Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/09/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![159 File:Historial Charles de Gaulle - "L'anneau de l'Histoire".jpg](#File:Historial_Charles_de_Gaulle_-_"L'anneau_de_l'Histoire".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
promotional page. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake AWINO RACHEL (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request & out of scope. --Achim55 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Suspected flickr washing: a) uploaded today to flickr, b) no camera but ACDsee EXIF, c) here uploaded a week ago, d) here a bigger image. Achim55 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- also affected (slightly photoshopped version without EXIF):
--Achim55 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Delete agree with the Flickr washing comment. May be a user to watch. Herby talk thyme 10:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete It's a Getty Images photo. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Adeltron (thanks). --Herby talk thyme 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Broken redirect Омарова Вечеровская 19 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
File:Jeremy Reingold Rugby Player in Players Tunnel Newlands Rugby Stadium with wife ( Carina Marx ).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope - Personal image, We have no categories titled "Jeremy Reingold" so presumably the person is non notable, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep You presume incorrectly. See w:Jeremy Reingold. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah so I do indeed, I've renominated the image with another as I believe these to be copyvios anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept - Renominated at: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BLOODSWEAT&CHLORINE due to copyvio concerns, –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Broken redirect Омарова Вечеровская 19 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Claim that was extracted from the other photo is false. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I am the uploader and uploaded this file with the wrong name and wrong information. Maximilian775 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Alternately, the file could be edited to have a name and information corresponding to Henry Damian Juncker Maximilian775 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per request by uploader withhin minutes of upload. (For future reference files can be renamed and information edited without deletion). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Needs to be replaced with more information Sportsent (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:18, 28 September 2022 UTC: Commons:Licensing: promo/press photo --Krdbot 20:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Incidental inclusion as DW in Flickr photo does not affect copyright status of the original. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused marketing graphic or promotional political image, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; incidental inclusion of (small) version of photo in a Flickr photo does not transfer the free license to the original. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. COM:DW of copyrighted material allowed on Flickr, not Commons. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; incidental inclusion of version in Flickr photo does not effect copyright of original. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, also COM:DW of copyrighted works allowed on Flickr, but not here on Commons. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; not even same photo DW claimed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Incidental inclusion as COM:DW in a Flickr photo does not confer the flickr license to the original photo - and including a higher res from different source is more dubious if not dishonest. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Bihar in frame (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Nonsense nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; one of series of photos from International Space Station. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{copyvio|1=O autor original é o Grupo Record de Comunicação.}} Kongs (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{copyvio|1=O autor original é o Grupo Record de Comunicação.}} Kongs (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
{{copyvio|1=O autor original é o Grupo Record de Comunicação.}} Kongs (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. Album cover. Nothing in Source indicates that it licensed as stated. Headlock0225 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license claim. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
picture is not used in any article Sudraben (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Could be useful, and "not used" is not a valid deletion reason by itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Potentially useful, but blatant copyright violation; not work of uploader but by William H. Sheldon. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry DISAKE ArNT&H (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Oy! I wish people would stop nominating these photos from the space station for deletion! This isn't the best, but they're historical images and have value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover. MKFI (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- KeepVery nice example of Cirrus fibratus clouds, no valid reason for deletion --Kritzolina (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Kritzolina. No reason to delete a photo that could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Categories descriptions can be added, location can be found and "Cirrus fibratus clouds over the sea" is a "no useful description"? Tm (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm confused - how is this out of scope ? It's showing and categorised under "Cirrus fibratus clouds" as opposed to just "clouds"? ..... Would be fab if we could get location but that's optional/not essential. INSCOPE and educationally useful. –Davey2010Talk 16:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing requiring deletion; already clear that there is no consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Érico at 23:23, 28 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.caffemontenegro.me/index.php/vijesti/540-grad-pod-gradom Plostvaler (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment mosaic on public bench in Mexico may be fine per FoP Mexico, but that does not confer free status to the original photo from which the mosaic is based on. Intermediate upload not from the bench mosaic deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Photographs already available online in 2014 according to TiEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Mdaniels5757 at 00:37, 29 September 2022 UTC: Photographs already available online in 2014 according to TinEye --Krdbot 07:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism Aitorembe (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Please d3lete right away — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinMontarral (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 19:10, 29 September 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: Image taken from WhatsApp according to description --Krdbot 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
No image ?? Headlock0225 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme at 11:31, 30 September 2022 UTC: Content created as advertisement (G10) --Krdbot 19:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Derivative Work. The photograph of a foot looks like a library shot or plucked from the web somewhere. The whole thing looks like an advert - Out of Scope see COM:ADVERT . Headlock0225 (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme at 11:31, 30 September 2022 UTC: Content created as advertisement (G10) --Krdbot 19:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverstoß. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 17:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Screen from Roblox which is a copyrighted video game Trade (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a low quality copy of File:Joseph Hickel (attr) Joseph II als Mitregent seiner Mutter.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
_Joseph_II_als_Mitregent_seiner_Mutter.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I agree with you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
per COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Personal/Private photo(s). 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, self-promotion. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Watermark Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This one should arguably be kept simply as an example of a pretty good portrait. I won't be too disappointed if it's deleted, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The photo should be retitled and categorized, but I think this is the same person. She also has a YouTube channel. It can't be called major, at 2.9K subscribers, but the topics may be interesting. I'll stipulate that she is not ready to have a Wikipedia article, but the search results on her tip me toward keeping the photo. No reason to argue, though; I'm happy to defer to an admin on the decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how this could be useful, but if someone can figure out what's going on and why it might be useful, let us know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
watermark Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete for being a personal image. Hasn't been categorised since upload (2019) and can't see where or how this could be used. –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Per COM:WM, non destructive and non promotional watermarks are not prohibited. Uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited. --Webfil (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: This is still not valid. Mindmatrix (talk · contribs) has made almost 1,3 M edits, of which a small percentage has been deleted. --Webfil (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Webfil, Whilst I do agree the noms rationale isn't at all valid - I still don't see how or where this could ever be used or how this is educationally useful?. As an inclusionist who wants everything kept even I see no value to this image..... –Davey2010Talk 12:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Changed from vk to comment. --Webfil (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I use Flickr2Commons to upload files from Flickr, and because of issues with my internet connection, I often do not see the thumbnails (that is, they do not load) to be able to select files for omission from the uploads. I usually catch and nominate as CSD those files that do not belong soon after upload, but some slip through. Mindmatrix 12:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion F10: low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
very poor scan of File:Saint Carlo Borromeo, with a rope around his neck, carrying Wellcome L0004059.jpg -- Deadstar (msg) 09:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Yeah, really poor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality image of no realistic educational value that needs confirmation that the Uploader is the copyright holder. Description is an advert - not in scope, see COM:ADVERT. Unused. Headlock0225 (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope SPAM. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Musab aus der 7C hat einen Crush auf Leni aus der 7a aber her weiß nicht ob sie ihn mag deswegen machte er Tests um es herauszufinden hier unten sieht man das Ergebniss von 100%h.jpg
[edit]
No use here Bahnmoeller (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio, screenshot of a website that includes cartoon artwork. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope and copyvio. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Createplagiarism (talk · contribs)
[edit]These would appear to be personal files and unlikely to be of use to the wider projects. Commons is not a personal web hosting platform
- File:Gurparas MARK1500.pdf
- File:Gurparas 10000 words Three assignments ASSIGNMENT 3.pdf
- File:Gurparas 10000 words Three assignments ASSIGNMENT 2.pdf
- File:Gurparas 10000 words Three assignments ASSIGNMENT 1.pdf
- File:Gurparas 1000 CORP1502.pdf
- File:MSc Dissertation.pdf
Herby talk thyme 11:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PrimetimePaco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal files for a user that has no other contributions. Commons is not a personal webhost. Files are outside COM:SCOPE.
- File:Primetime Paco Musical Artist.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 11.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 10.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 12.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 09.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 08.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 07.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 04.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 06.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 05.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 02.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 03.jpg
- File:Primetime Paco 01.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Not of a notable person. Danidamiobi (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Not of a notable film. Danidamiobi (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Willietimmons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Collection of personal photos. Not in use.
- File:TpsEastsidewill babymama dora.png
- File:TpsEastsidewill babymama Shantelle.jpg
- File:TpsEastsidewill Babymama Nene.png
- File:Tpseastsidewill babymama Desiree.jpg
- File:TpsEastsidewill onna’s birthday bash.png
- File:Jasmarie yarber.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Low quality photos including phone screenshots. Not in use.
- File:Buddha purnima 2022.jpg
- File:Dooars ,foothills of Himalaya.jpg
- File:Screenshot 20220707-114123 Gallery.jpg
- File:Screenshot 20220908-155656 Gallery~3.jpg
- File:Screenshot 20220908-172721 Photos.jpg
Smooth O (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurry. Not used. Nv8200p (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. We have more than 1,000 other photos at this event so it is otherwise well documented. This photo appears to show part of the audience, not former US Pres Clinton, nor anyone/anything with compensating notability. It is unusably badly blurred. No realistic in-scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unusably blurry image, out of COM:SCOPE. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete nonsense, trolling— see history for vulgar irrelevant categories like “anal sex” Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jackhudson26 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal logo, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out-of-scope personal image eviolite (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Literally uploaded today. I don't think we can delete it right away just because you declined his Wikipedia draft. He is allowed to have a photo for his user page if he becomes a contributor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The enwiki user page of the uploader claims that they are someone else, Dylan Neves. eviolite (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a different issue. W:User:Dudesw575, please clarify whether you took this photo and what your relationship to Derek Marchwicki is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
crosswiki spam from Wikidata. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
privat photo, is not used Микола Василечко (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be vandalism (description translates to "Photo from the war"). Marbletan (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope. Wikipedia article nominated for deletion Trade (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, SPAM. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
spam image Trade (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Personal image without encyclopedic value. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, self-promotion only. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a copy of declined draft article (w:en:Draft:Alton Douglas). It serves no purpose as a PDF file here on Commons. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation; works by living artist; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I took this image on December 8, 2020 with the artists consent. I own the full rights to this image. Can you explain me what the problem is? Etaoin Shrdlu 2000 (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The permission of the image CC-by-SA 4.0 is by no means freeware or Public Domain, so i.m.o. unfair use of the image is sufficiently countered by both the photographers' and the artists' general personality rights.Peli (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- To the uploader:
- Hi, the nominator means that the depicted linocuts are protected by Swiss copyrightlaws and do need an explicit statement of permission by both the artist and the photographer. This process can be started here: here Das sollte der Künstler dann abschicken von seiner erkennbar eigene Mail-adresse. Eine Notlösung um zumindest das Portrait eine faire Chance zu geben, wäre den Linolschnitt (vorläufig) zu pixilieren oder zu blurren. Oder mann könnte das Portrait retten indem mann es ausschneidet und als separates Image nochmal uploaden. Das der Nominator diese Lage nicht erläutert und die diverse Möglichkeiten nicht erwähnt ist gewiss eine Peinlichkeit. Vergiss bitte nicht die zwei briefmarkengroße Bilder an der Wand auch zu pixilieren. Das Bild muss jetzt lupenrein von allem was nach Kunst riecht befreit werden (ironie). Vergiss bitte beim einholen der Genehmiging nicht auch die Wandbilder zu nennen (...). MfG Peli (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- To the uploader:
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 12:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unsourced Flag Alexphangia Talk 14:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Unsourced hoax flags have no place here. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Per ruling by one of US Courts of Appeals, the Hot Wheels logo is still copyrighted. Somehow, the logo was uploaded last year, and I wonder whether the uploader acknowledge the court case made in 2004. George Ho (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. See also this edit and the surrounding section COM:VPC#Cover art of 10,000 Maniacs' "Peace Train" single. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just realized that the logo has versions throughout its lifetime. I bet the court case applies to all versions of the logo, including post-2004 ones, right? --George Ho (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment:The appealate court ruling is from 2004, and I wasn't able to find logos the court was looking at. That is why I qualified my comment at VPC about with I'm not sure whether File:Hot Wheels logo.svg is the same logo that the court case Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. dealt with, but Commons is hosting it even if it is.. If the link provided above by George Ho is accurate, then it appears the logo uploaded to Commons and the logo used are slightly different than the one uploaded to Commons because the latter is lacking the "in-logo" flame element. I can't say with certainty that the Commons version is different enough to make it {{PD-logo}}, but I also don't think it should be assumed the the court's ruling automatically applies to all future versions of the logo. The court obviously couldn't know how Mattel might change the logo in the future; so, I don't think it was ruling on the copyright status (of lack thereof) of all post-2004 versions of the logo. It would really be helpful know whether Mattel filed anymore copyright applications for the post-2004 versions of the logo and whether these were accepted by the US Copyright Office. I tried searching here for "Mattel, Inc." and "Hot Wheels", but I'm not familiar with that website at all and don't really know what to be looking for. I did find this 2010 article about Mattel asserting a strong claim with respect to others using its logo, which makes me think that at least the company believed it to still be protected in some way at least as of December 2010. The "Other Legal Information" section of Mattel's official website shows "Hot Wheels" with a en:registered trademark symbol and a 2011 en:copyright symbol which seems to apply to all it's trademarks, but again I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. It's seems at the very least that there's reasonable doubt about the copyright status of the logo and that COM:PCP would apply unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is a list of the versions of the logo here. The court case was looking at a 1982 variant, which isn't listed specifically on that page. I'm not sure that court case explicitly ruled that it was copyrightable, just that it was quite plausible (and likely, even) and therefore not something that could be ruled on in a summary judgement. I would tend to guess that it is copyrightable myself; the specific flame is likely distinctive enough (and the original 1968 logo more so). If the 1973 logo was part of advertisements before 1978 without a copyright notice, it might have lost its copyright, but that aspect was not under consideration in that court case since no evidence was given. If so, not sure the more modern versions add anything enough to be separately copyrightable. Mattel has lots of copyright registrations, including some visual works in 1982 which likely include the logo among other copyrightable material, so the odds they registered it (if the copyright still existed) are pretty high, which would make no-notice advertisements from 1978 to 1989 less meaningful. But I can't agree that it's below the TOO beyond a significant doubt, and no evidence for {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} has been given, so Delete for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: Does this offer any clearer insight into the copyright status of the logo? This a letter sent by the US Copyright Office to en:Avenue of the Saints that's provided as "proof" in COM:TOO United States that File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg is "PD-logo". In the letter, the Hot Wheels logo comes up a couple of times because AOS was trying to cite its copyright status as justification for their logo also being copyrightable. On page 10 of the letter, the copyright office states "The Review Board concludes that the two works of authorship are not analogous because the 'Hot Wheel' logo is a clearly copyrightable pictorial representation of a flame combined with slightly stylized lettering of the words 'Hot Wheels.'" as well as "We note that it is not the number of choices which makes the 'Hot Wheel' logo copyrightable, but, instead, the pictorial rendering of a flame that is in itself registrable." -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Right, that basically says that the flame drawing which is the background of the Hot Wheels logo is clearly copyrightable -- that is not a standard shape. The arrangement of the letters might add a little bit as well, but not a lot since that is just lettering, but since it's already over the threshold it doesn't matter much. The Avenue of the Saints has a standard shape background -- slight variation of a rectangle -- and everything else is horizontal and centered, so it's a dead simple arrangement too. Choosing two different fonts is not enough. The fleur-de-lys also happens to be a standard symbol, though a drawing of similar complexity of an original figure would likely be above the line. So sure, that decision is about what I'd expect (and I'm sure I've seen it before, as reading enough of those gives you a feel of generally where the line is). The background of the 1968 logo is much more complex, so that is even more easily over the line. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is a list of the versions of the logo here. The court case was looking at a 1982 variant, which isn't listed specifically on that page. I'm not sure that court case explicitly ruled that it was copyrightable, just that it was quite plausible (and likely, even) and therefore not something that could be ruled on in a summary judgement. I would tend to guess that it is copyrightable myself; the specific flame is likely distinctive enough (and the original 1968 logo more so). If the 1973 logo was part of advertisements before 1978 without a copyright notice, it might have lost its copyright, but that aspect was not under consideration in that court case since no evidence was given. If so, not sure the more modern versions add anything enough to be separately copyrightable. Mattel has lots of copyright registrations, including some visual works in 1982 which likely include the logo among other copyrightable material, so the odds they registered it (if the copyright still existed) are pretty high, which would make no-notice advertisements from 1978 to 1989 less meaningful. But I can't agree that it's below the TOO beyond a significant doubt, and no evidence for {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} has been given, so
- Comment: Some of the older Hot Wheels logos do seem to have copyrightable elements. If the modern logo is based on the original versions, then it would be considered a derivative work and thus copyrighted as well. We had a similar situation with the RE/MAX hot air balloon logo. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and Carl Lindberg above. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Twitter logo is copyrighted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Twitter.png A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete non-free. PierreSelim (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The statue was completed in 2009 by Cesare Rabitti (died in 2012). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2083 (Artworks on the left side may be copyrighted as well) A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in France PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
duplicate picture Sudraben (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use; whatever it is supposedly a duplicate of not specified. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Inferior derivative of File:Bayes_theorem_visualisation.svg without necessary attribution per CC-BY-SA-3.0. Kinu (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: no attribution, with confusing captions, and of inferior quality. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: as above Edderiofer (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Photo grabbed from the Assemblee nationale web site. Hektor (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio : this official portrait is copyrighted by the Assemblée nationale. Gyrostat (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The photo contains the "Despicable Me" graphic. Thyj (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, non minimis, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Watermark Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom & various problems; OOS, DW, uncat unused since 2017. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Movilización por la desaparición y muerte de Debanhi Escobar el 22 de abril de 2022 en Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. 02 (cropped).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Other medias with the same issue were deleted, so we need to be consistent. See [1]. Yann (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Other medias with the same issue were deleted, so we need to be consistent. See [2]. This is basically useless as it is. Yann (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Other medias with the same issue were deleted, so we need to be consistent. See [3]. This is basically useless as it is. Yann (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; uselessly small, convoluted dubious copyright claim based on DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Other medias with the same issue were deleted, so we need to be consistent. See also [4]. Yann (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Problème de droit d'image MarineMuséeArmée (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
![12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/09/28#c-MarineMuséeArmée-20220928122900-File:Historial_Charles_de_Gaulle_-_"L'anneau_de_l'Histoire".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per uploader, apparent DW, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
![23:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/09/28#c-Infrogmation-20221012231100-File:Historial_Charles_de_Gaulle_-_"L'anneau_de_l'Histoire".jpg){kind=link}
I suspect this image is a video screencap. MKFI (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: in any case seems OOS; was only used in rejected draft on en:w. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Unknown original source. See +6800 TinEye matches GeorgHH • talk 15:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uncat, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Photo of a photo taken in 1988, COM:DW A1Cafel (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; original photo not shown to be free licensed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Intricate geometries make it higher than the threshold of originality required for public domain. No license from the government either -- DaxServer (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Originally described as "own work" but probably downloaded from this government website. Agree there is no Government Open Data Licence stated, on the contrary website footer states "Copyright © 2015-2021 Government of Telangana. All rights reserved." Crep1711 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless PD status of the original photo can be shown, unrelated to the incidental inclusion in the Flickr photo copied to File:MX TV ROSALÍA VALDÉS, MUSEO DEL ESTANQUILLO, FOTOGRAFÍAS.jpg which does not change the copyright of the original. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. Not FoP grey area, convoluted bogus copyright claims based on incidental DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-free logo which moreover doesn't seem genuine. Lonitaron (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- hello the logo does not officially exist so I agree to the deletion AGENT levrai (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above, false license claim. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Picture of a c 81.229.94.115 22:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo of murder crime scene with two murder victims. Distressing imagery. 81.229.94.115 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use. Don't look for photos of crime scenes if you don't want to view the images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work of mural by living artist; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fresque Eurotunnel Navettes.jpg. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per linked other. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate Ddouglas2001ad (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. If there's a duplicate, that should be deleted, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{copyvio|1=Os direitos criativos e autorais pertencem ao Grupo Record}} Kongs (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Kongs as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Os direitos criativos e autorais pertencem ao Grupo Record I have some doubts about it not being a simplelogo, therefore I'm bringing it to a proper DR. Darwin Ahoy! 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Apparently there was some error on @Kongs nomination, causing this duplication. Seems kind of harmless, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Might pass COM:TOO Brazil, but the current license claim is almost certainly bogus. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: No legitimate license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree completely. COM:DW false application of license. The incidental inclusion of a different photo in a free licensed photo - in this case at angle and low res - does not give the original photo the same license as the photo in which a version of it is incidentally included in. I am only holding off on speedy deleting this now because it is in use in multiple projects and was granted "valued image" status (!) per Commons:Valued_image_candidates/José_Alfredo_Jiménez_en_1957.jpg - I wish it had undergone even a cursory look at source and copyright earlier. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Dura lex, sed lex.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation of https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-next-big-thing-dewald-brevis-18-makes-huge-impact-to-earn-comparisons-with-ab-de-villiers-gkkc5wdpt Kpddg (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 2000 by Marc Couturier (1946–). There is no freedom of panorama in Japan for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The sculpture was completed in 2000 by Marc Couturier (1946–). There is no freedom of panorama in Japan for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The sculpture was completed in 2000 by Marc Couturier (1946–). There is no freedom of panorama in Japan for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:NTV Big Clock
[edit]The sculpture was completed in 2006 by Hayao Miyazaki (1941–). There is no freedom of panorama in Japan for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required.
- File:Miyazaki’s Nittere-Ohdokei Giant Clock - panoramio.jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock 20181124.jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock 20200801.jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock designed by Hayao Miyazaki (STUDIO GHIBLI) on NTV My Studio at Shiodome NTV Tower, SIO-SITE (2011-04-24 14.10 by 福原邦展).jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock details (2013-10-01 20.00 by Rubber Soul @Photozou 190013736).jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock details (2013-10-01 20.01 by Rubber Soul @Photozou 190013787).jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock details (2013-10-01 20.01 by Rubber Soul @Photozou 190013854).jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock details (2013-10-01 20.02 by Rubber Soul @Photozou 190013920).jpg
- File:NTV Big Clock details (2013-10-01 20.03 by Rubber Soul @Photozou 190013994).jpg
- File:Tokyo 2019 56.jpg
- File:Tokyo 2019 57.jpg
- File:Tokyo 2019 59.jpg
- File:Tokyo, 2019 - 320.jpg
- File:Tokyo, 2019 - 531.jpg
- File:Tokyo, 2019 - 532.jpg
- File:ハウルの動く城（日本テレビ）.jpg
- File:日テレ大時計 - panoramio.jpg
- File:日テレ大時計 2007-01.gif
- File:日テレ７ - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:日テレ７ - panoramio.jpg
_on_NTV_My_Studio_at_Shiodome_NTV_Tower,_SIO-SITE_(2011-04-24_14.10_by_%E7%A6%8F%E5%8E%9F%E9%82%A6%E5%B1%95).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) 04:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
GJSTU version 2 license doesn't apply to Twitter images A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright policy (Japanese) states that in addition to the Digital Agency website, GJSTU version 2 is applied to the Digital Agency's social media accounts (including twitter). Therefore, it does not need to be deleted.Taro2968332 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Taro2968332: GJSTU2 does apply to Digital Agency's Twitter images. --Yasu (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
GJSTU version 2 license doesn't apply to Twitter images A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright policy (Japanese) states that in addition to the Digital Agency website, GJSTU version 2 is applied to the Digital Agency's social media accounts (including twitter). Therefore, it does not need to be deleted.Taro2968332 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Taro2968332: GJSTU2 does apply to Digital Agency's Twitter images. --Yasu (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused artwork of non-notable company, promotional SPAM George Chernilevsky talk 05:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
According to the description this would be related to a movie ("película del 2015") (title: "La era de los ultrapedos", translated as "The Era of the Ultrafarts", no info was found, keyword: hoax). In that case it would probably need COM:VRT permission. More likely: Out of scope content and copyvio (derivative image of copyrighted content). Strakhov (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
{{PD-US-expired}} requires publication before 1927 - not just being taken before then. Without further details of its provenance, we cannot be sure of its copyright status. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Reverse image search shows other versions online, example includes mark "Shea Photo" apparently erased from our copy. Shea Photo Co made commercial photos, used in postcards, promotional material, etc. at the time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per Infrogmation. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Drone video of abandoned Ihasalu lighthouse near Neeme village in Estonia (July 2022).webm
[edit]Whole area is private property and has been filmed without permission. Tuju (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It's in use. What are the Estonian laws on this, Tuju? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Local law says that when staying on other's property, visitor must take into account owner's interest/benefit. See Keskkonnaseadus - right to use someone's property, § 32 staying on someone's property. Publishing and distributing photos and video from a private property causes increased public interest, more visitors, damage to property and police investigations (multiple filed so far) - it's not owner's intrest. Solely asking to remove the content from distributor is proof of that. Eventually it ends up closing the public access for everyone. --Tuju (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I guess there would be a question of how not physically staying on someone's property but filming it with a drone would be interpreted under that law,
but I would definitely support deletion if the property owner has requested removal.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)- That will probably be interpreted as ''using owner's property''. However in this case, the person in question can be seen standing inside the property at 10 seconds. He is well inside its borders. Tuju (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Understood.
I support deletion.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)- Delete. Sillerkiil (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Understood.
- I guess there would be a question of how not physically staying on someone's property but filming it with a drone would be interpreted under that law,
- Keep If there are any problems at all, they are solely between the property owner and the photographer. Re-users are not at risk, and that's what actually matters here on Commons. I don't see any sensitive content (such as Personality rights' violation) on the video, either. So the file only should be deleted either if a) the owner themselves requests deletion, or if b) the uploader requests deletion (COM:COURTESY). --A.Savin 09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's those crime reports to the police and damage caused to the property. Sensitive content is not the real issue atm. Tuju (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- We don't have a policy on "crime reports to the police and damage caused to the property" here on Commons. Regards --A.Savin 11:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's those crime reports to the police and damage caused to the property. Sensitive content is not the real issue atm. Tuju (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep First of all, there is w:Freedom to roam. And even that same law (and the same § 32) states that unless the territory is bordered and clearly marked (i.e written, that an outsider should not come there), then everyone could safely assume, that there is no problem. In that specific case, there is even § 38, which states that whatever property owner must make sure, that publicly usable bodies of water (such as this; it is the Baltic sea) are freely accessible. So it would be unlawful to close that place to the public. Therefor it is irrelevent if the drone operator was there or not. Now... filming there obviously doesn't need permission. As for visitors, then yes tourists go there. I've even been there myself long-long time ago. But if the property owner doesn't like that, then why did he/she brought that piece of land in the first place? Not to mention, that so close to the sea it would not be possible to build anything anyway (i.e a house to live in) as the law prohibits that. That claim in itself is therefor unjustified. In no way could this video infringe the rights of land owner. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- In short. Just using some random section of the law to frighten the videographer is not ok and there is no legal basis to justify the takedown claims. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've crossed out most of my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your text has multiple false allegations about Estonian law and I'm not going to address them all. Just for an example, open access only covers 20m from shoreline, nothing else. It doesn't grant right to violate other laws outside that area. If you base your position to the lack of restrictions, I'm sure people don't want them to get enforced nor me. Anyway, if you're not able to interpret law here, Wikimedia has legal entity who can and will. Tuju (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Only your text has false allegations and you seem to try hard to mislead people. On the widest section the distance is indeed slightly over 200 m, but most of the territory there is well within the always freely accessible section and for the rest of the territory it is virtually impossible to set up restrictions (and by law that is also freely accessible... that is what this Freedom to roam is about). There is no proof of any restrictions being in place. The fact is that the drone pilot has nothing wrong and there is no legal justification to demand the takedown of that video. There are many sections in the law that clearly indicate that everything is perfectly fine. Making so a far-fetched claim that this is using owner's property or that this is somehow damaging is absolutely ridiculous. You have clearly not even read the law. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- In short. Just using some random section of the law to frighten the videographer is not ok and there is no legal basis to justify the takedown claims. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Wider version of this image shows the watermark of Lamda Development, at https://news.gtp.gr/2021/06/17/mega-athenian-riviera-hellinikon-project-clears-last-hurdle/ Lord Belbury (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio per nom -M.nelson (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Sealle (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- UPD: Had been used on ukwiki since this DR, so should be kept. Sealle (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
the photo is an obvious copyright violation. The author of the photo stated in metadata (namely Спас Віктор Богданович) is not Гардус - the user who said it's their photo and uploaded it into wikidata. DDO8-d (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 2003 by Elisabeth Toubro (1956–). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 1974 by Anker Hoffmann (1904–1985). There is no freedom of panorama in Denmark for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2056 A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Denmark. Artist Gerhard Henning was died in 1967, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The statue was completed in 2009 by Cesare Rabitti (died in 2012). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2083 A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete no FOP in France PierreSelim (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Modern building (construction completed in 2010), no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Μακέτα για το πακέτο των τσιγάρων «Νούμερο 1» της καπνοβιομηχανίας Παπαστράτος, 1931-1932, εκτύπωση σε χαρτί.jpg
[edit]
Angelos Spachis died in 1960. His works are still under protection. Texniths (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Was migrated from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Railway_halt.jpg - but not sure why it is assumed that uploader there is also author of the photo. I marked image at OSM Wiki as of dubious copyright status. @Liangent: - did you have some indicators that Ulfl is also the author of the image? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have, and it's more than 10 years ago... Liangent (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
picture is not used in any page Sudraben (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Useful. Do not request deletion just because an image is not currently in use on Wikimedia pages. There is not and never will be a rule that all Commons photos must be used elsewhere on Wikimedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, this photo is identical to File:Lung X-ray.jpg (except for the Indonesian-language description), and that photo is in use. I'd suggest merging the Indonesian description and redirecting this name to File:Lung X-ray.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.243.178 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: d |Edward VII and Alexandra at Parliament.png
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as per Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates (JPEG -> PNG). -- Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: In that moment I didn't see that this is a jpg version and the original is a png. There is no problem with having both png and jpg. 83.61.243.178 13:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roman Kubanskiy as no permission (No permission since) Anatoliy (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- CCTV camera, no copyright --Zacharpolis (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No EXIF, higher res at https://de.linkedin.com/posts/katharina-gerhardt-2781b9148_movie-meets-media-gut-basthorst-activity-6969546075393159168-8kdq Lord Belbury (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Selfie seems very unlikely. 2003:C0:8F20:4000:15F5:E49A:6118:365E 11:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I see nothing unlikely in if the photo was taken as a "selfie", but don't see that's of much import. Is this in scope? Apparently was uploaded in creation of a since deleted article in de:w. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This document contains images that are easily found on the web (COM:NETCOPYVIO). Appears to be a school assingment/essay that is probably outside COM:SCOPE too. Marbletan (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Genisbaby2022 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. All images taken from various source without permission.
- File:Darwingbakla.jpg
- File:Darwingbaklaluckwealth.jpg
- File:Daughtermint.jpg
- File:YahwehAlbaneElohimElohim.jpg
- File:Cressfully.kpg.jpg
- File:Darwin Darwiza Mary Mint Adenade Mateo Albane Dragneel.png
- File:MarkZuckerberg2022ko.jpg
- File:Fairy Tail Forces Unite% 21.png
- File:Lloyd Irving % 28ToS GC% 29.png
- File:Mylove.png
Smooth O (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Smooth O as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. I decline the speedy: not a "personal" photo, but allegedly an FBI one. But I'm not sure I believe that the FBI took this photo, and that the photo is thus in the public domain. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Questionable claims of own work. User uploaded three photos of Joan Thiele taken from (and sourced to) other websites, which were deleted as lacking permission, which they did not contest. Later that day, they uploaded the following photos of Thiele (and other artists) claiming them to be their own work, to be credited to the username "Luix710".
File:Elodie concerto 2022.jpg at least appears to be a pre-existing image: a slightly wider shot of the same photo appears on https://www.fanpage.it/stile-e-trend/moda/elodie-infiamma-il-tim-summer-hits-sfoggia-minigilet-e-perizoma-a-vista/ from a few days earlier. The uploaded version here is cropped at the hips.
None of the images have any camera EXIF data, only image dimensions and sometimes Photoshop Express.
- File:Gaia concerto 2021.jpg
- File:Lous ant the yakuza.jpg
- File:Elodie concerto 2022.jpg
- File:Pietro Morandi.jpg
- File:Bresh.jpg
- File:VascoBrondi.jpg
- File:Madame concerto Genova.jpg
- File:Nadame concerto genova.jpg
- File:Dolcenera 2021.jpg
- File:Joan thiele concerto.jpg
- File:Madame in concerto 2022.jpg
- File:Joan thiele in concerto2.jpg
- File:Joan thiele in concerto.jpg
- File:Venerus in concerto2.jpg
- File:Venerus in concerto.jpg
- File:Venerus in concerto 3.jpg
Lord Belbury (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I want to address my mistakes. I uploaded this photos fully knowing they had copyright, however i did that when i was mentally unwell and not fully self conscious. I didn't remove them by myself because i didn't know how to remove the files. i'm sorry, i hope i don't get banned. you can remove all the photos.--Luix710 (Luix710) 16:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Text only File, should be WikiText GeorgHH • talk 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Might or might not be PD-Mexico, but the incidental inclusion of a (low res at angle) version in the Flickr photo does not affect the status of the original photos license status. Rather strange listing of two different sources. If it can be shown to be PD per info in the Worthpoint link, keep; incidental DW inclusion in File:Museo del Estanquillo IMG 2060 (26299779355).jpg is irrelevant to actual copyright status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
We need to be consistent about application of FoP in Mexico. See COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Two different sources given. If PD status can be shown for the museodelestanquillo link photo can be shown, OK. Incidental inclusion as COM:DW in a flickr photo does not confer Flickr license to the original photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a book cover art and thus might fall under CSD F2. I was not able to confirm the book. User has uploaded several images of deities which they have no license to share -- DaxServer (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Also
- File:දේවී භාගවතම්.jpg
- File:Srimad Devi Bhagavatam sinhala 2.jpg
- File:Srimad Devi Bhagavatam.jpg
- File:Srimad Devi Bhagavatam sin.jpg
- File:Srimad Devi Bhagavatam cover 2.jpg
-- DaxServer (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WilliamSufik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Insufficient copyright info; no reason to assume these pictures of soviet engineers are in the public domain
TFerenczy (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, very low quality, it's most likely a print from some documents (visible text from the next page), a 2019 book "Midnight in Chernobyl" has a higher resolution scan credited to "Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum" TFerenczy (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
CD cover says "Nur für den persönlichen Gebrauch bestimmt". How does that go together with a CC licensing? 2003:C0:8F20:4000:9500:D8F2:52FB:D964 22:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Die CD ist in der Tat für den persönlichen Gebrauch bestimmt. Das bezieht sich meines Erachtens aber nicht auf die Abbildung des Covers, zumal das Bild auf dem Cover von mir stammt.
- Google translator:
- The CD is indeed for personal use only. In my opinion, this does not refer to the illustration of the cover, especially since the picture on the cover is mine. Viola sonans (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Person died in 1989, can not be own work of 2022. Original date? Author? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Что вас не устраивает в это й фотографии?
- Эта фотография из семейного альбома.
- Как вы предлагаете ее описать? 94.29.54.181 17:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in France, still under copyright Culex (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in France, still under copyright Culex (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in France, still under copyright Culex (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Designed by Pierre Goudiaby Atepa (1947–); no COM:FOP Senegal for commercial usage. Aréat (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
pdf files for images are out of scope for WLM. Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Question In this case, these are actually pictures. Are there other pictures of this shrine in approved formats? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: I have my doubts about the own work claim. --Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted book covers, and also previously published: https://www.nairaland.com/7342769/science-meet-foremost-applied-chess. Uploader might be the author of books, but VRT permission is needed to verify copyrights and the photographer. MKFI (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022102210005134 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 18:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Krd. --Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
wrong date, probably wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per description not own work, but a photo bought at the Delcampe web site. The file can be restored in 2063 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 12:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The artwork was completed in 1996 by Joseph-Francis Sumégné (1951–). Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in Cameroon, permission from the artist is required.
- File:Ars&Urbis 2011 Meeting 47.jpg
- File:Ars&Urbis curatorial meeting 11.jpg
- File:Ars&Urbis curatorial meeting 12.jpg
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 40.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 41.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 79.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 80.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 81.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 82.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 83.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 84.JPG
- File:Ars&Urbis international workshop photos by Christian Hanussek 85.JPG
- File:Deido.JPG
- File:Douala1-statut de la liberté.jpg
- File:Joseph-Francis Sumégné, La Nouvelle Liberté 01.jpg
- File:Joseph-Francis Sumégné, La Nouvelle Liberté 02.jpg
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté 2.jpg
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté 3.JPG
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté 4.JPG
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté 5.JPG
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté 6.JPG
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté au Rond Point Deïdo 2.jpg
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté au Rond Point Deïdo.jpg
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté de Douala.JPG
- File:La Nouvelle Liberté.JPG
- File:LT9 (2).jpg
- File:LT9 (3).jpg
- File:LT9 (4).jpg
- File:LT9 (5).jpg
- File:LT9 (6).jpg
- File:LT9 (9).jpg
- File:Monument de la nouvelle liberté, Douala.jpg
- File:Nouvelle liberté (2).JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté 01.JPG
- File:Nouvelle liberté 2.JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté par SM 1.JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté par SM 2.JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté par SM 3.JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté par SM 4.JPG
- File:Nouvelle Liberté par SM 5.jpg
- File:Nouvelle Liberté.JPG
- File:Nouvelle liberté1.JPG
- File:Rond point deido.ogv
- File:Statue de la nouvelle liberte Douala.jpg
- File:SUD Salon Urbain de Douala 2007-04.jpg
- File:SUD Salon Urbain de Douala 2007-05.jpg
- File:SUD Salon Urbain de Douala 2007-06.jpg
- File:SUD Salon Urbain de Douala 2007-45.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks A1Cafel. The work of Joseph-Francis Sumégné, La Nouvelle Liberté was commissioned by doual'art and there are agreements with the artists involved in their production of public art as you can refer to ticket [Ticket#2011101310013458]. I remain at your disposal for any further information. best regards, --iopensa (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- VRT note: Please have a look at Special:Diff/724708947#Ticket:2011101310013458. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: VRT confirmed that the ticket gives permission. --Gbawden (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Wrong word K.Mohanalingam (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- K.Mohanalingam, if the filename is misspelled, request a filename change. If you post what you'd like the filename to be, I can change it for you. Some relevant categories and, if possible, an English-language description, would also be welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi lkan Kekek !
- I had changed the words and wrote proper sentences and corrected for on behalf of you.
- ThankQ
- K.Mohanalingam.
- Please do publish this file name:
- அரியாலை நீர் நொச்சித்தாழ்வு ஸ்ரீ சித்தி விநாயகர் தேர்-வில்வை மரத்துடன்.Jpg K.Mohanalingam (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
New file: Name 2019 அரியாலை நீர்நொச்சித்தாழ்வு ஸ்ரீ சித்தி விநாயகர் தேவஸ்தானம்-தேர்-வில்வை மரத்துடன்.Jpg
- I'm sorry; there's nothing I can do; someone has deleted your file with no explanation. I hope they come here and tell us why they did it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment The file was not deleted, its link in this DR had been changed to a file name that never existed. I have corrected that. @K.Mohanalingam: Is this actually a rename request? Do you want to rename the file to File:2019 அரியாலை நீர்நொச்சித்தாழ்வு ஸ்ரீ சித்தி விநாயகர் தேவஸ்தானம்-தேர்-வில்வை மரத்துடன்.jpg? --Rosenzweig τ 10:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily to have this picture K.Mohanalingam (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Question Why not? It looks informative to me, though categories should be added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader appears to be unable to articulate in English why the file should be deleted, so just restore the CC license tag from the description page's history and keep it. If there is an actual deletion rationale for it can easily be renominated. --Xover (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 22:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Diese Collage ist durch die letzte Version der Datei:Shinobue and other flutes-3.jpg obsolet geworden. Sie wird nicht mehr benötigt. Gisbert K (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader's request. Not INUSE and appears redundant to File:Shinobue and other flutes-3.jpg. --Xover (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
File: Name is not correct K.Mohanalingam (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @K.Mohanalingam: An incorrect file name is reason for a move request, not a deletion request. Xover (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. No valid deletion rationale evident. --Xover (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ivan Yizhakevych
[edit]The painter died in 1962 and according to local copyright laws, works become public domain after 70 years from the death of author. The other works of this painter were created during Russian Empire, so they automatically are considered in public domain
- File:Їжакевич. Мені тринадцятий минало.jpg
- File:Мені тринадцятий минало Їжакевич.jpg
- File:Хресна хода Їжакевич.jpg
Renvoy (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- see similar request Commons:Deletion requests/File:У шинку Їжакевич.jpg Renvoy (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the three files listed here (not everything in the category in the title) per nom: not PD in source country, and not PD in the US. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Most likely COIN. There’s no release statement for usage by the owners of the website. The user shares the name with one of the writers on the digital news site. MexTDT (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and COM:PRP. --Xover (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ford Escort model cars
[edit]Sadly all fail COM:TOYS, Having read this (archive) and other bits online it seems toys are a slippery slope when it comes to copyright, trademarks etc, Thanks
- File:Cmsfordescortrscosworth.jpg
- File:Ford Escort British Telecom Corgi - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Ford Escort Corgi - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Ford Escort Royal Mail Corgi - Flickr - dave 7.jpg
- File:Ford Escort RS Cosworth WRC scale model.jpg
- File:L035 Ford Escort mk3 - UK Panda (2187737578).jpg
- File:L036 Ford Escort Van - UK generic (2186951419).jpg
- File:L037 Ford Escort van - UK Police (beacon fitted code3) (2187737758).jpg
- File:M266 Ford Escort mark I - UK Stirling + Clackmannan Police (4263611571).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2187737758).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
–Davey2010Talk 22:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- We also have Category:Ford model cars, Category:Models of automobiles by brand and Category:Corgi toys so honestly I don't know whether these images themselves are fine or whether ALL toy images should be deleted (if the latter is the case then I would create a discussion somewhere) ... but as far as copyright is concerned I would assume ALL toy images are copyrighted ?, –Davey2010Talk 23:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that these too closely represent functional objects (cars) so that they would not be afforded copyright in the UK. The typical refrain would be that COM:TOO UK is very low. Maybe that's true, but nearly all of our cases and evidence for that revolve around logos. Threshold of originality can vary between different subjects (cf. US logos vs. US sculptures). Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc is informative because it is a UK case that involved toys and involved distinguishing between the functional and creative character of the toys. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting issue. Cars themselves are very very much design objects; but at the same time their design is dictated to a large degree by aerodynamics and other such mechanical and engineering factors. So very much functional objects while at the same time some of the most designed, and known for their design, objects. And then you have the additional layer of someone's model of that object, executed to be faithful to the original, but in a completely different scale, of completely different materials, and for a completely different purpose. Is it a mechanical reproduction? But at the same time it is a 3D object. And… and… but… Loads to sink one's teeth into here if one were so inclined. Which I'm not, at this moment, but darn what a fine conundrum! 😀I'm not able to contribute anything sensible to this particular discussion (sorry), beyond suggesting that if anyone were inclined to really dig their teeth into the issues it might be a good idea to bring it up at COM:VP/C. `Cause I'd surely enjoy reading a treatise on this! Xover (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed Xover, I'll be blatantly honest (and it was probably obvious from my nomination) but I don't really have any understanding when it comes to TOYS and what toys are/aren't fine here, I guess my goal here was to cluelessly-nominate and hope an admin would say Yay or Nay and @IronGargoyle said just that :), I just didn't know if these images were allowed here and thought a DR was the best way to go about it,
- I won't pretend I understand a word of IronGargoyle's !vote but it sounds like they know a lot more about this than me (thankfully) so I'm happy to withdraw this, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting issue. Cars themselves are very very much design objects; but at the same time their design is dictated to a large degree by aerodynamics and other such mechanical and engineering factors. So very much functional objects while at the same time some of the most designed, and known for their design, objects. And then you have the additional layer of someone's model of that object, executed to be faithful to the original, but in a completely different scale, of completely different materials, and for a completely different purpose. Is it a mechanical reproduction? But at the same time it is a 3D object. And… and… but… Loads to sink one's teeth into here if one were so inclined. Which I'm not, at this moment, but darn what a fine conundrum! 😀I'm not able to contribute anything sensible to this particular discussion (sorry), beyond suggesting that if anyone were inclined to really dig their teeth into the issues it might be a good idea to bring it up at COM:VP/C. `Cause I'd surely enjoy reading a treatise on this! Xover (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. My 2 cts: these toys are reproductions, exact models, of real cars. If we allow reproductions (photos) on Commons of real cars, we should also allow these. Interesting discussion would be whether cars are works of art. Of course a car design cannot be copied by another car manufacturer... but are we allowed to publish a photo of a car? I know it is not a good argument, but nobody, no car manufacturer, would object to us publishing photos of their designs. Perhaps we would need VRT permission of them all, formally. --Ellywa (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the person on the photography is not André Luiz Moreira. He doesn't look much like the Brazilian football star. Tullerusk (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe a namesake. Original uploader only added the name and Category:Filosofia. A google image search shows that there must be more than one André Luiz Moreira out there. - 4ing (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's no indication the original uploader claimed that this was the Brazilian footballer. This assumption was introduced by @Timmy96: in July. The original uploader also never contributed anything else to neither Wikimedia Commons nor any other Wikimedia project:Global contribs of Evertonwr11. My take is, this is some random person, uploaded by a non-contributer with no indication that this image is the original uploaders own creation, considering there's no exif data and the upload is a small crop of what looks like a selfie. Should probably remove from articles and delete as COM:OOS. TommyG (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per TommyG. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Unknown person and therefore out of scope. --Ellywa (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The architect of this building, the National Library of Azerbaijan, was Mikayil Useynov who died in 1992, so it is still protected by copyright. There is no Commons-compatible freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan (no commercial use). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination.
- Lukas Beck (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question: I'm all for deleting the image from Commons, but I would like to get someone else's opinion on whether they thought the statues were de minimis for the purposes of illustrating the building. I was planning on moving this to English Wikipedia as it allows pictures of buildings from non-US jurisdictions that don't have any freedom of panorama. I'm on the fence at the moment. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it qualifies as de minimis, but for illustrating an article about the building it should be perfectly fine as fair use (which enWP allows). You may need to scale it down a bit since, last I checked, the Non-Free Content Criteria were quite rigid on that. Xover (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, NFCC is a headache that I try to avoid whenever possible. I appreciate the input. I think I will let this one slip away, as it's not even that great a picture of the building. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it qualifies as de minimis, but for illustrating an article about the building it should be perfectly fine as fair use (which enWP allows). You may need to scale it down a bit since, last I checked, the Non-Free Content Criteria were quite rigid on that. Xover (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Porque me pertenece y no estoy de acuerdo... Infringe mis derechos de autor. 2800:A4:2244:D400:7545:2902:1BAC:845C 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as courtesy. Copyright claim is doubtful. --Xover (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Xover. --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also for discussion: File:Player of Colegiales Lelo Sejean otro.jpg
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. I'm not seeing evidence this is a "personal photo by non-contributor" (who has added photos to Spanish Wikipedia articles). Why, out of all 5 uploads by the user, were only photos of this player nominated (not File:Cancha Colegiales.jpg or File:Jogador brasileiro Karlos Aguia.jpg, for instance)?. The image may be out of scope, but should only be deleted after open discussion. --Animalparty (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Because, Sejean doesn't have notoriety, and no articles link to these files. Photos about him in Commons serve no purpose other than promotion. Articles and files about this subject have been deleted before in this and other wiki projects due to it's lack of notoriety and use for promotion. Most of the articles about Sejean were created and edited by now banned sock accounts, and the same sock accounts added him to many unrelated articles in order to maintain him in the wiki. Ardije (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Commons. Wikipedia drama or English Wikipedia notability has no bearing on Commons or Wikidata (Commons has many images of things and people that will never have a Wikipedia article). This person is notable on Wikidata, regardless of what team he plays for. --Animalparty (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- He doesn't play for any team. No specialized football website lists him as a member of any team. He has claimed to be a footballer to Paraguayan media throughout the decade, usually to the same websites, typically elmensu.com, which is the source for nearly all Sejean articles in Paraguay. Elmensu state in the same articles about him, that they take their information about him from Sejean's own social media profiles.
- The only statistics available about this person being a football player list him taking part in three matches for an Australian university in a reserve university league in 2016. There are no statistics about him in Paraguayan football or any league that indicate this person even played football professionally. He has no Transfermarkt or Soccerway data, and he does not appear in any team rosters of any the teams he's claimed to have played for (Corrales, Colegiales and Tacuary). He fails all notability checks that any other professional football player easily passes. Ardije (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing Wikipedia with Commons. Wikipedia drama or English Wikipedia notability has no bearing on Commons or Wikidata (Commons has many images of things and people that will never have a Wikipedia article). This person is notable on Wikidata, regardless of what team he plays for. --Animalparty (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both, per Ardije. Available information suggests (self-)promo and out of scope, and the socking and edit-warring here and on the file description pages suggest the same. No plausible contrary information has been provided. --Xover (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. photos do not have educational value and are therefore out os scope. --Ellywa (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 2007 by Faouzi Laatiris (1958–). There is no freedom of panorama in Cameroon, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks A1Cafel. The work of Faouzi Laatiris is commissioned by doual'art and there are agreements with the artists involved in their production of public art as you can refer to ticket [Ticket#2011101310013458]. I remain at your disposal for any further information. best regards, --iopensa (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: The file description page contains an VRT ticket that claims to cover all images from the same source (it's a bit anonymous so had to look hard to find it: it's in the little extra box just below the Information template). I don't have VRT access so I can verify it, but I see no reason to doubt it either. Withdraw? Xover (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Xover. We should trust VRT. --Ellywa (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 2007 by Faouzi Laatiris (1958–). There is no freedom of panorama in Cameroon, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks A1Cafel. The work of Faouzi Laatiris is commissioned by doual'art and there are agreements with the artists involved in their production of public art as you can refer to ticket [Ticket#2011101310013458]. I remain at your disposal for any further information. best regards, --iopensa (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faouzi laatiris sculpture 3768 moy.jpg. Xover (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. File page is showing a VRT permission. --Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The sculpture was completed in 2007 by Faouzi Laatiris (1958–). There is no freedom of panorama in Cameroon, permission from the artist is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks A1Cafel. The work of Faouzi Laatiris is commissioned by doual'art and there are agreements with the artists involved in their production of public art as you can refer to ticket [Ticket#2011101310013458]. I remain at your disposal for any further information. best regards, --iopensa (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Dear A1Cafel, I noticed that we had already this conversation in 2020: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tracy rose fresque 3234 moy.jpg. Please let me know if there is a need for further clarifications. You find in the public artworks the category which links to doual'art, where there is the reference to the ticket. I'm adding the ticket also in the category page of the artworks. But most of the public artworks in Douala have been commissioned by doual'art. best regards, iopensa (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Faouzi laatiris sculpture 3768 moy.jpg. Xover (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: file page includes a VRT permission. --Ellywa (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BLOODSWEAT&CHLORINE (talk · contribs)
[edit]First image looks like a photograph retaken with a phone (top left looks weird) Second image looks like a still from a video, Either the uploader is Jeremy or these are copyvios, These don't look your average run of the mill images,
(For transparency I nominated the first image earlier today here believing this was a non notable individual). Thanks,
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Jeremy Reingold Rugby Player in Players Tunnel Newlands Rugby Stadium with wife ( Carina Marx ).jpg
File:Jeremy Reingold Former World 200m Swimming Individual Medley Record Holder.jpg(Since been OTRS verified)
–Davey2010Talk 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging prev !voter at the other DR: @Ikan Kekek: , –Davey2010Talk 19:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd defer to you on these. --Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Why would photos be removed when they were taken by myself , Gary Setchell of the subject , Jeremy Reingold, with a Sony Mavic Stiffy Disk Camera . They have never been published anywhere and I posted them some time back as Reingold was coached by my late father in South Africa before he returned to Australia. One person seems to believe they are copyrighted which they aren't. I can be contacted at garysetchell6@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 102.65.103.151 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I have very little clue how the pics on Wikipedia work, but as mentioned took them before and have tried to have them accredited on my BLOODSWEAT&CHLORINE page. They are all original and have never been published anywhere before as I tried to say in my first post and am happy for them to be used anywhere, taken with mynols Sony Mavic Camera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlorine Coach Mike (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Having relooked at the images in question my stance hasn't changed - The first image still looks like a laminated image re-photographed on a mobile device and the second image still looks like a still from a video, I've looked at images taken with a Sony Mavic Stiffy Disk Camera and none of them resemble a laminated image!. As I said either BS&C/102.xx/Mike is Jeremy or these are copyvios. –Davey2010Talk 22:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Do whatever you want . I thought accuracy is what is sought after . I have taken the pictures.....suddenly some ( 1 ) character has decided who I am and what I do . I think Davey has nothing else to do but question honest folk. If you wish to contact me you can on +27 722284666. I can't pretend to the a knower of Wikipedia Commons but one guarantee is my pics are real. I wonder if Davey2010 would give his real name or contact details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlorine Coach Mike (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Chlorine Coach Mike, All irrelevant. You're more than welcome to go to COM:OTRS. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- The uploader has since gone to OTRS and apparently as of writing this File:Jeremy Reingold Former World 200m Swimming Individual Medley Record Holder.jpg was taken by them. I'm not convinced tbh. –Davey2010Talk 22:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the one with VRT verification; Delete the other per Davey2010. --Xover (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion deleted the first image. I agree with User:Davey2010 that this appears a photo from another photo, due to reflections and bad resolution. Davey2010, you could ask on the VRT page to check the ticket, because I agree, the other photo also looks like a reproduced photo from another source. --Ellywa (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)