleted due to phab:T291137. Yann (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- I reuploaded the files which can be undeleted, but they can't be moved under the names above. :(( Yann (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of an internet page CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of an internet page CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Image from Shutterstock https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hands-together-praying-bright-sky-249256534?irclickid=3HJ2N8zwPxyNULlVgCUkU0pcUkDWTnS1nzyIxs0&irgwc=1&pl=77643-108110 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: According to TinEye, the grapher picture exists since 2009 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Ad for a film CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Collage of photographs CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation with the game character images. Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality copy of File:Raja Ravi Varma, Gypsies (1893).jpg, not used. Yann (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
probably fully copyrighted material Mateus2019 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See [2] with additional shots from the same shoot, plus [3] which claims the source is "Viral Bhayani", an Instagram/YouTube channel. Ravensfire (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spritzer69 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Wikimedia Commons is not an amateur porn site nor your personal free web host. in addition, poor quality.
Achim55 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The picture was already found in 2010 online, according to TineEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Crop from a poster from Comica Festival according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The image was already found in 2014 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Was on Freepik.es in 2014 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Arleady avaialble online in 2008 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible comyvio: Flyer CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Posters of an exhibition CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a videoclip CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: poster of an event CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Not personal work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Poster of an event CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Poster of an event CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
see scratches on picture, may be scanned Ezarateesteban 22:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture from Twitter according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Use of Commons as personal space: Diploma CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Unknown presentation slide CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a Google Maps CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Advertising from a website with a copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photograph of a book CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sarajevo City Center
[edit]The building was completed in 2014 by architect Sead Gološ (1969–2020). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus permission from him is required.
- File:Marijin Dvor 2014.JPG
- File:Old Heritage In Front Of Modern SCC Center Sarajevo (14244732380).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Bosnie Herzegovine O (137558045).jpeg
- File:Sarajevo City Center from ohr hq IMG 1219.JPG
- File:Sarajevo City Center shopping part.JPG
- File:Sarajevo City Center Summer 2015 (1) cropped.jpg
- File:Sarajevo City Center Summer 2015 (1).jpg
- File:Sarajevo City Center Summer 2015 (2).jpg
- File:Sarajevo City Center.JPG
- File:Sarajevo – City Center.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to write to him to ask for permission, but I realised he just died... is there any other way? --Dans (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dans: The copyright terms of BiH lasted for 70 years, that means the copyright of the building expires on 1 January 2091, and they can be restored afterwards. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gološ was the author of several more modern buildings in downtown Sarajevo. I would wait before deleting all their pictures, as it is most unlikely that the heirs would complain about their use (there's plenty of pics of his buildings everywhere). We can try contacting the heirs for an OTRS (though it won't be easy). --Dans (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd really appreciate that. As for File:Sarajevo – City Center.jpg I'd however like to emphasize, that SCC is shown only in the background. --j.budissin+/- 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have to agree with nomination, like for all FoP cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Permission would be perfect, by i doubt that we can get it. --Smooth O (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd really appreciate that. As for File:Sarajevo – City Center.jpg I'd however like to emphasize, that SCC is shown only in the background. --j.budissin+/- 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 04:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sarajevo City Center
[edit]The building was completed in 2014 by Sead Gološ (1969–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2091.
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104303003).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104303193).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104304298).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104304738).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104813931).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104980641).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104999502).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49104999807).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49121791863).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49122293041) (cropped).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49122293041).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Sarajevo City Center (SCC) (49122481497).jpg
- File:Sarajevo-City-Center Hochhaus (2022).jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Becariomkt.ewmx (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Logoarconesmx.png
- File:Canastas logo2oo.jpg
- File:Canastas Mexico.jpg
- File:CANASTAS MEXICO.jpg
- File:Arcones.shop.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. Unused or used in promotional Wikidata items.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Robux ben 176.88.85.45 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep no valid reason by anonymous user. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
File:London-new-years-eve-fireworks london-new-years-eve-fireworks-image-courtesy-of-stewart-marsden 524bdf5023f1cb7dcbffaa224f5d0f61.jpg
[edit]Title "image courtesy of stewart marsden" means that the image was not created by the uploader A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
too small and cropped Pratish Khedekar 09:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Daztrax
[edit]- File:Vertical banner.jpg
- File:Gameplay screenshot 1.png
- File:Gameplay screenshot 2.png
- File:The menu of the game.png
- File:Gameplay screenshot 3.png
- File:The song list of the game.png
- File:Horizontal banner.jpg
- File:Game thumbnail.png
Screenshots from the video game Lez. There is nothing on their website that indicates that Lez is available under a free license. --EdTre (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Urheber ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Obviously a professional promo photo, no indication that uploader = copyright holder. 217.239.2.197 11:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
copyrighted screenshot Ske (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Source is from the Premier League but I am not certain if permission was approved by them so probably copyright violation. Iggy the Swan (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from logo. Should be cropped/blank to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart. Should be in tabular data, MediaWiki graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
unused file made by me Krzysiek 123456789 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Not educationally useful; derivative of File:Enver Paşa.jpg created for the purpose of vandalism. Jr8825 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. If we do not know even country, then the photo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Uploader claims "own work", but the original source (removed by uploader after this image being tagged with "{{No permission since}}") is published with a CC BY-ND 3.0 (this blog). COM:VRT needed from copyright owner (the blog owner, I guess. That person could be the owner of the Wikimedia account that uploaded the file, or it could not. Anyways, permission sent through COM:VRT is needed. That ...or changing the blog's license). Strakhov (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 09:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Auftaktveranstaltung GENDER KICKS Gegnerinnen-Aufklärung (podium gesamtansicht) (cropped).jpg
[edit]Urheber ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dirk Lenke I am sorry but did you understand that photo was collected from Flickr.com account where it was CC licenced and available for Wikimedia? It has nothing to do with me being an author or not. It was one in many HBS conferences with CC licenced documentation. --Zblace (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. Normalerweise steht ein grüner Hinweis bei flickr-Dateien, sorry Dirk Lenke (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 09:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not in colour Robert Neustadter (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
This file is not needed anymore. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Last time, you tried to give as a deletion reason that it's a black & white photo. Are you trying to purge this site of all historical photos? If so, why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No source no author, can't keep with present license. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is not needed anymore. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also not apparently matching our licenses. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is not needed anymore. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & from 2017 book. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Britannia Park- footbridge over the CPR track with an open-air streetcar in the background, OCA CA015142.jpg
[edit]This file is not needed anymore. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & licensing information not in phase with license provided. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is no longer needed. Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Ellin Beltz at 18:14, 20 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 01:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Not free, author died 1962 Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not free, author died 1962. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not free, author died 1962. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not free, author died 1962. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not free, author died 1962. Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Empty category. -Chassipress (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
not in PD as Marcello Dudovich died 1962 Goesseln (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. The file should be deleted. It also doesn't need to be restored later, as there are better versions around. --Rodomonte (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I didn't see any other versions, so the file can be restored in 2033. Anybody restoring it then can sort out duplicates etc. --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. A better version is on en-wiki. --Rodomonte (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
not in PD as Marcello Dudovich died 1962 Goesseln (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2033. --Rosenzweig τ 09:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, unused Ciaurlec (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Very miniscule image of a bus, At 110x96 not a great deal can be seen, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
(Renominating per guidance given to me at AN[4]) Not educationally useful - Very miniscule image of a bus - We have much larger images of this vehicle here, here, here, here and here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's not very useful, but you can't nominate this repeatedly, 3 days after every time it's not deleted. Why don't you give up and do something more productive? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I never said I was going too did I?, And how is nominating a tiny image for deletion not productive?, Had you bothered to ask I would've told you that I went to AN over this image and was told I needed to provide images proving we had images of this vehicle in larger sizes.... so that's what I have done .... By all accounts my rationale for deletion is 1000x better than the previous one. I would suggest you go and do something productive instead of leaving pointless comments at DRs. –Davey2010Talk 11:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not very useful to nominate images for deletion repeatedly, but seeing whether there's a way to save potentially useful images from deletion is productive. To be clear, I'm not opposed to deleting this image for the reasons you offered this time or last time, but I also don't see why it's that important to delete that repeatedly nominating it is worth anyone's time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. In cases such as this I would argue it's absolutely fine to renominate the image providing your rationale is an improvement or clearer to the last one which in this specific case it is, That being said 2nd nom would be my limit I certainly have no intention or desire to keep renominating the same file over and over again but as explained this was only renominated due to the guidance given to me at AN.
- Again there's no usefulness to this image, As an inclusionist/keepist I always try and find means and ways of keeping images and my uploads prove that.
- You bang on about me "being un-productive" yet ironically you don't do anything productive here other than make pointless comments at DRs and comment at QI/FP/VI nominations ..... I do a damn sight more on this project in a day than you do in a year. So unless you're going to actually !vote here then I would kindly suggest you leave the DR and go and pester someone else. –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for misjudging your intentions. I also pass a bunch of nominations at QIC and cause many VIC nominations to pass by being the lone supporter of them without nominating any of my own photos, so one could argue that's selfless on my part. I also nominate some photos (of course always by others), mostly at FPC. And if you think all my comments at DR are "pointless", OK, whatever. As for voting on this, if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- "if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion" - You could've said that 19 hours ago and saved us both the need to keep coming here. You have a nice day too. –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. I'm sorry; my remarks were truly annoying. I'll try to be more careful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- "if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion" - You could've said that 19 hours ago and saved us both the need to keep coming here. You have a nice day too. –Davey2010Talk 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for misjudging your intentions. I also pass a bunch of nominations at QIC and cause many VIC nominations to pass by being the lone supporter of them without nominating any of my own photos, so one could argue that's selfless on my part. I also nominate some photos (of course always by others), mostly at FPC. And if you think all my comments at DR are "pointless", OK, whatever. As for voting on this, if there's no feature of this bus that needs documentation, even in such a tiny picture, I would indeed support deletion. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not very useful to nominate images for deletion repeatedly, but seeing whether there's a way to save potentially useful images from deletion is productive. To be clear, I'm not opposed to deleting this image for the reasons you offered this time or last time, but I also don't see why it's that important to delete that repeatedly nominating it is worth anyone's time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yo realicé este montaje cuando era joven y me gustaría que fuera borrado. Peejayem (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernesto Rosales 1103 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these files are certainly not the uploader's "own work" from 2022 as claimed. They need proper sources, authors, dates and rationales why they are either in the public domain or under a free license. If these things are not provided or not satisfactory, the files should all be deleted per the precautionary principle.
- File:Fernando Uribe Restrepo.png
- File:Humberto Murcia Ballén.png
- File:Alfonso López Echandía.png
- File:Toma CSJ 1985.png
- File:CSJ Alfonso López Echandía.png
- File:Gaitán en Moneda.png
- File:Bogotanos alzados en armas.png
- File:Muerte de Gaitán.png
- File:Gaitán en la Plaza de Bolívar.png
- File:Gaitán y su Campaña Presidencial.png
- File:Gaitán ante el Gongreso Liberal.png
- File:Eduardo Santos.jpg
- File:Enrique-olaya-herrera-1930-1934.jpg
- File:Pumarejo1940.png
- File:Marroquín XIX.png
- File:Pumarejo1930.png
- File:J.Holguín Maranillo.jpg
- File:SanclementeXIX.png
- File:Ospina Pérez 1946.jpg
- File:José Manuel Marroquín 1900-1904.png
- File:Sanclemente1898.png
- File:Ramón González Valencia Black&White.png
Rosenzweig τ 18:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep All images prior to 1942 as PD-Colombia. --RAN (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is not true. Images that have "1946" or "1985" in the file name are almost certainly not prior to 1942. The images with "Alfonso López Echandía" in the file name show a man who was born in 1932 and is certainly older than nine years in the images. Also, even if you don't write it, you treat them all as if they were anonymous. Without any sources, original publication etc. we cannot at all tell if that is actually the case. --Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry if my words are ambiguous. I am trying to say "Keep all images [that are] prior to 1942 as PD-Colombia" not "Keep all. All images are prior to 1942 as per PD-Colombia". Several have the names of the author on the image, but they are pseudonyms. If they can be traced to a person, we can find a death date. Wiki Commons rules allow us to scan images, if they were pulled from the Internet they should be able to be found using the standard reverse image search and standard image search by name. The are several billion images online to match to. --RAN (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see. So you just volunteered to do these searches and find authors and death dates? --Rosenzweig τ 11:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry if my words are ambiguous. I am trying to say "Keep all images [that are] prior to 1942 as PD-Colombia" not "Keep all. All images are prior to 1942 as per PD-Colombia". Several have the names of the author on the image, but they are pseudonyms. If they can be traced to a person, we can find a death date. Wiki Commons rules allow us to scan images, if they were pulled from the Internet they should be able to be found using the standard reverse image search and standard image search by name. The are several billion images online to match to. --RAN (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is not true. Images that have "1946" or "1985" in the file name are almost certainly not prior to 1942. The images with "Alfonso López Echandía" in the file name show a man who was born in 1932 and is certainly older than nine years in the images. Also, even if you don't write it, you treat them all as if they were anonymous. Without any sources, original publication etc. we cannot at all tell if that is actually the case. --Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I already have performed the search and have not been able to match the pseudonym to a known photographer, I even posted at a Facebook group that specializes on photographers. --RAN (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It's hard to tell for all the files, but most of them are certainly from after 1942. So they should all be deleted as copyvio per the precautionary principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Columbia is 80 years pma, so in order to beat the URAA, images must be prior to 1927. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernesto Rosales 1103 (talk · contribs)
[edit]New uploads with the same problems. As before: The files need proper sources, authors, dates and rationales why they are either in the public domain or under a free license. If these things are not provided or not satisfactory, the files should all be deleted per the precautionary principle.
- File:Miguel Abadía Méndez.png
- File:Roberto Urdaneta 1951-1953.png
- File:Laureano Gómez.jpg
- File:GustavoPetro 2022.jpg
- File:Pedro Nel Ospina Vásquez.jpg
- File:Rafael Reyes Prieto1904-1909.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 23:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
These images are PD-Colombia as prior to 1942 and should not be deleted
[edit]- File:Pedro Nel Ospina Vásquez.jpg
- File:Rafael Reyes Prieto1904-1909.jpg
- File:José Manuel Marroquín 1900-1904.png
- File:Sanclemente1898.png
- File:Pumarejo1940.png author listed under a pseudonym "Ngala"
- File:Eduardo Santos.jpg author listed under a pseudonym "Panna"
- File:Miguel Abadía Méndez.png
- File:Pumarejo1930.png
- File:Enrique-olaya-herrera-1930-1934.jpg
- File:Sanclemente1898.png
- File:Ramón González Valencia Black&White.png
- File:J.Holguín Maranillo.jpg
Question So why are they on the Deletion requests page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- These are the ones nominated for deletion that are PD-Colombia because they were created prior to 1942. They should not be deleted. --RAN (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I think the usual procedure is to put a strikethrough through whichever images in a group should not be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- These are the ones nominated for deletion that are PD-Colombia because they were created prior to 1942. They should not be deleted. --RAN (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strikethroughs can only be done by the nominator to withdraw their deletion nomination. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Only anonymous images published before 1942 are in the PD in Colombia. Not just any image created before 1942 as implied above. So we still need sources and first publication to be able to (perhaps) determine that they are anonymous. OR they can be kept with {{PD-old-assumed}} if they are at least 130 years old (template adjusted with the duration=80 parameter to accomodate Colombia's 80 years pma term). --Rosenzweig τ 11:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment For anybody deciding this, please also note that some file descriptions were changed by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), claiming that the author is anonymous and changing years without giving any evidence. So please check what was changed before deciding anything. --Rosenzweig τ 13:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Our rules allow you to scan an original image, it doesn't have to be downloaded from the internet. There are 750 billion images are on the internet, if you can't match one of these images with a reverse image search, or a simple name search, to the name of a photographer, you have performed all of the due diligence that can possibly be accomplished. --RAN (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernesto Rosales 1103 (talk · contribs)
[edit]And another one. I will warn the uploader one last time; the next time it's a block.
Rosenzweig τ 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernesto Rosales 1103 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Another batch of files related to politics of Venezuela, taken from various web sites, uploaded with CC licenses. File:Laidy Gómez.png is taken from a site called Poderopedia, which claims to be under a CC 3.0 license [5], but a reverse image search with TinEye and Google Images shows that this image was used on Twitter and various web sites since at least 2019, also in larger versions, so I highly doubt it originated from that Poderopedia site. I also can't find CC licenses for the others, and File:Freddy Bernal Gobernador.jpg I can't find at all at the source page that is named. So all those files should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be either under a free license or in the public domain.
- File:Laidy Gómez.png
- File:Freddy Bernal (2021).jpg
- File:Freddy Bernal Gobernador.jpg
- File:Escudo Estado La Guaira (2019).jpg
Rosenzweig τ 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tyrannohotep (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication that these are anything but the creators free fantasy.
- File:Iberomaurusians.jpg
- File:Natufian Shaman.jpg
- File:Tyrannosaurus Versus Triceratops.jpg
- File:The Rescue of Andromeda.jpg
- File:Apidima 1 Facial Reconstruction.jpg
TommyG (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Same could be said for a lot of the paleoart and other artistic reconstructions that are all over Wikipedia. Why do you have a problem with these particular images? Tyrannohotep (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not that I really care too much whether these get deleted, but what exactly makes a piece of paleoart acceptable to contribute to Wikipedia etc.? Tyrannohotep (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Files contributed to Wikimedia Commons should have some form of educational value. These do not. If anything, they only have value as misinformation as some could mistakenly believe that there is some sort of scientific basis to the creation of these drawings. TommyG (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept 2 as in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Trademarked logo GoingBatty (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
License invalide. Auteur décédé en 1977. Source : https://www.lalibre.be/2013/03/14/au-fil-de-la-plume-D6JFNOTAO5F3DJX3PODAOJKIVU/ Klow (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
this is an old file Robert Neustadter (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- So what? Based on what I'm seeing so far, I think all your deletion requests should be speedily denied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: 14:14, 20 September 2022, by Ellin Beltz (Copyright violation). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
André Fertré died in 1971. Copyright violation. Chassipress (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is no longer needed. Robert Neustadter (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason for deleting it. Keep for potential historical use. AlasdairW (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: 14:16, 20 September 2022, by Ellin Beltz (Copyright violation). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This file is no longer needed. Robert Neustadter (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Robert Neustadter, when you make this claim, explain why every time. So why isn't it needed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: 14:17, 20 September 2022, by Ellin Beltz (Copyright violation). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Georges Dastor
[edit]Georges Dastor died in 1990. Copyright violation.
- File:Georges Dastor Autoportrait.jpg
- File:Georges Dastor Maquette affiche.jpg
- File:Honfleur 1950 georges Dastor.jpg
- File:Romance de Paris.jpg
- File:Ruelle à Villeneuve georges Dastor.jpg
Chassipress (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and deleted now-empty category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not an image of Civil War Navy Medal of Honor recipient William Young. It has been incorrectly attributed to him elsewhere on the Internet. This William Young served as a gunner's mate on the USS Essex. The Medal of Honor William Young never served on the USS Essex during his naval service from 1852 to 1876. I have his pension file and the USS Essex is not listed. The USS Essex William Young was born 1817 in Saco, Maine and is clearly not the Medal of Honor William Young who was born 1835 in New York. LastFullMeasure (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- How do you know it is tghe Essex one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhfjbaker (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, use {{Fact disputed}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Artworks without OTRS from a non notorious contemporary artist. Chassipress (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Jdnddesdd Strmare (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Although the deletion requests Strmare has added is not valid, we should keep in mind that this flag is a hoax. No valid source exists for an actual banner with the emblem of Samarkand existing. Flagvisioner (talk) (contribs)
00:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![59 File:Guild Home Video advert - "Success After Success", 1983.jpg](#File:Guild_Home_Video_advert_-_"Success_After_Success",_1983.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_c1898_MoH_winner_public_domain.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_تصویری_از_دو_ساختمان_بلند_مرتبه_در_دبی.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_رویش_ساختمانها_بلند_مرتبه_در_دبی_در_امارات_متحده_عربی.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/09/10#c-CoffeeEngineer-20220910221800-File:Guild_Home_Video_advert_-_"Success_After_Success",_1983.jpg){kind=link}
![03:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/09/10#c-Minorax-20220917034300-File:Guild_Home_Video_advert_-_"Success_After_Success",_1983.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104303003).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104303193).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104304298).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104304738).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104813931).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104980641).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104999502).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49104999807).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49121791863).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49122293041)_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49122293041).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(49122481497).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_c1898_MoH_winner_public_domain.jpg){kind=link}
_c1898_MoH_winner_public_domain.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_c1898_MoH_winner_public_domain.jpg){kind=link}
_c1898_MoH_winner_public_domain.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The picture is very unflattering. It is very doubtful that from the whole set taken during the concert that was the best picture to share. It looks like it was purposefully published to mock and cause harm. Switch827 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No, it looks like a picture of a very expressive musician, and I say that as a professional musician. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, no real alternatives available. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software company, Unused logo CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a software CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iran A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violation: no freedom of panorama in Indonesia and image lacks permission from the architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Yemen A1Cafel (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The depicted statue is recent and thereby still in copyright. Unfortunately, Estonia has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the sculptor is needed or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- What about the others files in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Monument_of_Juhan_Smuul, they should be deleted too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry72 (talk • contribs)
- See below. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Statue Mereema, author Ivo Mänd, 2015, Hiiumaa, Estonia 01.jpg
- File:Statue Mereema, author Ivo Mänd, 2015, Hiiumaa, Estonia 02.jpg
- File:J Smuul monument.jpg
- File:J. Smuuli monument, 2011, regnr 2241.jpg
- File:Juhan Smuul (Tõnu Maarand)2.jpg
- File:Juhan Smuul - panoramio (1).jpg <-- no information in which country this sculpture is installed
- File:Bronzová socha, Vanamees ja kits, Heltermaa sadam, ostrov Hiiumaa, Estonsko 02.jpg
- File:Bronzová socha, Vanamees ja kits, Heltermaa sadam, ostrov Hiiumaa, Estonsko 01.jpg
- File:Památník utečenců, suurpõgenemise mälestusmärk, Estonsko 04.jpg
- File:Památník utečenců, suurpõgenemise mälestusmärk, Estonsko 02.jpg
- File:Pohilise Leppe Kivid, Pühalepa, ostrov Hiiumaa, Estonsko 02.jpg
2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
COM:DW with no permission. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Can't find any proof it's free to use, especially CC BY-SA. https://www.westjet.com/assets/wj-web/documents/en/about-us/corporate-governance/02-Code-of-Conduct.pdf (page 14) lists the logo as the trademark of WestJet and also shows it's not free to use (but it's a corporate policy, so it might be different). Anyway, the page lacks any evidence for a free license. Katafrakt (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
probably copyviol: no indication about a free release from the original source — danyele 18:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ernest Gabard
[edit]Ernest Gabard died in 1957. Copyright violation.
- File:Caddetou Gabard Ernest.jpg
- File:Caddetou regardant les soldats.jpg
- File:Caddetou vélocipède.jpg
- File:Le pinard est sauf d’Ernest Gabard.jpg
- File:Le vaguemestre Gabard 75269.jpg, c'est une carte postale, qu'en est-il du copyright dans ce cas précis ?
Chassipress (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, in public domain the 01-01-2028. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
no COM:FOP for artworks in Argentina, author still live https://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/noticias/el-paseo-de-la-gloria-sumo-la-escultura-de-juan-manuel-fangio Ezarateesteban 21:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Program from 1984 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 09:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- UA? I guess nobody can own copyrights of any PSDs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Laos A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Laos A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Greetings.
- The image is not up for deletion since its general upload from 2018. The picture, in itself does not represent panoramic views of the city, but the area, building and general district of the city of Tuzla. Please take it into consideration that the request for the deletion has been placed under false belief that the image is panoramic, which is not. Felky (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted under French law SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: of course it is copyrighted but free licensed by rights holder. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:UNITIC Twin Skyscrapers
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina
- File:Momo i Uzeir - panoramio.jpg
- File:Old and new (6043328902).jpg
- File:Pickup visa day Sarajevo 110411 (110) (5619082067).jpg
- File:Sarajevo,blizanci.jpg
- File:Twin Skyscrapers Sarajevo.JPG
- File:UNITIC 2.jpg
- File:UNITIC World Trade Towers twilight.JPG
- File:UNITIC.jpg
- File:Zgrade Momo i Uzeir, Sarajevo.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5619082067).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:UNITIC Twin Skyscrapers
[edit]The building was completed in 1981 by Ivan Štraus (1928–2018). There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2089.
- File:Sarajevo - UNITIC (49104470958).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - UNITIC (49121798913).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - UNITIC (49122479712).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - UNITIC (49122481542).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - UNITIC (49122481687).jpg
- File:UNITIC Sarajevo HQ.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}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hotel Holiday, Sarajevo
[edit]The building was completed in 1983 by Ivan Štraus (1928–2018). There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2089.
- File:Hiliday Inn Sarajevo, 1987.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn Hotel Sarajevo.JPG
- File:Holiday Inn Sarajevo (1).jpg
- File:Holiday Inn Sarajevo (2).jpg
- File:Holiday Inn Sarajevo in 2011.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn Sarajevo.JPG
- File:Holiday Inn Sarajevo.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn, Blizanci andTram K2YU in Sarajevo BiH.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn, Sarajevo (by Pudelek).JPG
- File:Holiday Inn, Sarajevo, 2.jpg
- File:Holiday Inn, Sarajevo.jpg
- File:Holiday-Inn Sarajevo.jpg
- File:Holiday-Inn-Sarajevo.jpg
- File:Hotel Holiday Inn - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Hotel Holiday, Sarajevo.jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Holiday inn - View from Avaz twist tower - panoramio.jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Hotel Holiday (49104470593).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Hotel Holiday (49104471353).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Hotel Holiday (49104977836).jpg
- File:Sarajevo - Hotel Holiday (49121792088).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Holiday Inn 2.JPG
- File:Sarajevo Holiday Inn.JPG
- File:Sarajevo Holiday-Inn 2011-09-18.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-215 Line-1 2011-09-26 (4).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-215 Line-1 2011-09-26.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-237 Line-3 2013-11-07.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-258 Line-3 2011-09-26.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-292 Line-3 2011-10-05.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-304 Line-5 2011-11-18.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-500 Line-1 2011-10-05.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-502 Line-3 2013-11-07.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-504 Line-3 2011-09-26 (2).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-801 Line-3 2011-10-31 (2).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-805 Line-3 2011-12-14.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-816 Line-3 2011-10-31 (4).jpg
- File:SarajevoHolidayInn.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}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- This issue with deleting the images from Bosnia and Herzegovina was already discussed before with respect to Wikimedia Commons incorrect interpretation of the copyright law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There have been no legal cases that relate to No Freedom of Panorama, as that clause is non existent as such. My-wiki-photos (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Krd: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina My-wiki-photos (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
_%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B2_%D8%AF%D9%88_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B2_%D8%AF%D9%88_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Laos A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Weak keep I believe that this image may survive under DM. When contrasted with the clearly identifiable fresco in File:Fresco on school toilets in Laos (closed doors).jpg (compared image), the focus of this image turns to the toilets inside of the hut (that is covered in fresco). We can also see that the fresco in this file is substantially covered by the doors, making them less identifiable than the compared image. In such way I believe that the fresco should be considered as "a small part of a larger work", so the file may be kept under COM:DM#3.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-shape}} in my view. Also per 廣九直通車, de minimis (3) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is definitely a protected artwork. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the photo file title speaks of itself: the fresco is an integral part of the overall pictorial depiction. Does not matter if the drawing is child-like; it has effort from the artist. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Queen band logo
[edit]- File:Dragon Attack by Queen UK vinyl.png
- File:Keep Yourself Alive by Queen.png
- File:Queen-seven-seas-of-rhye-1024x1024.jpg
Per prior DR discussion and COM:TOO UK, the Queen logo is too complex and unsuitable for Commons. Remaining images containing and highly emphasizing the logo shall follow, and de minimis will not apply. --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
_%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B4_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%87_%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in UAE. Perhaps borderline of de minimis, but IMO discussion is required A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the subject is the tree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: nope the file name speaks for itself. Google Translation from Persian: "The growth of high-rise buildings in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates." Delete, not trivial and the Persian photographer's intent is clear. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but if you look at the photo, the tree is the primary subject. What the legal standards are for de minimis in the UAE, I don't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- The photographer intentionally combined both the tree and the building to produce some form of artistic photo. In this way, the building is not de minimis, judging from the photographer's original intent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- The photographer intentionally combined both the tree and the building to produce some form of artistic photo. In this way, the building is not de minimis, judging from the photographer's original intent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but if you look at the photo, the tree is the primary subject. What the legal standards are for de minimis in the UAE, I don't know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Because HM Queen Elizabeth II died, someone decided to make a "new file" because the lyrics to the UK's national anthem changed. Now the anthem cannot be played! However, the file that has always been used here up until a couple of days ago is an instrumental version. Only the captions needed to be changed. Joesom333 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment "Cannot be played", where? -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no comprehensible reason. --Krd 15:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Per COM:WEBHOST}}
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as this drawing is in COM:SCOPE, IMO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely in scope and also COM:INUSE. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1978 by Ivan Štraus (1928–2018). There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2089.
- File:Elektroprivreda BiH.JPG
- File:Elektrroprivreda BiH 2.JPG
- File:Sarajevo Tram-201 Line-3 2011-11-06.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-209 Line-3 2013-10-20.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-260 Line-3 2011-11-06.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-261 Line-2 2011-10-15.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-502 Line-3 2011-10-20 (3).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-510 Line-3 2011-10-15.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-805 Line-3 2012-01-23.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-814 Line-3 2011-10-03.jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-815 Line-3 2011-10-20 (6).jpg
- File:Sarajevo Tram-Line Socijalno 2013-10-20 (2).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- This issue with deleting the images from Bosnia and Herzegovina was already discussed before with respect to Wikimedia Commons incorrect interpretation of the copyright law in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There have been no legal cases that relate to No Freedom of Panorama, as that clause is non existent as such. My-wiki-photos (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle disallows us to wait for the lawsuit from architect's heirs before we can do action. The copyright law of B&H is clear, that it is not allowed to exploit public space works and art for commercial purposes. And since the images are licensed commercially, these are architectural copyright violations. Only a change in law to remove non-commercial restriction will finally allow Commons to accept contemporary works from B&H by living or recently-deceased architects or sculptors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Like what Wikimedians did for Belgium, through the intervention and lobbying of the user group/chapter, the Belgian government finally introduced liberal FOP in July 2016. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- To add further: Commons will never accept non-commercial licenses, including those imposed by laws of B&H, France, South Korea, Malawi, Bahrain, Vietnam (2023 onwards), Slovenia et cetera, as Commons strictly adheres to the Principles on Free Cultural Works. There is no use for Wikimedia Commons to exist if Commons will accept non-commercial licenses for copyrighted public works and art imposed by the FOP laws of those countries, since it will be no different from Getty or Alamy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The law is interpreted incorrectly by Wikimedia Commons. Freedom of Panorama is OK in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I explained that before. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina My-wiki-photos (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: nope, Commons interpreted correctly the law. For Commons to accept contemporary public artworks and architecture by living or recently deceased architects or artists, the non-commercial restriction must be removed. It must be similar to Serbian, Albanian, Croatian, or North Macedonian FOP legal rights, where only 3-dimensional reproductions are prohibited. But in B&H, the law adds the non-commercial restriction. Notice that the conjunction in English version is "or" (not "and"), which means it is another type of prohibited act, not a subset of acts under three-dimensional reproductions. Unless the copyright office or agency of B&H will say otherwise, similar to COM:FOP Taiwan which is more lenient in intepretation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Only a revision of B&H copyright law will solve this no-commercial FOP in B&H problem once and for all. Unsure if Bosnian Wikimedians have interest in convincing their government to introduce new media-friendly freedom of panorama though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Commons interpreted the law incorrectly. If any reproductions were prohibited for commercial use, there would be no need to specifically mention 3D reproductions. In that case, the paragraph would read: "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." However, that's not the case, and the paragraph in question merely numbers the restrictions on the usage of 3D reproductions. My-wiki-photos (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: the non-commercial restriction is not a subset of "3D reproductions", but one of the three things that users must not do with regards to public space works. The "3D reproductions" is just one of the three. The provision means: (1) it is not allowed to reproduce works in 3D forms (like making a model or a diorama of contemporary buildings or monuments from B&H), (2) it is not allowed to re-create such works for the same purpose as the original purpose (like recreating a modern statue from Sarajevo for purpose of installing it in the same city or other city in B&H), and (3) it is not allowed to photograph such works if the photos are to be used commercially, like in postcards or stamps, or if the photos are made to be licensed under commercial licenses CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, without designers' or artists' permissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- The law doesn't contain this: "(3) it is not allowed to photograph such works if the photos are to be used commercially, like in postcards or stamps, or if the photos are made to be licensed under commercial licenses CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, without designers' or artists' permissions."
- You are just making things up!
- My-wiki-photos (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: wrong reading of three conditions (yes, three, not one). Each of the three are distinct from each other, not the latter two as sub-conditions of the first. It is:
- Condition 1: The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form,
- Condition 2: used for the same purpose as the original work
- Condition 3: or used for gaining economic advantage.
- Not the latter two as sub-conditions of the first one. A change/reform in Bosnian law is the only option, not endless arguments here. Even this recent blog from your country admits law change as the only option. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- You just can't break down one original paragraph from the law into three distinct paragraphs, like you just did, because doing that is changing the meaning of the law. If 2D reproductions were prohibited, there would have been no need to specifically indicate 3D reproductions! The above mentioned blog is not the law, it's just a wrong interpretation of the law. Now, focus on this one alone, as you broke it down into a single paragraph: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form," That makes no sense whatsoever, because no one can prevent you from making a 3D model for your personal, private, and non commercial use. My-wiki-photos (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos yes there is just only one paragraph, but it lists three conditions to which freedom is no longer applicable, and "gaining economic advantage" (commercial use of photos) is the third condition. To simplify, the three conditions are three distinct elements, not a single element with two sub-elements. Only a change (update/reform) of the provision, as I said a couple of times before, would make Bosnia and Herzegovina a country with complete freedom of panorama. Compare with COM:FOP Croatia, which has near-identical provision but with no non-commercial restrictions. Perhaps Sarajevo must align their FOP with Zagreb's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraph "Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form" from the Croatian copyright law is nonsensical, because that clause standing alone is unenforceable. The reason why it is nonsensical is because no one can prevent anyone from creating a 3D model for a private, personal and non-commercial use. That's also the very same reason why the same paragraph was extended in the copyright law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, adding two additional restrictions that apply only to 3D reproductions: "... used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage" My-wiki-photos (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: the "nonsensical wording" at Croatian FOP clause only means people cannot make models, dioramas, or replicas of copyrighted architectural of sculptural works from Croatia. Such 3D reproductions are truly for architects or sculptors only. Croatian law allows photographic reproductions of such works, since photos are 2D representations (as opposed to dioramas or miniatures which are 3D representations). They do not restrict for-profit use.
- The Bosnian law also contains restrictions to prevent diorama or miniature versions of copyrighted architectural and sculptural works in public spaces, but it also adds restrictions to commercial or professional photography as well as commercial licensing of such works. This means for-profit licensing must have permission from architects or sculptors before sharing or distribution on media that may be disadvantageous for them.
- Again, Sarajevo must align their FOP rights to fit in Internet media age, in which commercial licensing of photos of copyrighted public works and art are expected. Copyright law revision should be made, as soon as possible. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: It's obvious that you don't understand my point, nor do you answer my questions. So, there's no use of discussing this matter with you any longer. My-wiki-photos (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos perhaps you don't fully interpreted the intent of your country's non-commercial freedom of panorama. It is also apparent that Creative Commons licensing is not fully recognized there too. Well there is nothing to do if no one there will try to convince the government to change the copyright law for the benefit of the Wikimedians in your country. The Bosnian blog that I already given to you even admitted that law change is the only permanent solution, not making up interpretations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The relevant quote of the blog article by Aleksandar Jokić: "Iz svega ovoga proizilazi potreba da se navedeni član prepravi tako da bude razumljiv na prvo čitanje i da ne stvara zabunu, te stoga i na kraju ovog teksta želim da pošaljem takvu poruku zakonodavcu. Nije mnogo vremena, a mnogo će da promijeni i učini za BiH." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I do understand your intentions, but realistically you can't expect from the BiH legislators to go into the process of rewording this law just because the Wikimedia Commons is incapable of interpreting the law correctly as it is. My-wiki-photos (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: if the BiH legislators will give something like "implementing rules and regulations", and in that guideline there is explicit statement that the non-profit use is for exact 3D reproductions (not photographic representations), then much better, similar to COM:FOP Taiwan, in which the Taiwanese copyright office explicitly mentioned artistic works can be used even for commercial purposes, because the non-commercial restriction in Taiwanese context refers to the exact reproductions (see also Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 17#FOP in Taiwan). Still it remains to be seen if the BiH legislature, or BiH's copyright office, will release such authoritative guideline. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I do understand your intentions, but realistically you can't expect from the BiH legislators to go into the process of rewording this law just because the Wikimedia Commons is incapable of interpreting the law correctly as it is. My-wiki-photos (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: It's obvious that you don't understand my point, nor do you answer my questions. So, there's no use of discussing this matter with you any longer. My-wiki-photos (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- The paragraph "Works from chapter 1 of this article cannot be reproduced in a three-dimensional form" from the Croatian copyright law is nonsensical, because that clause standing alone is unenforceable. The reason why it is nonsensical is because no one can prevent anyone from creating a 3D model for a private, personal and non-commercial use. That's also the very same reason why the same paragraph was extended in the copyright law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, adding two additional restrictions that apply only to 3D reproductions: "... used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage" My-wiki-photos (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos yes there is just only one paragraph, but it lists three conditions to which freedom is no longer applicable, and "gaining economic advantage" (commercial use of photos) is the third condition. To simplify, the three conditions are three distinct elements, not a single element with two sub-elements. Only a change (update/reform) of the provision, as I said a couple of times before, would make Bosnia and Herzegovina a country with complete freedom of panorama. Compare with COM:FOP Croatia, which has near-identical provision but with no non-commercial restrictions. Perhaps Sarajevo must align their FOP with Zagreb's. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- You just can't break down one original paragraph from the law into three distinct paragraphs, like you just did, because doing that is changing the meaning of the law. If 2D reproductions were prohibited, there would have been no need to specifically indicate 3D reproductions! The above mentioned blog is not the law, it's just a wrong interpretation of the law. Now, focus on this one alone, as you broke it down into a single paragraph: "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form," That makes no sense whatsoever, because no one can prevent you from making a 3D model for your personal, private, and non commercial use. My-wiki-photos (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @My-wiki-photos: wrong reading of three conditions (yes, three, not one). Each of the three are distinct from each other, not the latter two as sub-conditions of the first. It is:
- @My-wiki-photos: the non-commercial restriction is not a subset of "3D reproductions", but one of the three things that users must not do with regards to public space works. The "3D reproductions" is just one of the three. The provision means: (1) it is not allowed to reproduce works in 3D forms (like making a model or a diorama of contemporary buildings or monuments from B&H), (2) it is not allowed to re-create such works for the same purpose as the original purpose (like recreating a modern statue from Sarajevo for purpose of installing it in the same city or other city in B&H), and (3) it is not allowed to photograph such works if the photos are to be used commercially, like in postcards or stamps, or if the photos are made to be licensed under commercial licenses CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, without designers' or artists' permissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Commons interpreted the law incorrectly. If any reproductions were prohibited for commercial use, there would be no need to specifically mention 3D reproductions. In that case, the paragraph would read: "(2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage." However, that's not the case, and the paragraph in question merely numbers the restrictions on the usage of 3D reproductions. My-wiki-photos (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The law is interpreted incorrectly by Wikimedia Commons. Freedom of Panorama is OK in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I explained that before. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina My-wiki-photos (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
In conclusion: Wikimedia Commons has misinterpreted the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010.
The Article 52 of Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010 has three paragraphs:
- (1) The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted.
- (2) The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.
- (3) In the case of the use referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship must be indicated if they are indicated on the work used.
What is the definition of the word PARAGRAPH? Paragraph is a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering. The emphasis here is on SINGLE THEME. What is the single theme of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52? The single theme of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52 is REPRODUCTIONS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL FORM. Therefore, the entire text of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52 relates to the 3D reproductions only.
Wikimedia Commons has extracted the text "used for gaining economic advantage" out of the context of the Paragraph 2 in the Article 52, and practically interpreted it as a single paragraph, and by doing so applied it incorrectly to 2D reproductions as well. Therefore, the interpretation of the Copyright Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 2010 by Wikimedia Commons with respect to Freedom of Panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina is incorrect. My-wiki-photos (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, regulation seems to prohibit commercial reuse. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The information in the image is incorrect. Acetyl CoA can never be converted back into Pyruvate.[1] This is the whole reason ketosis happens. The irreversibility of Acetyl-CoA back to Pyruvate is essential for understanding Fat metabolism. This is not the image students should be encountering when they google Gluconeogenesis. DockMajestic (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Image is in use on six languages' wikipedia sites and also on wikibooks. Those uses need to be replaced ASAP if this image is indeed factually flawed. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @DockMajestic: Could you do these replacements? --Leyo 11:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel comfortable doing that. And I don't have much biochem background anyway. Unfortunately the guy who made the original image seems to have passed away. Can't we ask someone from Portal:Biochemistry for help or something? DockMajestic (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DockMajestic: Could you do these replacements? --Leyo 11:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The file is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @DockMajestic: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The depicted sculpture seems to be recent and thereby still in copyright. Unfortunately, Lithuania has no freedom-of-panorama exception for public works. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Same problem with.
- File:Plastika Žmogus-kankorėžis, Santakos parkas, Kaunas, Litva 01.jpg
- File:Tylos Silėnis, Nida, Neringa, Litva 02.jpg
- File:Paplatelės pažintinis takas, okres Plungė, Litva 3.jpg
- File:Paplatelės pažintinis takas, okres Plungė, Litva 01.jpg
- File:Plastika Žmogus-kankorėžis, Santakos parkas, Kaunas, Litva 01.jpg
- File:Lípy carevny Kateřiny (Katarīnas liepas), Pabaži, Saulkrasti, Vidzeme, Lotyšsko 04.jpg
- File:PamětníKámenBitvyUGrünwalduKnHrad.JPG <- de minimis?
- File:Memorialinis akmuo.jpg <- de minimis?
- File:Įrašas ant akmens prie Kauno pilies-Jonui Sungailai, pirmajam Kauno pavieto seniūnui, Trakų kaštelionui, Kauno vėliavos vadui Žalgirio mūšyje.JPG <- de minimis?
,_Paba%C5%BEi,_Saulkrasti,_Vidzeme,_Loty%C5%A1sko_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Pokud je tomu tak, pak je nezbytně nutné smazat velké množství nových soch v kategoriích souvisejícíxćh s Litvou.--Fry72 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this may be necessary. The other option would be to contact the sculptors and ask them for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pokud si přečteš freedom-of-panorama exception for public works, tak se jedná o dílo na veřejném prostoru (v parku) a jeho fotografie je pro nekomerční využití, pak je to vpořádku a vyhovuje to legislativě. Fry72 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regrettably not, as our policy COM:L requires that all uploads need to be free also for commercial re-use. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Fry72 and Túrelio: Potom navrhuji podat žalobu na 1) autory všech soch na Litvě, protože omezují svobodu neomezenému množství lidí pořídit fotografii v okolí sochy a sdělit ji (en=share) s jinými lidmi a žádat o odstranění/znemožnění viditelnosti z veřejného prostoru a zároveň žaloby těch autorů, kteří aktivně neprosazovali přijetí autorského zákona (na Litvě) v současném znění. Neboť tento zákon jim neumožňuje šířit povědomí o jejich díle a kvůli tomu, že ze zhlédnutí jejich díla není vybíráno vstupné, přicházejí tím neoprávněně o svůj zisk za své autorství. 2) Podat žalobu na Litevskou republiku za to, že jí vydaný zákon znevýhodňujuje jak autory, (aniž by si zajistila souhlas všech z nich), tak konzumenty a zejména právo na informace (nota bene nikoliv škodlivé, nikoliv nepravdivé a nikoliv podněcující nenávist a nikoliv popírající genocidu a nikoliv podporující zločinné/teroristické subjekty. Což se nedá v plném rozsahu tvrdit o mnohých vkladech do projektu Commons). Samozřejmě jsem si vědom, že moje návrhy jsou absolutně nerealistické, ale mělo by se zkoušet činit tlak na vlády těch států, které zněním autorského práva ve své zemi znevýhodňují jak autory, tak konzumenty ve své zemi a právo na informaci a osvětu celosvětově. Btw. nedostatečná, překroucená a nepřátelská informace a osvěta zapříčinily světové i "místní" války, velikým příkladem je ta současná.--Kusurija (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wikimedia-"activists" in Belgium have done that successfully. They lobbied their politicians to change the Belgian copyright-law in order to introduce a freedom-of-panorama exception. Thanks to them, we now have FoP-exception in Belgium. All files from Belgium formerly deleted due to missing FoP, could thereafter be undeleted.
- However, that strategy does not solve the current problem with the files listed in this DR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Draceane: Milý kolego, jaký je Váš názor na toto: Je občan ČR, jedinec, neprávník, povinen/nabádán handrkovat se se zákonodárci cizího (v tomto případě Litvy) státu v cizím jazyce kvůli tomu, aby mohl dosáhnout přístupu celosvětové veřejnosti k encyklopedickým informacím (tedy ne v nějakém osobním zájmu, nebo zájmu jednoho státu - zde ČR, nýbrž celosvětovém)? Je-li takový zájem celosvětový (nebo snad není?), neměl by se takový problém řešit na mezinárodní úrovni, nb. když nejde jenom o záležitost litevského zákonodárství, ale zákonodárství celé řady státú? Prosím, odpovězte Vy, nebo někdo/kdokoliv. Existuje vúbec nějaké právo na pravdivou informaci - zatímco desinformacemi jsme zavalováni v takovém množství, že často pravdivou informaci v takové hromadě hnoje ani nelze dohledat? --Kusurija (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Pokud si přečteš freedom-of-panorama exception for public works, tak se jedná o dílo na veřejném prostoru (v parku) a jeho fotografie je pro nekomerční využití, pak je to vpořádku a vyhovuje to legislativě. Fry72 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this may be necessary. The other option would be to contact the sculptors and ask them for permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. The files can be undeleted when the law in Lithuania is changed to introduce full Freedom of Panorama. The images of stones with small sculptures, indicated with "de minimis?" in the list are deleted as well. The photos were made to show the small sculpture, not to show a simple stone. --Ellywa (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by קנורוזובסקי (talk · contribs)
[edit]The pictures are suspicious as being taken from Koren's Bible, the rights to which do not belong to you. The font Koren Type (Q2905555) indicates this.
- File:מרכא טפחא מרכא סוף פסוק (הפטרה).jpg
- File:מרכא טפחא מרכא סוף הפטרה.jpg
- File:מרכא טפחא מרכא סוף פסוק.jpg
- File:מרכא טפחא מרכא סוף פרשה.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—מקף⁻‽ (Hyphen) 17:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think the font is not a problem but the music and text might be. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unclear copyright status, deleted per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Col du Turini in in France territory, not in Italy: the PD-Italy licence is therefore inapplicable — danyele 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Whether the Col du Turini is in France or not is not relevant, what is matter is not where a photo is taken but where it is first published (e.g. myself I take photos from France and I publish then in Wikimedia Commons, the first publication of those photos is within the US juridiction not within the french one (excepted if those photos are derivative works of artworks protected by french juridiction, like a sculpture (FOP))). That being said I'm neutral as I am not a specialist of Italian copyright. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The copyright laws of the country where the work was first published are the ones that are applicable, and as that appears to be Italy in this case, Italian laws are what we use. —howcheng {chat} 22:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
not in PD as Marcello Dudovich died 1962 Goesseln (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- The image is taken from the General Catalog of Cultural Heritage (Catalogo Generale dei Beni Culturali) of the Italian Ministry of Culture which allows the use of images under the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution - Share in the same way license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Catalogo Generale dei Beni Culturali
- Termini d'uso
- Diritti e Licenze
- Dove non diversamente specificato i dati e i contenuti del sito sono rilasciati in formato aperto e utilizzabili alle condizioni della licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Per le immagini pubblicate sul sito si applica l'art. 108 del Codice dei beni culturali (D. Lgs. 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 e s.m.i.) Franzk (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 22:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Freedom of this graphic is quite doubtful. Seems to be in public domain in Italy, but URAA act restored copyright in US. As much as I see there is not enough information to decide what the Hirtle chart says about it. Same situation here ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Please note. This file has a derivative version, Ellywa (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion, see here. Pinging @Yann as the admin who reviewed that DR.
- On top of that, the user @Red-tailed hawk was able to find a website that appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point, which might make the image free under a different license anyway. Fotografia Felici was a Rome-based photography company that apparently closed in 2015, but their old website appears to be a java applet for a good part of its history so the internet archive doesn't really let him/her peak in. There are other photographs on Commons, such as File:Besuch_bei_Papst_Joh._Paul_-_Foto_Felici_Roma_k.jpg, that appear to be released under CC-BY 3.0 and have the same company as its source, so it's plausible that the photograph might actually be released under CC-BY-3.0, even if the photos were copyrighted in the United States. But, in that case, the only requirement would be that we give attribution to them in the derivative work; there isn't a sharealike requirement and we could very simply remedy this by making explicit attribution in the summary rather than by deleting the file.
- Either way this is sliced, it is very unlikely that hosting this image on Commons would constitute a copyright violation.
- 83.61.243.178 10:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The original comment given by @Red-tailed hawk is availale here 83.61.243.178 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting policy. The consensus is that A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. Here the conclusion that the URAA applies comes after specific investigation. You can challenge the conclusion, but you can't simply dismiss it. Xover (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Luckily on Commons there is no such thing as case law. There is no evidence that it was published in US within 30 days after first publication, so it should be assumed that it's not public domain. ptjackyll (leave a message) 19:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Actually I think that the license is wrong. The photo is an official one from Vatican City, where rights of the photos of the popes are reserved. In other words, Italian law doesn't apply because it was a work for hire of an Italian photographer for another state. --Ruthven (msg) 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: According with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vatican City, Vatican law supplements the Italian Copyright Act (l. 633, 6 April 1941), which applies in the territory of the Holy See. However, there is a website which appears to claim that the image was released under CC-BY-3.0 at one point. 83.61.243.178 20:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- See Vatican City copyright law Art. 3.3.
- Italiano: Salvo che ciò sia giustificato da scopi religiosi, culturali, didattici o scientifici e salvo che sia collegato a fatti, avvenimenti o cerimonie pubbliche o che si svolgono in pubblico, l’immagine del Romano Pontefice non può essere esposta, riprodotta, diffusa o messa in commercio senza il Suo consenso, espresso a mezzo degli Organismi competenti, i quali sono tenuti ad informare, nei casi di maggiore importanza, la Segreteria di Stato.
- In other words, the publication of the image of the Pope is restricted. Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure if the publication of this image is restricted currently by the Holy See (when it appears in Alamy where it was apparently uploaded by the Felici studio and according with the original document, dated in 2002, was published during the pontificate of John Paul II, who appears to had supported the use of this image for those documents, and it is very possible that this portrait has been used in similar documents since the early years of pontificate). However, this isn't appear to be a "simple photograph", but a work for hire, and for that is protected by copyright until the expiration of 70 years post mortem auctoris or first publication. Also support the deletion of the original document. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.146.182.109 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and 193.146 above. --Xover (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The picture was attributed to Foto Felici Roma back in 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20160424221726/http://blog.theotokos.co.za/?attachment_id=980 by "Stephen Korsman" who runs this blog stating "CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0". The credit section https://blog.theotokos.co.za/?page_id=149 lists "CC-BY-3.0 or CC-BY-3.0". I see no evidence that he received the copyright of Foto Felici Roma or had them agree to freely license this picture under either of these licenses - the alamy source does not show a free license. The publication evidence I can see is that it is part of a 2002 congratulatory message to the Collegio A. Volta in Italy. Absent proof this and File:Papa centenario.jpg shoud be deleted. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I managed to send an email to the blog owner politely asking for proof that Foto Felici Roma agreed to license the file under the given license. Hekerui (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
