Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/10/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I uploaded it by mistake Anna Maltela (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Лжефлаг [1] Валко (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Очень хорошо, но это не повод удалять файл. --Devlet Geray (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Это, как раз повод. Не придумывайте новые флаги
Создание новых флагов из-за кажущейся в них необходимости — не просто осуждается, а запрещается правилами, так как это оригинальное исследование. Более того, обычно это выражение частного мнения, которое может иметь политический или другой спорный контекст. Поскольку новый флаг не будет узнаваться другими людьми, он не несёт смысловой нагрузки. Примером подобного «изобретения» служит «флаг Северной Америки».
Не создавайте самостоятельно гербы и флаги для древних государств до эпохи Нового и Новейшего времени лишь на основании изображений на монетах, печатях, неоднозначных письменных описаний и подобного (подробно см. выше). Не тиражируйте уже существующие флаговые и гербовые мистификации. Википедия:ЛЖЕФЛАГ. Валко (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Источник Jaume Ollé [2] [3] Валко (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Topicstarter's request. --A.Savin 14:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
delete [4] [5] Жизнь в движении (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
давно пора удалять ru:Обсуждение:Крымская народная республика#Флаг 95.110.90.50 05:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- even if the current flag seems to be unhistorical it's not the reason for its deletion. We have this and many other Devlet Geray (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- ru:Википедия:ЛЖЕФЛАГ, желтая полоса откуда? Где источник? VadimSPb78 (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept (non-sysop closed): No valid reason for deletion. --(｀・ω・´) (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by %USER% as no source. In use, no copyright issue. Yann (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Peter Hayward died in 1993[6] and his work remains under copyright. This painting dates from around 1950. I'm not certain what the uploaded means by "my own framed work" unless it's a painted copy, but even if so it's still copyrighted. Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Work is still under copyright by heirs of the artist. I presume the uploader was simply unaware of COM:DW (which I suggest they read). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:36, 25 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) 03:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep, reasonable quality and useful as an illustration of the typical dress and workspace of a school principal in India. Belbury (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)- How do you know its in India? You are just assuming that. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Correctly, it turns out, as the same resolution photo was posted to VES College of Arts, Science & Commerce website (https://ves.ac.in/vesasc/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/11/AK-modified.jpg) almost a year before being uploaded here.
Delete for the image being uploaded without evidence of permission. --Belbury (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Correctly, it turns out, as the same resolution photo was posted to VES College of Arts, Science & Commerce website (https://ves.ac.in/vesasc/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/11/AK-modified.jpg) almost a year before being uploaded here.
- How do you know its in India? You are just assuming that. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyviol per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of permission, Swedish description says this was painted by Telma Castro, but this doesn't match the username. Belbury (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio of 2017 press photo (https://plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/vegan-meat-brand-aiming-stop-factory-farming-india-available-online/) Belbury (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The photo was taken in a private setting, and its publication online has caused confusion. Webbo Hsu (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I am the uploader of this photo. This photo was taken in a private place and uploaded to the Internet by mistake, which has caused me trouble. Webbo Hsu (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry about that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, unused personal photo, per uploader request -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as COM:PACKAGING Belbury (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clear case CV by DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chunwai yau (talk · contribs)
[edit]深圳信息职业技术学院版权所有 means copyrighted by SZIIT
Lemonaka (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- with source on www.sziit.edu.cn Lemonaka (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Not Creative Commons licensed on YouTube, or in archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20211106040912/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=gc-lHzqv4NU GRuban (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://youtube.com/watch?v=gc-lHzqv4NU . — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
No creative commons license on youtube page. COM:WHERE#YouTube GRuban (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4y53duqZo&t=4s . — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
No Creative Commons license on YouTube page. COM:WHERE#YouTube GRuban (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a copyvio of https://youtube.com/watch?v=eXEtzRA4Ajo . — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aliawalsh22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]See the logs for these files. They have been re-uploaded having been previously deleted for valid reasons. The prior sources have not been declared. They have been re-uploaded by the same editor They are patently professional shots, and no camera details are included. COM:PCP applies. Admin considering this should consider educating the uploader further, please.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete
- File:Cian O'Connor.png © 2011-2022 Fédération Équestre Internationale from https://www.fei.org/stories/lifestyle/horse-human/pony-paradise-karlswood-cian-oconnor 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete File:Cian O'Connor and Kilkenny.jpg from https://mobile.twitter.com/Cian_O_Connor/status/1582057099173179394/photo/1 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 19:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aliawalsh22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These all appear to be professional shots. The uploader has a track record of breaching copyright, and there are no camera details. Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies. Please will the admin who examines these files consider offering education to the uploader
- File:Max Wachman and Berlux.png
- File:Max Wachman and Cuffesgrange Cavalidam.jpg
- File:Max Wachman.png
- File:Cian O'Connor and Taj Mahal.png
- File:Karlswood.png
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- File:Karlswood.png Speedy delete from https://www.cianoconnor.com/karlswood-gallery?itemId=sk48odgsop9rmslt3c6dxo7nk2i5y1 Lemonaka (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- File:Cian O'Connor and Taj Mahal.png Speedy delete from https://www.cianoconnor.com/tokyo-summer-olympics-copy Lemonaka (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtrent nearly all photos came from https://www.cianoconnor.com/, please help me check it. Sorry but I'm a little bit tired for so much photos. Lemonaka (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka I am also somewhat tired, my friend. However, I think any closing admin will look very carefully at the uploader's track record and block history (secoond block, this time for two weeks, heading for indefinite of they keep this up), coupled with their apparent refusal to engage with anyone here. I see you have found more than one on the Karlswood galleries. Kudos to you. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 17:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Timtrent nearly all photos came from https://www.cianoconnor.com/, please help me check it. Sorry but I'm a little bit tired for so much photos. Lemonaka (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 19:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aliawalsh22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy deleteFile:Cian O'Connor Dublin Horse Show.jpg from https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/features/dressage-horse-or-circus-pony-and-10-other-great-bits-of-horsey-social-media-this-week-800031 Lemonaka (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Lemonaka. I have also tagged it for SD as a copyvio 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aliawalsh22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Despite this not being the same professional quality as the uploader's other uploads, all of which have either been deleted as copyvios, or which have been nominated for a deletion discussion because of lack of camera details, and despite camera details being present, I am bringing this to a deletion discussion.
I am concerned enough about the uploader's other uploads to present this to experts in copyright to determine whether this picture should remain here or be deleted.
The uploader is on their second block for copyright violation (this was uploaded between blocks). This does not prevent their using COM:VRT by email to submit proof of copyright ownership of this or any other picture, and they are recommended to do that at their first opportunity, even if this file is deleted, because reinstatement is part of the VRT process
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal image with no educational value. A poor quality quickly-snapped self-image that adds nothing of new eductional value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel It seems like reasonable quality and, unlike most penis photos, it states the age of the subject. Brianjd (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we have more than enough of these. --Gbawden (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
German stamps were found not to be official works by courts, so they are not automatically in the public domain. These stamps are the work of de:Richard Klein (Künstler), who died in 1967. So they are still protected by copyright and should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2038.
- File:DR 1941 Ukraine MiNr08 B002.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DR) 1941, MiNr 13 (739).jpg
- File:DR 1941 Ukraine MiNr14 B002.jpg
- File:Stamp Ukraine.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Copy from template: This work was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing. kandschwar (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator: Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG. --Rosenzweig τ 17:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
German stamps were found not to be official works by courts, so they are not automatically in the public domain. These stamps are the work of de:Richard Klein (Künstler), who died in 1967. So they are still protected by copyright and should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2038.
- File:Stamp Russia occ Ostland 1941 1pf.jpg
- File:Остланд 3 пф.jpg
- File:DR 1941 Ostland MiNr 7.jpg
- File:DR 1941 0stland MiNr008 B002.jpg
- File:Stamp Ostland.jpg
- File:Tallinn1943.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Copy from template: This work was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing. kandschwar (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator: Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
German stamps were found not to be official works by courts, so they are not automatically in the public domain. These stamps are the work of de:Richard Klein (Künstler), who died in 1967. So they are still protected by copyright and should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2038.
- File:Adolf Hitler - Deutsches Reich 6 - 23.9.1944.jpg
- File:Adolf Hitler 42 Pfennig stamp.jpg
- File:Adolf Hitler Briefmarke.jpg
- File:Adolf Hitler-frimerke (HL-senteret, 2016-10-06).jpg
- File:D-BW-KN-Mühlingen - Stempel Gallmannsweil 1942-08-15.jpg
- File:DR 1941 0stland MiNr008 B002.jpg
- File:DR 1941 781 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 782 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 783 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 784 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 785 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 786 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 787 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 788 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 789 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 790 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 791 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 792 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 793 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 794 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 795 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 795A Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 796 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 797 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 798 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 799 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 800 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 801 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 802 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 Adolf Hitler Einzelabzug.jpg
- File:DR 1941 Ukraine MiNr08 B002.jpg
- File:DR 1941,1942 787,788,826,827 detail.jpg
- File:DR 1942 826 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1942 827 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:FDC-ReichskanzlerAdolfHitler1.jpg
- File:Francegermanyoccupation1945.jpg
- File:Hitlermarken 1945 überstempelt mit "Österreich".jpg
- File:Kurland6pf20apr1945.jpg
- File:OsterreichHitler1945.jpg
- File:OsterreichHitlerGraz1945.jpg
- File:OsterreichHitlerLeibnitz1945.jpg
- File:OsterreichHitlerLosenstein1945.jpg
- File:ReichskanzlerAdolfHitler-MHB-70.jpg
- File:Retusche.jpg
- File:Stamp Austria 1945 5pf ovpt a.jpg
- File:Stamp Austria 1945 5pf ovpt bars.jpg
- File:Stamp Austria 1945-661-Wien-Kork.jpg
- File:Stamp Kurland.jpg
- File:Stamp Ukraine.jpg
- File:StampBadGottleuba1945.jpg
- File:StampChemnitz1945.jpg
- File:StampDoebeln1945.jpg
- File:StampLoebau1945.jpg
- File:StampMaribor1945Michel26.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DR) 1941 , MiNr 788.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DR) 1944, MiNr 3 (795).jpg
- File:StampSchwarzenberg1945.jpg
- File:StampWurzen1945.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Copy from template: This work was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing. kandschwar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator: Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG. --Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Richard Klein
[edit]German stamps were found not to be official works by courts, so they are not automatically in the public domain. These stamps are the work of de:Richard Klein (Künstler), who died in 1967. So they are still protected by copyright and should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2038.
- File:DR 1936 608 Otto von Guericke.jpg
- File:DR 1936 617 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 618 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 619 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 620 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 621 Bl 4 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1936 621 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1936 MiNr0471 Bl4 B002a.jpg
- File:DR 1937 646 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1937 647 Adolf Hitler Briefmarkenausstellung geschnitten.jpg
- File:DR 1937 648 Adolf Hitler Kulturspende.jpg
- File:DR 1937 649 Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 650 Adolf Hitler Reichsparteitag.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 10 649 Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 10 649 Herzstück Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 11 Adolf Hitler Reichsparteitag.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 7 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 8 Adolf Hitler Briefmarkenausstellung.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 9 Adolf Hitler Kulturspende.jpg
- File:DR 1937 MiNr0646 Bl07 B002.jpg
- File:DR 1938 671 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1938 672 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1939 691 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1939 699 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1940 747 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1941 763 Benito Mussolini und Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 780 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1942 812 Heldengedenktag.jpg
- File:DR 1942 815 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1943 854 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1944 899 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 144 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 147 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 148 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 151 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 152 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 155 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 156 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 157 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 158 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 159 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 160 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 161 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 162 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 163 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 164 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 165 Dienstmarke.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Copy from template: This work was published in Germany before the Law on Copyrights and Neighboring Rights (UrhG) came into effect on January 1, 1966. It does not indicate its author and was published by a legal entity under public law (§ 5 KUG; for details see Wikipedia:Bildrechte). Therefore according to § 134 Satz 2 UrhG, copyright expires 70 years after publishing. kandschwar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator: Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Richard Klein
[edit]Most of these stamps fall under {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, though some (like File:DR 1943 854 Das Braune Band.jpg) don't since they indicate the author. Either way, they will have to be deleted either due to URAA or 70pma.
- File:DR 1936 608 Otto von Guericke.jpg
- File:DR 1936 617 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 618 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 619 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 620 Gemeindekongress.jpg
- File:DR 1936 621 Bl 4 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1936 621 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1936 MiNr0471 Bl4 B002a.jpg
- File:DR 1937 646 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1937 647 Adolf Hitler Briefmarkenausstellung geschnitten.jpg
- File:DR 1937 648 Adolf Hitler Kulturspende.jpg
- File:DR 1937 649 Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 650 Adolf Hitler Reichsparteitag.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 10 649 Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 10 649 Herzstück Das braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 11 Adolf Hitler Reichsparteitag.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 7 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 8 Adolf Hitler Briefmarkenausstellung.jpg
- File:DR 1937 Block 9 Adolf Hitler Kulturspende.jpg
- File:DR 1937 MiNr0646 Bl07 B002.jpg
- File:DR 1938 671 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1938 672 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1939 691 Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1939 699 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1940 747 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1941 763 Benito Mussolini und Adolf Hitler.jpg
- File:DR 1941 780 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1942 812 Heldengedenktag.jpg
- File:DR 1942 815 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1943 854 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR 1944 899 Das Braune Band.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 144 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 147 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 148 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 151 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1938 152 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 155 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 156 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 157 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 158 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 159 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 160 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 161 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 162 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 163 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 164 Dienstmarke.jpg
- File:DR-D 1942 165 Dienstmarke.jpg
Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rodrigo Gemino (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos only used for attempted self-promotion (now deleted) on Portuguese Wikipedia. Outside of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.5.png
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.7.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.4.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.3.png
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.6.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.2.png
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 2022.1.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 04.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 03.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 02.jpg
- File:Rodrigo Gemino 01.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by London Valet (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: unused low quality text images
- File:MarVanwa.Doc-.jpeg.tif
- File:Quil Times.tif
- File:Quil Times- Quileute Font.tif
- File:QLVowels.tif
- File:Quileute logo.tif
George Chernilevsky talk 08:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused promotional SPAM
- File:Muparvls Shop.png
- File:Muparvls Shop Logo.png
- File:Raj engineering works.png
- File:RAJ ENGINEERING.png
George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abdessadek live (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: unused artwork. Also probably copyvio
George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lorenzo Paladini (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: unused promotional images
- File:LogoIID.jpg
- File:Giornata Nazionale AIL2016.jpg
- File:Giornata Nazionale AIL.png
- File:Stelle di Natale AIL2016.jpg
- File:Stelle di Natale AIL.jpg
George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cracking Art (Avezzano)
[edit]The sculptures shown in these images are copyrighted. The image infringe and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the sculptor.
- File:Aia dei Musei Cracking Art.jpg
- File:Avezzano centro.jpg
- File:Avezzano Cracking Art.jpg
- File:Avezzano cracking art.jpg
- File:Avezzano giornata dei bimbi prematuri.jpg
- File:Avezzano piazza del Mercato cracking art.jpg
- File:Comune di Avezzano neve.jpg
- File:Cracking Art ad Avezzano.jpg
- File:Cracking Art Aia dei Musei Avezzano.jpg
- File:Cracking Art Avezzano Abruzzo.jpg
- File:Cracking Art Avezzano.jpg
- File:Cracking Art in Avezzano.jpg
- File:Cracking art piazza Risorgimento.jpg
- File:La cracking art ad Avezzano.jpg
- File:La cracking art in Avezzano.jpg
- File:Municipio Avezzano.jpg
- File:Palazzo municipale Avezzano a natale.jpg
- File:Palazzo municipale Avezzano fiocchi rossi.jpg
- File:Palazzo municipale Avezzano natale.jpg
- File:Palazzo municipale Avezzano.jpg
- File:Piazza Risorgimento cracking art.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as unused logo with promotional description. Belbury (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SagoShader (talk · contribs)
[edit]Four places with a same flag? Likely hoaxes. This user has a history of uploading hoax flags. Check Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Hebei.svg
- File:Flag of Assam, India.svg
- File:Flag of Jammu and Kashmir.svg
- File:Flag of Rajasthan.svg
- File:Flag of Gujarat.svg
Lemonaka (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The banners look similar it they feature each state's official emblem (in each case, the national emblem of India differentiated by a text legend) displayed on a white field. Most other states in India use distinct official emblems creating more unique banners. ComminutedOrange (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ComminutedOrange After checking their official government site, these are true flags. Lemonaka (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Flags are real. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, likely has underlying copyrights. Sennecaster (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. --MGA73 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This mugshot is the work of the Des Plaines Police Department in Illinois, not a work of the federal government. {{PD-USGov}} does not apply and there is no evidence of a free license. ✗plicit 03:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-US-1978-89", up until 1989 you still needed to register for a copyright, and this image was never registered, I have never seen any mugshot in the registration database. --RAN (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment File:John Wayne Gacy-junior.jpg seems like it should be bundled for evaluation. — Goszei (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: As PD-US-1978-89, per RAN. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 1 November 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) 03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:56, 1 November 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) 03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 1 November 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) 03:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The year of death of Erich Wohlfahrt is unknown. According to {{PD-old-assumed}}, copyright expiry should be 120 years ago after the work was created, i.e. the file is still under copyright until the end of 2041 A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2042. --Rosenzweig τ 12:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment in 2024: Erich Wohlfahrt died in 1961; the file can be restored in 2032. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Artist Hans Neumann died in 1957, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Actually 1960. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist Rudolf Ledl died in 1945, but Fritz Bernhard died in 1966, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2037. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist Sven Brasch died in 1970, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2041. --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1956, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist Leonhard F. W. Fries died in 1965, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2036. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1982, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2052. --Rosenzweig τ 12:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1957, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Actually 1960 per de:Hans Neumann (Werbegrafiker). --Rosenzweig τ 07:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1960, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1964, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1960, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 12:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 1960, still under copyright protection A1Cafel (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 12:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
tiré du jeu Assassin's Creed, copyright Ubisoft Tylwyth Eldar (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MarcellWittenaar94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two of these photos have a watermark "Photo: Claus Dijk", so unlikely to be own work.
- File:Thunder Donar Basketbal Groningen.jpg
- File:Thunder Mascotte Donar Groningen.jpg
- File:Thunder Donar Basketbal.jpg
- File:ThunderDonar.jpg
Didym (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete copyright violation is grounds for speedy deletion right? -- Spinal83 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
character of Attack on Titan, illustration by Hajime Isayama, copyrighted (link : https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Ymir_Fritz/Image_Gallery) Tylwyth Eldar (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
was uploaded to vandalize the English Jens Stoltenberg article Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- this is the diff of the edit at the Jens Stoltenberg articleParadise Chronicle (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Even if we COM:AGF on that edit, it’s still COM:CSD#F10; no other global contributions. Brianjd (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Image rights are owned by Getty Images, see here. Aoi (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to nominate this for speedy deletion, but I apparently clicked the wrong link. Note I tagged a derivative of this file, File:King_Charles_III,_(cropped).jpg, for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience, Aoi (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Delete Blatant copyright violation. Previously deleted. DrKay (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of COM:SCOPE. — Haseeb (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 11:48, 1 November 2022 UTC: No license since 24 October 2022 --Krdbot 14:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 11:29, 1 November 2022 UTC: No license since 23 October 2022 --Krdbot 14:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 11:29, 1 November 2022 UTC: No license since 23 October 2022 --Krdbot 14:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd at 11:35, 1 November 2022 UTC: No license since 23 October 2022 --Krdbot 14:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
https://www.pexels.com/photo/the-la-trobe-reading-room-at-state-library-of-victoria-in-melbourne-australia-6114582/ is from December 2020, too late for the {{Pexels-Cc-zero}} cutoff. Belbury (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Emilija ruk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: both files already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient commentary for use of copyrighted image on multiple language WPs. Initially found on EN WP being used as unsourced speculation regarding her dress being a hint toward the name of a song on her new album which she announced the same night, but without any coverage backing up that claim it felt too much like Fancruft to keep so I removed it. Appears to serve the same purpose in other usages but without the same claim of a hint. Otherwise it's just another photo of Taylor not serving any purpose but showing her in a nice sparkly dress, and that reads like a copyright violation risk to me. QuietHere (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- May also apply to File:Taylor_Swift_(2022_VMAs)_(cropped).png which was only used as part of a infobox image talk page discussion regarding infobox images. Not sure if talk page usage constitutes a copyright violation but at least worth noting. QuietHere (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @QuietHere Specific uses may or may not be covered by fair use, but Commons policy requires all media to be freely licensed (meaning that all uses are allowed). Brianjd (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a plain copyright violation, irrespective of usage. Can see no sign on the YouTube source that the Access Hollywood source video was ever published as CC-Attribution. Belbury (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Belbury. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
personal artwork, no educational use Joschi71 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Appears to be nondescript somewhat manipulated image of some water, does nothing to illustrate the category it is placed in; no reason why it should have been copied from Flickr evident, OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For all the product photos from here on down, my question is: are they useful? Because if they are, the fact that they were uploaded as advertisements means that the company is not enforcing its copyright beyond Creative Commons Copyleft, and that we should keep the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I interpret your comment as: If the files were uploaded by advertisements, that implies that they were uploaded by the copyright owners, and therefore the CC licenses are valid. If the licenses are valid and the files are otherwise useful, we should keep them.
- But that leaves the standard question: Were these files really uploaded by the copyright owners? It is always important to keep that question in mind, especially when stating a general principle to apply across many DRs.
- Using this file as an example, I see no clear indication that the file was uploaded as an advertisement, that it is an advertisement, or that the uploader is the copyright owner. Brianjd (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- All valid points. At some point, we have to decide that we have enough assurance to not hide files. Whether this is that point or not is not really for me to judge, but all your points are relevant to consider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek But I see no assurance at all. To me, this is indistinguishable from other files that would be deleted under COM:PACKAGING. Brianjd (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But it isn't if the company has agreed to make a picture of packaging available under an acceptable license, which is really the point of this discussion, I think. I accept that there are questions about whether that has really happened, but if it has, we can use the photo. Ipistissaurabh, if you are possibly receiving pings from this site in spite of not having contributed since 2019, please clarify your relationship to the company and assure us that you have the right and intention to enable the use of this image under a Creative Commons license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I’m inclined to say that the quality and variety of this packaging puts the image in scope regardless of the brand’s notability; yes, if the company has indeed made it available under an acceptable license, we can and should use it!
- But, in the absence of further evidence, I have little confidence this is what actually happened. Brianjd (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Right, and Commons has to be careful what it assumes. I understand that, much as it's a nuisance. If Commons ever decided to stop permitting commercial use of the photos they hosted or created a new category of photos with big, red warnings that anyone who uses it for commercial purposes does so at their own risk, they'd be able to host loads more photos, but I guess that goes against Jimbo Wales' concept of freely usable information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I don’t know why you single out Jimbo Wales here. Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses has a cartoon explaining why non-commercial licenses are bad, which I happen to agree with. But this is getting off-topic. Brianjd (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll have a look, but I mentioned him because he is ultimately the person in charge of Wikimedia, and I think what I said was accurate. I'm slightly surprised by your reaction: did you think I was attacking him? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Not really an attack, but an implication that Jimbo Wales was the one who pushed this onto us, which I don’t think is true at all. I think that the Commons community stands behind the non-commercial prohibition and, if they didn’t, we’d be hearing a lot more about it.
- I don’t know exactly what role Jimbo Wales plays now, but I was under the impression that he was supposed to have taken a step back, and pretty much left it up to the community, the paid staff, or the board, as appropriate. Brianjd (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- But he was the one that set the tone. Anyway... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'll have a look, but I mentioned him because he is ultimately the person in charge of Wikimedia, and I think what I said was accurate. I'm slightly surprised by your reaction: did you think I was attacking him? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Right, and Commons has to be careful what it assumes. I understand that, much as it's a nuisance. If Commons ever decided to stop permitting commercial use of the photos they hosted or created a new category of photos with big, red warnings that anyone who uses it for commercial purposes does so at their own risk, they'd be able to host loads more photos, but I guess that goes against Jimbo Wales' concept of freely usable information. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But it isn't if the company has agreed to make a picture of packaging available under an acceptable license, which is really the point of this discussion, I think. I accept that there are questions about whether that has really happened, but if it has, we can use the photo. Ipistissaurabh, if you are possibly receiving pings from this site in spite of not having contributed since 2019, please clarify your relationship to the company and assure us that you have the right and intention to enable the use of this image under a Creative Commons license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- All valid points. At some point, we have to decide that we have enough assurance to not hide files. Whether this is that point or not is not really for me to judge, but all your points are relevant to consider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:53, 4 November 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) 04:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 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) 04:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 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) 04:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
not notable artist. Entry in Wikidata is deleted. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a low-quality unused personal photo, F10. Belbury (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative, no author's permission. Xunks (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative, COM:PACKAGING. Xunks (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative, COM:PACKAGING. Xunks (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative, COM:PACKAGING. Xunks (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:Tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-ol-2D-skeletal.svg as high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's pretty dark, but it might have some value if the model of vehicle and/or the body of water were identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its pretty obvious that the creator uploaded their entire Newfoundland holiday album onto Flickr and they were all then transferred over to Commons. Most have some educational value, while some like this are just garbage with no educational value whatsoever. An unidentified vehicle and an unidentified body of water, just pointless. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed on your first sentence. Also agreed on the rest if no-one can identify either the model of vehicle or the body of water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can anyone read the sign on the right? Brianjd (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The second line says "NEW HOURS OF OPERATION," but I'm having trouble making out the 1st line, which might be more helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly "4 ALL SEASONS GIFTS", which has one Newfoundland google result as a gift shop in Placentia. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep That venue is on Jerseyside Hill, on the east side, north of Whelan Place, between Whelan Place and Battery Road. Google Street View confirms the location and appears to indicate that the photo was taken from Philips Café on the other side of the road. Brianjd (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly "4 ALL SEASONS GIFTS", which has one Newfoundland google result as a gift shop in Placentia. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Impressive sleuthing! So it's probably worth keeping this photo and editing the file description and filename suitably, but if anyone wanted to improve its quality and brighten it, that would also be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've fixed the white balance. Belbury (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yay! Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Impressive sleuthing! So it's probably worth keeping this photo and editing the file description and filename suitably, but if anyone wanted to improve its quality and brighten it, that would also be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The second line says "NEW HOURS OF OPERATION," but I'm having trouble making out the 1st line, which might be more helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed on your first sentence. Also agreed on the rest if no-one can identify either the model of vehicle or the body of water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, although I see no value in this terrible composition (neither useful for the lake, nor the car). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly a walkway outside some apartments, possibly in Denmark. Not a great angle, but illustrates a style of architecture. Belbury (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- How do you know they're apartments? What style of architecture does it depict? Mztourist (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a photo of some storage space, I have added the obvious category Category:Storage spaces (building interiors). Belbury (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: marginally useful for Category:Storage spaces (building interiors). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no useful description, location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, seems useful in a stock photo kind of way for showing a person working on a computer at night. Belbury (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Many of us can relate to this. I sure can. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Belbury. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as no location or valid categories, low quality and so not educationally useful Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I believe this is a photo of a shower, and the pre-existing category puts it in Ontario. Quality and resolution both seem okay. Belbury (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed. Maybe not the flashiest subject, but in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, although marginally useful, many better alternatives available. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:06, 4 November 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) 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, high quality photo of a guy posing with some keyboards. Belbury (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it would be more useful if someone could identify any of the models. I'll bet someone could. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Clearly personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:01, 4 November 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) 06:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 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) 06:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 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) 06:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 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) 06:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 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) 06:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not a notable person, but a nice portrait, so I'd keep it but won't argue strongly for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of this image and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original overwrite this FB-derived image, if the image is truly self-photographed work of the uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @A1Cafel. The image you see on the obituary poster is one of a man whose burial happened on the day we went for the photowalk. He happens to be a notable personality who has no article written about him, but his son, Andrew Jonathan Nok does. We thought we could relate the image with this article on Wikipedia for the purpose of identification of subject, and not for any advertisement which never came to my mind or that of any of my co-participants until this very moment. I do not object to the deletion of the item, neither do I assent to it. Please use your sense of judgement to decide on what should be done. Regards. Kambai Akau (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kambai Akau This isn’t question of whether the file is useful. It’s a question of whether the file is legal.
- The poster is likely copyrighted. If you take a photo of something copyrighted, you are usually infringing on their copyright. Sometimes, there is an exception called FoP (Freedom of Panorama). But FoP usually doesn’t apply to items that are only displayed temporarily. Brianjd (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd -- Okay, I understand. Nevertheless, I assure you, it is not copyrighted. I am absolutely sure about that. Regards.Kambai Akau (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kambai Akau Nigeria, like most countries, is a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which basically says that everything is automatically copyrighted. Why do you think this poster is not copyrighted? Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd -- I know it is not copyrighted, firstly, because very little number of people know anything about copyrighting items. Not an item like a mere burial poster that anyone can post by the road side, even though such are prohibited as they litter the environment. That is in the urban areas. In the less urban areas, not many care about paper posters littering the environment. Secondly, the artist gets his/her pay for designing the item, and that ends the contract with his/her contractor. It thereafter becomes a public property. That is how things operate in the Nigeria that I am conversant with. Regards. Kambai Akau (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kambai Akau This doesn’t address my comment.
- Also, according to your reply, things work very differently in Nigeria compared to the US. Commons is based in the US, so Commons volunteers should, if anything, be familiar with US law; if there was some big difference in Nigeria, it should be mentioned at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria. No such difference is mentioned there. Brianjd (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd -- We learn daily. Thanks for sharing that. Please do what is needful. Regards. Kambai Akau (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd -- I know it is not copyrighted, firstly, because very little number of people know anything about copyrighting items. Not an item like a mere burial poster that anyone can post by the road side, even though such are prohibited as they litter the environment. That is in the urban areas. In the less urban areas, not many care about paper posters littering the environment. Secondly, the artist gets his/her pay for designing the item, and that ends the contract with his/her contractor. It thereafter becomes a public property. That is how things operate in the Nigeria that I am conversant with. Regards. Kambai Akau (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Kambai Akau Nigeria, like most countries, is a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which basically says that everything is automatically copyrighted. Why do you think this poster is not copyrighted? Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd -- Okay, I understand. Nevertheless, I assure you, it is not copyrighted. I am absolutely sure about that. Regards.Kambai Akau (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. COM:FOP Nigeria confirms that, although Nigeria does have FoP, it applies only to permanent woks. Brianjd (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW, needs permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by মোঃ আবু জাফর সাদিক (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that seem to fall outside the scope of this project. Commons is not a web hosting platform
Herby talk thyme 07:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishwanath2008 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images without EXIF data, very unlikely to be own works, no source, no evidence of a free license.
- File:Siva Singha coin citing Queen Ambika.png
- File:Coin of Phuleswari and Siva Singha.png
- File:Gaurisagar, Devi dol.png
- File:1 rupee Rajmohuri of Rajeswar Singha.png
- File:Gayan Bayan of Auniati Satra, Majuli..png
- File:A scene of Kouravs from Bhoana.png
Yann (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of this image and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original overwrite this FB-derived image, if the image is truly self-photographed work of the uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ariel L. Pena (talk · contribs)
[edit]The uploader claims to be a radio broadcaster, and the subject of the photos is him. Unless there is a proof that he acquired copyright from photographers who took these photos, he cannot license "his photos" since he is not the photographers. Needs COM:VRTS correspondence of licensing permissions from the photographers or their heirs (if they are already deceased).
Also may lean to out of COM:SCOPE as these are unused in any Wikimedia website (Wikipedia, WikiNews et cetera).
- File:Early '80's at DZEL.jpg
- File:Radio Broadcaster.jpg
- File:RADIO BROADCASTER.jpg
- File:Early "80's in broadcasting.jpg
- File:Me with broadcasters Rey Langit,Jet Claveria and Stanley Jalbuena..jpg
- File:1999 picture.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
copyvio, claimed by "HBO" according to this article in The Guardian bdijkstra (overleg) 08:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused text-only table George Chernilevsky talk 08:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused logo of non-notable club, promotional SPAM George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused private photo of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused private photo of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope as self-created artwork without obvious educational use Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused artwork / text George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused promotional artwork George Chernilevsky talk 09:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused promotional SPAM George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused promo image George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused promotional images
George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:OOS Unused logo of an unknown company Frodar (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect title, need to change it Joelean Hall (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just request a name change, or tell us what name you want. No need to nominate it for deletion on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Urheber ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Educational value is not shown. The fact that 674 people can sit in the room can simply be written in article. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Two-dimensional graphic work from w:en:Lucban, but there is no freedom of panorama here. The artwork is unlikely made by artists who died more than 50 years ago. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused file, no realistic educational value. It seems to be a screen shot of US government website search engine so stated Source, Licence and Author seems unlikely. Headlock0225 (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This SVG flag of Heide is missing the logo on its center/ or does not match the flag at [7] and [8] Alexphangia Talk 11:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This SVG flag contains errors. Alexphangia Talk 11:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep You could have requested Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop to fix the flag instead of marking it for deletion. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Doc Taxon: Please fix this flag. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Flagvisioner: Please fix this flag. Alexphangia Talk 11:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is best to cancel the deletion request because that fix should be requested at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Seriously, why delete something that can be fixed? Flagvisioner (talk) (contribs)
20:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. Images that are in use cannot be deleted because of matters of inaccuracy, to my knowledge, but please do fix it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I've auto-vectorized this flag from a raster image, because I'm actually bad at vectorizing images. Alexphangia Talk 17:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please keep this file because I'm going to make it better. But be patient, this is not very easy. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 04:59, 28. Oct 2022 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Retired user1980 as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author. Too late and in use for G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain what the above means more explicitly? I don't understand the deletion rationale. –Jacobolus (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Jacobolus Of course. The file was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD G7, which requires that a file that the author requests deletion of be unused and uploaded less than 7 days ago. When reviewing files for speedy deletion, I noticed that this file is older than that and in use, so per the criteria, I'm filing a deletion request instead. I have no position on whether the file should be deleted; this is a procedural nomination only. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. It seems the author blanked out most of the information page about the image. It’s not entirely clear what their motive is. @Retired user1980 can you comment? This image should probably not be deleted without a clear reason. –Jacobolus (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Jacobolus Of course. The file was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD G7, which requires that a file that the author requests deletion of be unused and uploaded less than 7 days ago. When reviewing files for speedy deletion, I noticed that this file is older than that and in use, so per the criteria, I'm filing a deletion request instead. I have no position on whether the file should be deleted; this is a procedural nomination only. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Uploaded in 2018; used on six other projects (including at en:Subtractive color and simple:Colour; there seems to be nothing sensitive about it. No reason at all to delete. Brianjd (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Brianjd. No longer qualifies for courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that I must immediately open a new DR for this widely-used file (in addition to the uses noted in the previous DR, it is used at bn:চিত্রাঙ্কন, et:Sekundaarvärvus, et:Tertsiaalvärvus, tr:Çıkarmalı renk and wikidata:Q14564445).
The previous DR noted that the author uploader blanked out most of the description. While trying to repair it, I discovered that the attribution is a mess, with numerous contradictory changes over the years. I intend to write a comment below with more details, but in short, the same image appears at https://web.archive.org/web/20210622143710/https://pigmentcolours.wordpress.com/ with no indication of a free license.
Unless this file is below the threshold of originality (and I don’t even know which country’s threshold to judge it against), or we can demonstrate that the uploader is the blog owner, it looks like it needs to be deleted.
Pinging @Jacobolus as a participant in the previous DR. Pinging @P199 as closing admin. Brianjd (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed that the blog ‘post’ is dated 5 February 2019, after the upload here. Perhaps they are the ones violating copyright here. But given the bizarre attribution history of this file, I am still not sure whether I trust it. Brianjd (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Another relevant archive is https://web.archive.org/web/20181008131232/https://pigment-colours.com/. It’s dated 27 July 2018 (before the upload here) and is a subset of the archive mentioned above, with the same image and substantially the same description.
- The original file description (24 September 2018, 13:11:16) claims that the file is the uploader’s own work (via {{Own}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}), but credits the author Pigment colours. Then, over multiple edits leading to 20 October 2018, 15:34:27, the uploader added a description matching the one in the archives, with a link to pigment-colours.com.
- More to come. Brianjd (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are on the wrong track. Regarding the original description, the author's name is merely the filename. Since this is the first upload by this user, it is much more likely that this user got that mixed up. So in effect, only to distinct "people" are credited: Retired_user1980 and Ketan_naik1980 - which are the same: user:Ketan_naik1980 was renamed to User:Retired_user1980! But... their second upload is a duplicate of this one! And they didn't nominate that one. Just delete and redirect to File:Color Classification.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- @P199 Yes, I was starting to work that out too. But I still don’t understand what to do about the image appearing in the pigment-colours.com archive dated before the upload here. Do we simply accept that the uploader is also the blog owner? Brianjd (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have copied the information from this file to Color Classification.jpg. That leaves Pigment Colours - Classification-CORRECTED.jpg, which was uploaded by a supposedly-different user but actually has some colour names changed. (The uploader of the nominated file incorrectly claimed to have changed the colour names at 12 October 2022, 05:38:18.) Brianjd (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are on the wrong track. Regarding the original description, the author's name is merely the filename. Since this is the first upload by this user, it is much more likely that this user got that mixed up. So in effect, only to distinct "people" are credited: Retired_user1980 and Ketan_naik1980 - which are the same: user:Ketan_naik1980 was renamed to User:Retired_user1980! But... their second upload is a duplicate of this one! And they didn't nominate that one. Just delete and redirect to File:Color Classification.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) On 29 November 2018, the uploader changed the author line to Ketan naik1980. This made no sense, until I realised that the uploader used to be known by that name. Then, at 13 September 2019, 05:45:12, the uploader changed the link to pigmentcolours.wordpress.com.
- Over multiple edits leading to 12 October 2022, 07:28:19, the uploader broke the existing {{Information}} template and added a new one, giving the date of the work as 24 September 2013(!). At 25 October 2022, 11:30:09, they removed this apparent nonsense. Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright infringment, far above the threshold of originality, even for italian standards --Vale93b (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Better version: File:Groundnut 1.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright infringement: the Louvre website does not authorize copies under this licence. Zunkir (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright infringement: the Louvre website does not authorize copies under this licence. Zunkir (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
These are only hidden flags of various countries, but there are no embassies found in that image, so that's out of scope, and also because embassies are inside this building Allo002 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is how embassies look like sometimes. Such examples also should be on Commons. Niegodzisie (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The reasons given in the nomination are not valid: a poor filename or description is not a reason to delete an otherwise in-scope image. The images are not good depictions of the building or the flags, but I see no better images on Commons. Brianjd (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
These are only hidden flags of various countries, but there are no embassies found in that image, so that's out of scope, and also because embassies are inside this building Allo002 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is how embassies look like sometimes. Such examples also should be on Commons. Niegodzisie (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Embassies in Zagreb 20220525 130614.jpg. Brianjd (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Better to identify the building and put it in Category:Buildings in Zagreb. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Single upload, unidentified map, not in use. Smooth O (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted museum sign. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
not his work ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Duplicated version of this file. It is not a complex logo so this is not a copyvio but high quality image is placed in Commons, so we do not need this file. Kadı Message 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused file, no realistic educational value. It seems to be a screen shot of Google search page so stated Source, Licence and Author seems unlikely Headlock0225 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content. Raw text better hosted elsewhere Headlock0225 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
These appear to be fictional election maps. Delete as out of scope.
Eureka Lott 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The image texture suggests that the picture was taken from the TV screen. 188.123.231.41 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- An unsubstantiated statement. My job, I've known Sabzh's daughter for many years.Kolchak1923 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. DW, likely picture of picture. Missing permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Flag_of_Auckland.svg, unused gif. Lemonaka (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Filmi "Lurich" operaator-lavastaja Arvo Iho.jpg have a copyright problem, i dont have rights for the picture. Apiiroja (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Not own work ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Outside of COM:SCOPE. Personal essay on the topic of what art means to me; uploader has no other contributions. If this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The image source given does not state that the file is free to use, and it appears to have originally come from a local radio station: https://www.facebook.com/radiobandnewsfm/photos/a.245524728892111/1158652970912611/ Madfly2 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, experiments, nonsensical file name, nonsensical description Gampe (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- The image depicts some type of (school?) furniture or construction. That can be in scope. Invalid file name and description is not a valid reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE image, can be replaced by many alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete I could not find any other images that depict a naturist child facing towards the viewer and away from a group of naturist adults, like this image does. But it is low quality (resolution 718 × 386). Brianjd (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can upload another similar, higher quality one and have this one be deleted Formermanas (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Formermanas That would be great. But I now realise there is a bigger problem. This is a low resolution image with no metadata, and your other images have the same problem. That makes us suspect that you copied them from somewhere else. Can you explain how you took these images, or upload higher quality images with metadata? Brianjd (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- When uploading it said, "Personal data EXIF metadata in this file may contain location or other personal data automatically added by your camera. Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata.", so was using pictures that I had screenshots of, which was why there was no metadata Formermanas (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Formermanas Of course, that explains why your uploads are PNG files (which I should have noticed earlier).
- Taking screenshots simply makes it more difficult to verify the provenance of your uploads and, if not done carefully, lowers their quality. I assume the statement Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata is a link to more information; have you tried reading it? Most EXIF data is not a privacy threat (unless you also upload images that you don’t want to be associated with you), and it is often useful. Brianjd (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- So the ones that have been uploaded already should be deleted and I will make sure new ones should have more metadata? Formermanas (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Formermanas Your explanation seems plausible, so I am reluctant to give an opinion. I still think this image should be deleted because it is such low quality. Definitely make sure your new uploads have camera metadata, at least. Brianjd (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do not care too much if they are Formermanas (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Formermanas Your explanation seems plausible, so I am reluctant to give an opinion. I still think this image should be deleted because it is such low quality. Definitely make sure your new uploads have camera metadata, at least. Brianjd (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- So the ones that have been uploaded already should be deleted and I will make sure new ones should have more metadata? Formermanas (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- When uploading it said, "Personal data EXIF metadata in this file may contain location or other personal data automatically added by your camera. Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata.", so was using pictures that I had screenshots of, which was why there was no metadata Formermanas (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Formermanas That would be great. But I now realise there is a bigger problem. This is a low resolution image with no metadata, and your other images have the same problem. That makes us suspect that you copied them from somewhere else. Can you explain how you took these images, or upload higher quality images with metadata? Brianjd (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Image taken from self-recorded video, published on YouTube by an uninvolved party. Copyright still belongs to the original photographer (the subject). – Rhain ☔ 17:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, yes the copyright for Cameo videos remains with the person who recorded it, not the person who purchased it.
- Madfly2 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Test365466tex (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality, unused COM:NUDE photo, user's only uploads, no educational value.
A1Cafel (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-woman-listening-to-music-8588564/ is from July 2021, too late for the {{Pexels-Cc-zero}} cutoff. Belbury (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Second batch of photos from top, second image at https://riamo.ru/article/583267/andrej-vorobev-otmetil-vazhnost-stadiona-dmitriya-alenicheva-dlya-zhitelej-mytisch-xl Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kensico Dam
[edit]The sculpture is copyrighted. These images infringe on the copyright and cannot be kept without a license from the sculptor.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Unable to verify license at site provided . Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Book covers are not own work, no clue on actual creator or date Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Facebook source, no permission from Anatoly Kravchenko, unlikely free of copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Newspaper clipping, dated to 2022, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, appears to be an historical image, yet uploader claims 2022 and own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Manuscript letter, no source, not own work - no one has written like that for many years. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete And too small to be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Newspaper clippings are not own work of the uploader, this one is claimed to date from 2022 Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Small size, low quality, historic home bears no resemblance to current google photos. Suggest this is an historical image, copied and claimed as own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused poor quality photo of a tombstone. Commons is not a family history site, suggest this is out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Every tombstone is unique, and contains valuable information. That is like saying we have too many books, because we are not a library. --RAN (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz Thanks to the other commentator here, the file entered into use at wikidata:Q114861275 shortly before your nomination. Brianjd (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use. Brianjd (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not own work: small crop from unknown source. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SweetBerry0926 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Band Posters are not own work.
- File:Monsta X No Limit U.S. Tour.jpg
- File:Monsta X No Limit Seoul Tour.jpg
- File:Monsta X Official Movie Poster.jpg
- File:The First Live "X-Clan Origins" Poster.jpg
- File:Live From Seoul With Luv Poster.jpg
- File:We Are Here World Tour (2019) Poster.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Probably a derivative work File:Лого 5 (темно синий вариант) Википедии на Новый Год.png. Created with license violations. Probably only the author can fix it Артём 13327 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and unusable, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian- Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 18:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment 562K followers on Instagram. Does that mean anything here? I think it doesn't, but I don't really understand why. Also 11.1M views on TikTok and this article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Is this the same Adnan Alqaq who seems to have an undisclosed COI at enwiki? Also note their upload of Ffaalogo.jpg, which I am about to nominate for deletion as well. Brianjd (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be really on top of these things. There's no reason for me to question your point, but does that mean the picture of someone with that big a following is out of scope? As for the logo of that school, it's quite beautiful and could be kept on that basis if it is indeed being made available with an acceptable license, but I don't think I've ever seen a decision to keep a logo simply as a really beautiful example of what a logo can be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I’m just really good at pretending I’m on top of things. ;) Seriously, it’s quality over quantity: look at how how few contributions I make for the time I spend here.
- Now, I’m too tired to keep pretending I’m on top of things, so I’m going to log off. Brianjd (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Have a good rest. Until later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek My previous comment contains a serious question: I’m not sure if they are the same person. Although perhaps that is not relevant.
- As for your question about social media following, I’ll just repeat my comment from elsewhere that we need more guidance as to what counts as ‘notable’. Brianjd (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- We really do. Maybe I should start a discussion about that somewhere. It seems to me, no allowances whatsoever are made for social media followings on this site, which is strange because this is an online repository of images! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to be really on top of these things. There's no reason for me to question your point, but does that mean the picture of someone with that big a following is out of scope? As for the logo of that school, it's quite beautiful and could be kept on that basis if it is indeed being made available with an acceptable license, but I don't think I've ever seen a decision to keep a logo simply as a really beautiful example of what a logo can be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Same photo shared here on 22 February 2022. Also, I think followers "numbers" mean nothing, as rate of interaction on previous account around 3.5%, so fake followers?! --Alaa :)..! 19:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: almost certainly not own work, DW/crop from unknown source. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The YouTube page specifically says "Fair Use Copyright Disclaimer". We can't use Fair Use files, only truly free ones. GRuban (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources listed mention nothing about the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, on the contrary some claim "All rights reserved / ©" and "offical representative photo" means very little.
- File:Official portrait of His Eminence Antoine Cardinal Kambanda.jpg
- File:P. Jan Josef Budil, OSA.jpg
- File:R.D. Jiří Kusý, O.Melit.jpg
- File:Portrait of Radslav Kinský, GCLJ-J.jpg
- File:Opat Anastáz Opasek.png
- File:László cardinal Paskai - portrait.jpg
- File:HRH Prince Charles Philippe d'Orleans.jpg
TFerenczy (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
unused poor quality image Ske (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
very low resolution better File:LeopoldIIILisiewsky.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Watermarked to Rouse, no evidence of permission from that organisation. A wider version of File:Rouse Event Highlights.jpg appears at https://www.theafricancourier.de/news/world-news/former-cnn-anchors-zain-verjee-and-isha-sesay-launch-new-venture-for-african-women/ without the watermark, credited to "Photo: AMA"
Belbury (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Tiny size, no EXIF Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucasgorelick (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT
- File:Lucas Gorelick stands in front of United States Capitol protesting for common sense gun laws.jpg
- File:Lucas Gorelick.jpg
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
out of project scope. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for now, used in not-yet reviewed draft on en:w. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation The draft, en:Draft:Torikatelyn, has been declined due to a lack of secondary sources. But, regardless of what happens to the draft, I think that this is in scope for the fashion alone. Also, the quality is excellent, at least compared to the images I normally see in DRs.
- The bigger problem is copyright. The EXIF data says the copyright holder and author is ‘Teddy Wilson’. Who’s that? Brianjd (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work: "Copyright holder Teddy Wilson.". --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
we have enough pics ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Modern primat Keep Seems like reasonable quality, and the dark areas around the top are unlike other vulvas I have seen. Brianjd (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Yeah, it's a pretty good image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per others Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, can be replaced by many alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Delete I like the subject: visible face and (unusually?) small penis. But it is low quality (resolution 645 × 907). And, most importantly, the low resolution and lack of metadata suggest a copyright violation. Brianjd (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Not Educationally Useful / Redundant Bakertaylor28 (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Kept due to the vandalistic nature of the nominations in bulk. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Description said the subject was only 16 years old, which indicated child pornography A1Cafel (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Scope - Not Educationally Useful / Redundant Bakertaylor28 (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Kept due to the vandalistic nature of the nominations in bulk. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Description said the subject was only 16 years old, which indicated child pornography A1Cafel (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Navotas City Hall
[edit]Unfree architectural work. Per the description caption of this Flickr photo, the building was completed in 2003 as a replacement to an earlier building destroyed by fire. There is no freedom of panorama; and needs commercial license from the architecture designer.
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 01.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 02.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 04.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 05.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 06.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 07.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 08.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 10.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 11.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 12.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 13.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 14.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 15.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 16.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 17.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 18.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 19.JPG
- File:JfNavotasCityHallAlmacenRoadsMetroManilafvf 20.JPG
- File:Navotas Landmarks Barangays 05.jpg
- File:Navotas Landmarks Barangays 12.jpg
- File:Navotas Landmarks Barangays 13.jpg
- File:Navotas Landmarks Barangays 14.jpg
- File:Navotas Landmarks Barangays 15.jpg
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 09.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 16.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 17.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 18.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 19.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 20.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 21.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 22.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 23.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 24.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0168 25.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 01.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 02.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 03.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 04.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 05.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 06.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 07.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 08.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 09.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 10.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 11.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 12.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 21.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 22.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 24.JPG
- File:NavotasCityjf0230 25.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 02:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
no longer in use Xchris0701 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd keep it as historical if there were no copyright problems, but is there no copyright issue with this image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. --Krd 10:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lemonaka as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: logo of a company, unlikely own work Royalbroil 22:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree with Speedy so I gave a procedural nomination. To me, the logo is pure simple geometric shapes and text, and should be kept per PD-textlogo. Royalbroil 23:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe this issue is just a wrong license, not copyvio. However, this is clearly not own work. Lemonaka (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree that it has the wrong license and should not be considered their own work. Royalbroil 23:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: textlogo. --Krd 10:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't look like own work, small, low quality manufactured object or badge, no source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 12:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, can be replaced by many alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
These are recent sculptures and all of the are copyrighted. The image infringes on that copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfree work of architecture. According to [9], this is a recent addition constructed during the time of Msgr. Leandro Castro. Castro began serving the parish in the 1990s. Thus it is unlikely the architect of this building has been dead for more than 50 years.
- File:Lucenajf7340 15.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 16.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 17.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 18.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 26.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 27.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 35.JPG
- File:Lucenajf7340 36.JPG
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 14:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Seikan Tunnel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused low quality photo.
Lemonaka (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I am not seeing any other image of this particular station exit. While not high quality, it is usable. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 13:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Source has no evidence for CC-BY-SA. Also source provided has black filament but this image has white one, so it may be derivative work.. WindEwriX (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Primero que todo saludos y en segundo lugar yo solo pense en subir una imagen para contextualizar y para mi yo no viole ninguna norma ya que el articulo tiene fuente y solo esta para informar. Gracias y saludos Rodolfo Matias (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 13:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Actually this is a vulva photo. --emk (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Question Vulva is not a kind of nudity? --A1Cafel (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not saying anything about COM:Nudity. emk (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 03:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Keep Decent quality (resolution 2084 × 4624) and states the subject’s age. Brianjd (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is not about quality, but about whether this photo is really useful on Commons. We already had thousands of penis photo, and we don't need more ordinary penis photo. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 03:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
claim of own work almost certainly untrue. Proper public domain copyright status needs to be proven SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-US-not renewed" --RAN (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
přesměrování není potřeba, nic na něj nevede Jindřich Rubeš (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: No need to delete this redirect. File has been uploaded 14 years ago. --Achim55 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped
[edit]Unfortunately, COM:Derivative work of a contemporary work of art, Christo has died in 2020, needs permission by his heirs to host it on Commons.
- File:ARC DE TRIOMPHE PARIS BY CHRISTO.jpg
- File:Arc Triomphe - Paris XVI (FR75) - 2021-09-14 - 1.jpg
- File:Arc Triomphe - Paris XVI (FR75) - 2021-09-14 - 2.jpg
- File:Arc Triomphe - Paris XVI (FR75) - 2021-09-14 - 3.jpg
- File:L' Arc de Triomphe empaqueté J-6 (Paris) (51457860957).jpg
- File:L' Arc de Triomphe empaqueté J-6 (Paris) (51460193645).jpg
- File:L' Arc de Triomphe empaqueté J-6 (Paris) - Flickr - dalbera.jpg
A.Savin 12:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are photos of preparation of the not completely finished artwork, keep them. The day is not the day for the visitors, and L'Arc de Triomphe is in a Public Place with Freedom of Panorama. Deutsch: ich kann das nicht ausreichend präzise auf Englisch ausdrücken, aber diejenigen, welche meine Fotos und auch andere Arbeiten von mir geklaut hatten waren der Auffassung, dass auch grundierte Leinwände die später zum Kunstwerk wurden, Rohmaterial wie Holz oder Bäume bereits Teil des Kunstwerks seien. Selbst Fotos die ich über Jahre in meinen Fototüten oder Kisten hatte, weil da Ausschnitte von Kunstwerken, auch von solchen an denen ich selber beteiligt war (etwa Gemeinschaftsarbeiten) oder gerade entstehende Arbeiten drauf waren wurden mir weggenommen oder auch heimlich geklaut; teilweise waren es auch meine eigenen Kunstwerke, die ich zwischendurch verschenkt hatte oder die verloren gingen weil sie nicht als Kunstwerk erkannt wurden. Wenn hier auf Commons sämtliche Bilder zu diesem Kunstevent, das teilweise als "Geschenk" an Paris, die Nation und die Welt bezeichnet wird - und Geschenke darf man behalten, zumindest in Erinnerung - dann könntet Ihr gleich damit anfangen die Fotos vom Triumphbogen gleich mit zu löschen, da dieser von der Form her ganz sicherlich im Kunstwerk steckt und auch künftig als Bestandteil des Kunstwerks bestehen bleibt. Auch Übermalungen oder Verwischungen von Fotos von dort, oder auch mit schwarzen oder blauen Abdeckungen des Torbogens und auch des fertigen, in der Ferne sichtbaren Kunstwerks von Christo wären dann zu löschen. Und was ist mit Kinderzeichnungen oder die malerischen Arbeiten von Laien, die vom Kunstevent inspiriert sind oder auch nur diesen Eindruch machen? Alles abgeleitete Kunstwerke? Und was ist mit der Aura und der künstlerischen Inspiration die durch dieses monumentale Kunstwerk auf die Stadt ausstrahlt, sind demnach auch alle Fotos von Paris während der Zeit des fertig präsentierten Kunstwerks auch mit beeinflusst und müssen demnach gelöscht werden (die verrückten Leute die mich vor mehreren Jahren nach und nach ausgeraubt haben waren teils dieser Auffassung). Fangt doch schon mal an die Fotos von Steinbrüchen oder restaurierten historischen Gebäuden mit neuer Farbe zu löschen (Zynismus und nicht ernst gemeint!) Wir sollten dem entgegen wirken und zumindest für einige Fotos sogar vom fertigen Kunstwerk die Event- und Kunstmacher um Erlaubnis anfragen! Zumindest die Bauarbeiten am nicht für zahlende Blicke abgesperrten Triumphbogen sollten nicht gelöscht werden. vielleicht sollte jemand mit Graphikerfahrung eines der (fast) fertig verhüllten Triumphbogenbilder in ein älteres Foto von ferne gesehen klein und eventuell mit verschiedenen Pixelzahlen oder verschiedenem Abdeckungsgrad einmontieren. Und wenn es nichts hilft: Auch ein Parlament oder eine Stadtregierung kann eine Erlaubnis erteilen oder ein schlechtes, für die Kunstfreiheit, die Erinnerungskultur und die Rechte von Fotograf*innen miserables Gesetz ändern!--LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment But of course Freedom of Panorama is irrelevant for a temporary installment like this (and by the way, there is no FoP in France anyway), and I cannot imagine any other photos of the Triumphal Arch might be problematic. Regards --A.Savin 12:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped
[edit]Unfortunately, COM:Derivative work of a contemporary work of art, Christo has died in 2020, needs permission by his heirs to host it on Commons. (See also previous discussion.)
- File:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped (Christo).jpg
- File:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped.jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (1).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (10).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (11).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (12).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (13).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (2).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (3).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (4).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (5).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (6).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (7).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (8).jpg
- File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (9).jpg
A.Savin 23:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Christo's work is not in the foreground of photos 2, 3, 4 and 5 (or even 6, 7 and 11) which represent the Place Charles De Gaule as a whole with the Paris car-free day. The request for deletion seems abusive to me. In addition, photos 1 and 13 represent in the foreground is the lamppost of the Place Charles De Gaule which has a Commons category and in any case, it seems to me that these 2 photos should be deleted, the work of Christo not being in the foreground. Ibex73 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- The photos you are refering to, show the wrapped Arch prominently, no matter what is in the foreground. The RfD is by no means abusive. Regards --A.Savin 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- See the French law on works of art, including architectural works, exhibited in public spaces, cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France/fr#%C5%92uvres_d'art,_y_compris_d'architecture,_exposées_dans_des_espaces_publics , While architects may own rights in works derived from their works of art, this does not apply to owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a judgment of May 7, 2004 issued by the Court of Cassation indicated Ibex73 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand this explanation. Either these photos of the Wrapped Arc de Triomphe have to be deleted too, or the previous ones are to be restored, which I doubt. Regards --A.Savin 03:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment -> De minimis/France (english) and following section. @Ibex73: The crowd in File:Place Charles De Gaulle, Paris, septembre 2021 (2).jpg seems to me okay, the green traffic light is an interesting detail for a car-free day, but above of that Green light the Arc de Triomphe is visible in background, is a cut here, dense above of the Green light (a cropped version of photo) a solution? The same with right and left parts of the photo, additional with trees above and sky, but it is the time of art showing event, the wrapped building in the middle is not okay without a permission. I have had asked here (discussion in German language). private photos are allowed to keep, the same maybe "Blacked out"/with blue sky. And a version with many blue birds flying in the park? --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- @A.Savin: I only spoke of the phtoso taken by myself, not knowing the others deleted or proposed to the deletion. The French court decision of the judgment n ° 567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation did not recognize to the producers of works of art installed in a public place of rights on photographs of the whole place. In other words, it is not enough in any case to see a work of art in a French public place for the photo to be banned on commons (cf.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France/fr#%C5%92uvres_d'art,_y_compris_d'architecture,_expos%C3%A9es_dans_des_espaces_publics). This is the reason why I ask you to analyze each of my photos with regard only to French law before deleting them and it seems to me that some respect French law perfectly. Thank you and cordial greetings Ibex73 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- See the French law on works of art, including architectural works, exhibited in public spaces, cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France/fr#%C5%92uvres_d'art,_y_compris_d'architecture,_exposées_dans_des_espaces_publics , While architects may own rights in works derived from their works of art, this does not apply to owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a judgment of May 7, 2004 issued by the Court of Cassation indicated Ibex73 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Krd 06:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --VIGNERON (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped
[edit]The L'Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped was completed in 2021 by Christo Vladimirov Javacheff (1935–2020) and Jeanne-Claude Denat de Guillebon (1935–2009). 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 2091.
- File:Arc de Triomphe emballé par Christo et Jeanne-Claude photo 2.jpg
- File:Arc de Triomphe emballé par Christo et Jeanne-Claude photo 3.jpg
- File:Arc de Triomphe emballé par Christo et Jeanne-Claude.jpg
- File:Arc de Triomphe wrapped.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 04.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 05.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 06.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 08.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 09.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 10.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 11.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 12.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 13.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 14.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 15.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 16.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 17.jpg
- File:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Arc de Triomphe 2021 18.jpg
- File:Hôtel de la Marine - Paris 20210926 182331 (51520270351).jpg
- File:L’Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped , Beginn der Enthüllung.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete See File:Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped, Paris (51549547634).jpg as well, already under a separate DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped, Paris (51549547634).jpg.
- I would support keeping one of these, moved to the relevant Wikipedias, under WP:NFC. Perhaps File:Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped, Paris (51549547634).jpg (original version) as it is currently the masthead at L'Arc de Triomphe.
- These:
- can stay here as de minimis. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, two things: no commercial freedom of panorama in France, and the public artwork is temporal and not meant to be permanent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment Die Fotos müssen natürlich wegen der fehlenden Panoramafreiheit in france in De-Minimis-Streifen zerschnitten werden und einzeln namhaften und auch kleineren Museen weltweit zugesandt werden, zur Begutachtung, Teilhabe und Kulturrettung, einige Bestandteile der Fotos sollten wir jedoch überkleben, die Randaspekte der Pariser Umgebung für die Zeitumstände und die Situation im Strassenbild zur Zeit des Kunstevents für die Wikipedia-Artikel retten, also ohne Kunstwerk im Bild, etwa in File:Arc de Triomphe emballé par Christo et Jeanne-Claude photo 3.jpg den unteren Bildteil mit den Pflastersteinen (die ist ohne Fugenvegetation!) und den Leuten darauf im Hintergrund - natürlich die erkennbaren Markenschuhe mit schwarzen Balken überklebt! (vom Kunstwerk darf nur absolut "De Minimis" der Zwischenraum zwischen den Leuten sein). die hier ins Foto eingeschobene Schleichwerbung geht natürlich gar nicht (!), erhaltenswert hingegen der untere Mittelteil des Fotos mit der Kante des Busses, den wertvollen Pflastersteinen und dem Himmelblauweissgrau, der Rest musss blau unter einer Maskierung verborgen werden. Tschuldige, ich bin nich' so gut in Engelisch, hatte schon mal an einem oder mehreren ähnlichen Events als "Helfer" oder Doofkopp teilgenommen, selbst das Stoffmuster haben mir fiese Leute später geklaut, ... der Kapitalismus ist böse, JungsundMädels. Die geretteten, aufbereiteten Schnipsel können dann in Commons:Contemporary art und ähnlichen Seiten zur Weiterverwendung gezeigt werden, --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The artist died 23 January 1989. His work will not be public domain until 1 January 2060 Coldcreation (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
|
The Colombian copyright law, Law No. 23 of 1982 on Copyright (text in Spanish from the website of Administrative Department of Public Service), provides a freedom of panorama provision:
It shall be permissible to reproduce, through paintings, drawings, photographs or cinematographic films, works that are permanently placed on public roads, streets or squares, and to distribute and communicate to the public such reproductions of the works. With regards to the works of architecture, this provision shall only be applicable to the external appearance.[23/1982–2023 Art 39] This provision regulates the Article 22 of the Decision 351 (concerning copyright) of the Andean Community of Nations, of which Colombia is part of. See COM:CRT/Colombia#Freedom of panorama for more information.
|
Under Colombian and Andean Community law, the picture of Busto retrospectivo de mujer (1933) by Salvador Dalí is covered under FoP-Colombia as it is a photographic reproduction of a work of fine art located within a place open to the public within the Republic of Colombia. (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2022 (EST)
- Freedom of panorama in Colombia: "It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works that are permanently located on public highways, streets or squares, and to distribute such reproductions or works and communicate them to the public." Source: [10]. Museums are not considered places "open to the public", i.e., museums or galleries are not 'public places' in Colombia. Coldcreation (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But the template cited by Anfecaro is mentioned on the same page that you just linked and it says "that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public". Furius (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Works that are permanently located on public highways, streets or squares are in places open to the public. Galleries and museums are not public highways, streets or squares. Coldcreation (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored in 2070 (Colombia has 80 years pma). --Rosenzweig τ 10:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The image description page claims this is under a Creative Commons license. That is obviously incorrect. Some of these individual logos may be insufficiently creative for copyright protection (e.g. the Powerpoint or Word logos). But it's hard to argue that all of them are or that all of them used together don't constitute something copyrightable. B (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think any of these logos are above COM:TOO USA, not single and not together. --Rosenzweig τ 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
no source no permission used for promo on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Per VP discussion, this image is obtained from Flickr and licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. It is different from the one published on the UK Government website A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- We could replace with the (much smaller) one from the UKGov website; that is licensed fine. But that would at least preserve the file. That is a lower-resolution (and crop) of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my argument in this discussion. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Number 10 has since confirmed on their Flickr page that All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/v... and that only Material marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: To be bundled into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg, which has much higher participation. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Per VP discussion, this image is obtained from Flickr and licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. It is different from the one published on the UK Government website A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Hérisson grognon (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my argument in this discussion. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Number 10 has since confirmed on their Flickr page that All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/v... and that only Material marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: To be bundled into Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg, which has much higher participation. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Likely not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing EXIF data, and historical image missing all essential info.
- File:دکتر نورعلی تابنده.jpg
- File:میرزا علی اکبر خان مصورالسلطان.jpg
- File:1970609 664133600317219 1161831503 n - Copy.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 23:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Robertsky as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no release of copyright found on the website. pd-logo may not be applicable due to undeterminable parameters for the overlapping concave shapes.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether logo above (or not) COM:TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I'm no expert, but it looks pretty simple, so I think it's probably below com:too, but I'd like to see other views. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Urheber ist nicht der Fotograf Dirk Lenke (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Handyhalter und Selbstauslöser (über Bluetooth). Somit bin ich Fotograf und Rechteinhaber dieses Bildes, das mich selbst zeigt. UtaMaier (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Mila Olsen, BuchBerlin September 2022.jpg and Mila Olsen, Trier, 2019.jpg have the same issue. So do we believe that she took all three images using a timer? Also note the many copyright warnings on her talk page. Brianjd (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and none of the photos are in use anyway. —howcheng {chat} 23:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- In NZ We now have bilingual school signs and is why I posted those files is to keep it up to date Westburn World (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Not a logo, but a road sign, which puts this in scope, even if it's unused. —howcheng {chat} 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
low res version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noble_Sissle_2.jpg FMSky (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Any decision here should also consider File:Portrait of Noble Sissle LCCN2004663569.jpg
- Looks like it might be a different print, not just a different resolution. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment File:Noble Sissle 2.jpg is the best version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates." jpg is not tif. Vysotsky (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
low res version. 3 high-res versions here:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(17002270968).jpg){kind=link}
_(4497577061).jpg){kind=link}
_(3869688083).jpg){kind=link}
_(4255496089).jpg){kind=link}
_(5436460963).jpg){kind=link}
_(3165725369).jpg){kind=link}
_(27625512665).jpg){kind=link}
_(8500336861).jpg){kind=link}
_(32665792737).jpg){kind=link}
_(32844808313).jpg){kind=link}
_(5431495374).jpg){kind=link}
_(4253973215).jpg){kind=link}
_(3231040977).jpg){kind=link}
_(9115677181).jpg){kind=link}
_(31600940128).jpg){kind=link}
_(4368037745).jpg){kind=link}
_(4411419025).jpg){kind=link}
_(8501445248).jpg){kind=link}
_(25218863145).jpg){kind=link}
_(6840931544).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(25100607672).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}
_Neighborhood_Redlining_Grade_in_San_Antonio,_Texas.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![163 File:Filmi "Lurich" operaator-lavastaja Arvo Iho.jpg](#File:Filmi_"Lurich"_operaator-lavastaja_Arvo_Iho.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dalí.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1941,_MiNr_13_(739).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1941_,_MiNr_788.jpg){kind=link}
_1944,_MiNr_3_(795).jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(17002270968).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17002270968).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(17002270968).jpg){kind=link}
_(17002270968).jpg){kind=link}
_(4497577061).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4497577061).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4497577061).jpg){kind=link}
_(4497577061).jpg){kind=link}
_(3869688083).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3869688083).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3869688083).jpg){kind=link}
_(3869688083).jpg){kind=link}
_(4255496089).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4255496089).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4255496089).jpg){kind=link}
_(4255496089).jpg){kind=link}
_(5436460963).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5436460963).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(5436460963).jpg){kind=link}
_(5436460963).jpg){kind=link}
_(3165725369).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3165725369).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3165725369).jpg){kind=link}
_(3165725369).jpg){kind=link}
_(27625512665).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(27625512665).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(27625512665).jpg){kind=link}
_(27625512665).jpg){kind=link}
_(8500336861).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(8500336861).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(8500336861).jpg){kind=link}
_(8500336861).jpg){kind=link}
_(32665792737).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(32665792737).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(32665792737).jpg){kind=link}
_(32665792737).jpg){kind=link}
_(32844808313).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(32844808313).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(32844808313).jpg){kind=link}
_(32844808313).jpg){kind=link}
_(5431495374).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(5431495374).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(5431495374).jpg){kind=link}
_(5431495374).jpg){kind=link}
_(4253973215).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4253973215).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4253973215).jpg){kind=link}
_(4253973215).jpg){kind=link}
_(3231040977).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3231040977).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3231040977).jpg){kind=link}
_(3231040977).jpg){kind=link}
_(9115677181).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(9115677181).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(9115677181).jpg){kind=link}
_(9115677181).jpg){kind=link}
_(31600940128).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(31600940128).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(31600940128).jpg){kind=link}
_(31600940128).jpg){kind=link}
_(4368037745).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4368037745).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4368037745).jpg){kind=link}
_(4368037745).jpg){kind=link}
_(4411419025).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4411419025).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(4411419025).jpg){kind=link}
_(4411419025).jpg){kind=link}
_(8501445248).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(8501445248).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(8501445248).jpg){kind=link}
_(8501445248).jpg){kind=link}
_(25218863145).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(25218863145).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(25218863145).jpg){kind=link}
_(25218863145).jpg){kind=link}
_(6840931544).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(6840931544).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(6840931544).jpg){kind=link}
_(6840931544).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(25100607672).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(25100607672).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(25100607672).jpg){kind=link}
_(25100607672).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Neighborhood_Redlining_Grade_in_San_Antonio,_Texas.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Neighborhood_Redlining_Grade_in_San_Antonio,_Texas.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/10/25#c-Apiiroja-20221025160800-File:Filmi_"Lurich"_operaator-lavastaja_Arvo_Iho.jpg){kind=link}
![02:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/10/25#c-P199-20221104023600-File:Filmi_"Lurich"_operaator-lavastaja_Arvo_Iho.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B4.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_-_2021-09-14_-_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-09-14_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2021-09-14_-_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(51457860957).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(51460193645).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_dalbera.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(51467901335).jpg){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dal%C3%AD.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dal%C3%AD.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dalí.jpg){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dalí.jpg){kind=link}
_Salvador_Dalí.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
--FMSky (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates." jpg is not tif. Vysotsky (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted sculpture. No FoP in Italy. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: it seems from the description that the artist and photographer are the same. The VRT ticket may have the required permission, but someone of the VRT team needs to check that. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: As the VRT ticket info was added by bot, we should presume that the ticket is valid. Please reopen the request if the license release in the ticket is incorrect. —howcheng {chat} 17:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. COM:PCP applies.
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: please provide proof of copyright violation, as I was unable to find instances of this image via TinEye. —howcheng {chat} 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Lower quality version (PNG, and limited to 2010) of File:Electricity Production in China.svg Borvan53 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Borvan53: The PNG version is in use. Please replace all instances with the SVG version. After you do so, ping me and I'll delete it (CommonsDelinker won't replace non-SVG files with SVG ones). Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng:
Done It is done ! Borvan53 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng:
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 18:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Norway
[edit]Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:NK934 norwegian stamp vigeland abel.jpg.
- File:NK1387 vigeland sinnataggen norwegian stamp.jpg
- File:Feltpost0020.jpg
- File:NK1050 norwegian stamp Christian IV.jpg
- File:NK1117 norwegian stamp vigeland.jpg
- File:NK1388 norwegian stamp christian iv statue.jpg
- File:NK884 norwegian stamp folk art kristen aanstad.jpg
- File:NK885 norwegian stamp folk art olav hansson.jpg
- File:NK918 werenskiold bjørnson.jpg
- File:NK951 Hansteen norwegian stamp.jpg
- File:NK958 holberg norwegian stamp.jpg
- File:NK972 norwegian stamp vigeland.jpg
- File:NK973 norwegian stamp vigeland.jpg
4ing (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Keep File:Feltpost0020.jpg because it is a photo of the postmarks. If the Postage stamps are believed not to be de minimis the file can be cropped.
- What about files like File:NK958 holberg norwegian stamp.jpg are they not just using a PD-old work on the stamp (like File:Ludvig Holberg 63 years of age.jpg)? --MGA73 (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The artistic engraving is definitely not PD-old. - 4ing (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- To me the stamp looks like a DW of the work from 1747. --MGA73 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- The artistic engraving is definitely not PD-old. - 4ing (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep These 10 pictures can not be handled together under one decision, as different raisons apply:
1: Keep File:Feltpost0020.jpg, as metioned above.
2: Keep NK1117, as this is merely a non-artistic photography of PD art. The frame and letters added by Posten Norge are not of a nature sufficient to establish copyright, as in Template:PD-textlogo.
3: Keep NK884, NK885, NK918, NK972, NK973 as these are covered by Template:PD-Art. The frame, letters and additional colour added by Posten Norge are not of a nature sufficient to establish copyright.
4: For the remaining objects (NK1387, NK1050, NK1388, NK951, NK958) where there are layers of newer artwork added to older art, there are several questions to be solved. The discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:NK934 norwegian stamp vigeland abel.jpg was not a good one when it comes to clarifying, and is not a good starting point for precedence about whether Template:PD-NorwayGov applies to norwegian stamps. I atill believe that this template applies, but will accept that it might not. If not; should we then delete all norwegian stamps from all ages? Or should we specify between those with artwork and those without? Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding NK1117, non-artistic photographs has 50 years protection from the year of the photograher's death. 4ing (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Allow me: Template:PD-Norway50 says «50 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years have passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown.», but I accept that this doesn't help neither. Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- But then again. We have solid precedence that faithful reproductions of art does not establish copyright. E.g.: Nasjonalmuseet's photographers Høstland/Jarre are not credited for photographing this work of art. Bw Morten Haugen (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right regarding the 50 years' rule. In addition comes the URAA clause that it was in the public domain on the 1st of January 1996. - 4ing (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding URAA: Per Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA we do not delete photos if only reason to delete is URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the faithful reproductions of art, this is limited to "public domain, two-dimensional work of art". This art is not two-dimensional, and the photograph alo shows more than the work of art. - 4ing (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: kept those that were basically derivatives of PD graphics and paintings with some added letters and numbers, cropped the Feltpost file to show just the postmarks, and deleted the rest. Even if those also showed PD works (by Gustav Vigeland and others), they used apparently recent photos of 3D works, so PD-Art does not apply. As in the previous DR: Neither Commons:Stamps nor Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Norway says anything about Norwegian stamps. I don't see these stamps as documents per {{PD-NorwayGov}}, and if they were created for a document, artwork is still not covered by the PD exemption. No evidence to the contrary, like a court decision saying otherwise, was presented. --Rosenzweig τ 00:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel Keep Seriously? You think this high resolution (3000 × 3000), well-described (including the penis length), not-that-new (uploaded more than a year ago) image needs to be deleted? Brianjd (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is not about quality, but about whether this photo is really useful on Commons. We already had thousands of penis photo, and we don't need more ordinary penis photo. Even though for the cat you mentioned, we still had 30+ images, and I don't think delete this will cause a huge harm to the cat. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons talk:Nudity#Considering quality in deletion requests. Brianjd (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Simply high resolution cannot be regarded as "high quality". --A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- See Commons talk:Nudity#Considering quality in deletion requests. Brianjd (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is not about quality, but about whether this photo is really useful on Commons. We already had thousands of penis photo, and we don't need more ordinary penis photo. Even though for the cat you mentioned, we still had 30+ images, and I don't think delete this will cause a huge harm to the cat. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This image asserted to not meet the threshold of originality but it is not solely simple shapes. The spire or minaret is not a simple shape. Whpq (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment tend to agree. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Belgium seems to lack info on relevant TOO law. Company seems to date back to the 19th century; how old is this logo? If the same logo has been in use more than 70 years, looks to be out of copyright. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The spire/minaret is apparently modeled on a building at the Leopoldplaats in Antwerp, compare File:Antwerpen Leopoldplaats 9-13 - 38152 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg (on the right) and File:Leopold I standbeeld Antwerpen.jpg (to the left of the equestrian statue). --Rosenzweig τ 00:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The logo is borderline for TOO (I think one could reasonably argue that it falls either side of the line). It seems unlikely that this logo has been in use so long that one can assume that it was created and first published sufficiently long ago that its copyright has expired. Thus COM:PRP suggests it must be deleted. Note, though, that if you land on the other side of the TOO assessment this reasoning leads to a keep !vote. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
naked minority ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Modern primat Keep It shows the whole body of a baby in an ordinary context. It’s not abusive. Also, it seems to be legitimately in use at uk:Мирослав Бойчук. Brianjd (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- delete is' foto publicate in ukwiki and delete as not VRT. Need VRT-ticket--『白猫』Обг. 15:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @AlexKozur The ukwiki article was moved to user space, but user page images of users with significant contributions are also permitted. Why does it need a VRT ticket? A 1958 photo isn’t going to have camera metadata. Do you have evidence it is a copyright violation? Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, because as first upload uk:File:Фото Бойчука 006.jpg: uploader Мирослав Бойчук or Frankivsktv (i don't know is one or more people), author родинні архіви М.Бойчука.
- User uses Boychuk's photo archives, and it is not known whether it is him or not, because the files have been published on Ukrainian Wikipedia for a long time. The user notes that he is his countryman, but whether he has legal permission to publish these files is unknown.
- (uk:Користувач використовує фотоархівів Бойчука, і невідомо чи це він сам чи ні, бо файли були довгий час опубліковані на українській Вікіпедії. Користувач зазначає, що він є його земляком, але чи має він юридичний дозвіл на публікацію цих файлів невідомо.) 『白猫』Обг. 12:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @AlexKozur The ukwiki article was moved to user space, but user page images of users with significant contributions are also permitted. Why does it need a VRT ticket? A 1958 photo isn’t going to have camera metadata. Do you have evidence it is a copyright violation? Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP. There is insufficient evidence of compatible licensing combined with unresolved privacy issues, compounded by the subject being a minor. --Xover (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Per VP discussion, this image is obtained from Flickr and licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. It is different from the one published on the UK Government website A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Crown copyright material per the credit No 10 Downing Street, i.e. the Prime Minister's Office (United Kingdom), which is a listed UK Crown body. Per flickruser:49707497@N06, their pictures are Crown copyright unless marked as the copyright of a third party, which this image is not. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Crown copyright doesn't mean the file is licensed under OGL. Evidence should be provided.--A1Cafel (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's on them to provide evidence that it's not. Per this document, the OGL is the licence for all Crown copyright material by default: Any application to deviate from OGL as the default licence for Crown copyright must be submitted to the Information Policy team at The National Archives and can only be authorised by the Controller. Such applications from Crown bodies can be found here. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Number 10 has since confirmed on their Flickr page that All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/v... and that only Material marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg. --Xover (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Balatonföldvár railway station
[edit]Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balatonföldvár vasútállomás, 1935, Erdélyi Mici és Ráday Imre, Fortepan 53263 (részlet 02).jpg: These photos were “donated” to Hungarian web site Fortepan by a person named Romák Éva, who is named as donor. We know that the photos were taken in 1935 (one in 1936) in Hungary, but we don't know anything about the author (= the photographer) nor if these photos were published before (and when and where, if that is the case). We cannot ascertain at all if the donor had the right to put the photos under a free license. Because of this lack of information, all files should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be in the public domain or rightfully under a free license. The files can be restored in 2056 (File:Három nő. Fortepan 74887.jpg: 2057) with {{PD-old-assumed}}.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Erdélyi Mici.jpg
- File:Balatonföldvár vasútállomás. Fortepan 53250.jpg
- File:Balatonföldvár vasútállomás, 1935, Erdélyi Mici és Ráday Imre színészházaspár, Fortepan 53262.jpg
- File:Balatonföldvár vasútállomás, 1935, Erdélyi Mici és Ráday Imre színészházaspár, Fortepan 53263.jpg
- File:Vasútállomás, Ágay Irén színművésznő. Fortepan 53264.jpg
- File:Három nő. Fortepan 74887.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Why do we need that in addition to existing {{Disambig}} and {{Cat disambig}}? Achim55 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment {{Disambig}} is not suitable for Category namespace. {{Cat disambig}} is completely different from other wiki's counterparts (such as en:Template:Category disambiguation) and is not suitable for my purpose. I need a template for Category:Characters --emk (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment IMO the current {{Cat disambig}} should be renamed to {{Category distinguish}} or something. --emk (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Disambig is not suitable for Category namespace. How come that it is successfully in use on thousands of redirecting category pages for more than 10 years? To give just one example: Category:Toledo. --Achim55 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't notice that {{Disambig}} is intended to be used in the Category namespace. But we don't have to delete {{Category disambiguation}}. This template was created as just a redirect. We can change it back to a redirect without bothering admins. Therefore Keep. (I requested {{SD}} for template subpages.) --emk (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Fine, thank you! --Achim55 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't notice that {{Disambig}} is intended to be used in the Category namespace. But we don't have to delete {{Category disambiguation}}. This template was created as just a redirect. We can change it back to a redirect without bothering admins. Therefore
- Disambig is not suitable for Category namespace. How come that it is successfully in use on thousands of redirecting category pages for more than 10 years? To give just one example: Category:Toledo. --Achim55 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Merge both? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural keep in order to redirect or merge. From the discussion above I think this can be resolved without a formal deletion discussion. Close this as procedural keep and hash out the details on COM:VP/T. If that goes nowhere it can be renominated. --Xover (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The template is not in use. --Ellywa (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Rrceived a ticket:2022102410006086 from a representative of ООО «ВАКО» who claim the use of the file is illegal. Personally I don't sure have they rights in this case or not, ask to discuss the situation. Анастасия Львоваru/en 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Из Предисловия (Т. 1, с. IX—X) к этому Полному собранию сочинений (ППС) его главного редактора В. Черткова:
Другою особенностью нашего издания является то, что оно выпускается в свет при точном и полном соблюдении своеобразного предсмертного завещательного указания Л. Н. Толстого о том, как он желал, чтобы издавались его писания. А именно — с обозначением на каждом выходящем томе, что перепечатка его разрешается безвозмездно. Другими словами, с появлением в печати каждого тома настоящего издания, он освобождается от государственной монополии, становится всеобщим достоянием, и по отношению к его содержанию отпадают всякие ограничительные права собственности. Так что впредь всё содержание этого издания может перепечатываться и на русском языке и в переводах без получения на то особых разрешений от каких-либо «литературных собственников» произведений Толстого.
Для того, чтобы это освобождение от литературной собственности могло распространяться на всё содержание издания, включая не только написанное Толстым, но и редакторами, они, со своей стороны, также отказались, для всех последующих воспроизведений этого издания, от прав собственности на свою работу, т. е. на свои примечания, объяснительные статьи и пр.
- Соответствующий лицензионный шаблон со ссылкой был приложен к файлу при его загрузке. Не понятно какое отношение к изданию имеет ООО "ВАКО". --Vladis13 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Я предложила представителям компании самим изложить свои аргументы. Если их не найдётся до конца срока обсуждения -- что ж. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Анастасия Львова, каков срок обсуждения? Вроде, на Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions написано что 7 дней... --Vladis13 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ну, как админы подведут. Стоит отметить, что с шаблонной претензией в VRT недавно обратились повторно, но ни здесь, ни в ответ на моё письмо ничего не говорят. Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is… confusing. Tolstoy died in 1910 and Russia is generally pma. 70, so his copyrights for published work expired in 1981 in Russia. Anything published before 1928 is expired in the US. Anything first published outside the US without valid copyright notice is no-notice and was not restored by the URAA (it expired at home before the URAA date). This volume, though, contains letters, so rules for unpublished works may apply. For that we need to assess the letters in detail to determine when and where they were first published.But based on what information is present, and given the complainant's non-responsiveness, I would be inclined to say keep, for now, and direct the complainant to the DMCA takedown process and let WMF Legal deal with it. It's not that this can't be a copyvio, but nobody has as yet presented a coherent argument for why that might be and most of the broad-strokes information available suggests this is plausibly PD. --Xover (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: This version of the work appeard in 1949, and it contains a foreword and footnotes wich are probably copyrighted. An original book of Tolstoy could be kept on Commons, but imho textual additions to a revised an reprinted version will be copyrighted. Of course, all could be cropped from the book. If somebody wants to take that action, please ask for undeletion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [11]. Yann (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per VP discussion, this image is obtained from Flickr and licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. It is different from the one published on the UK Government website A1Cafel (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Hérisson grognon (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is her official portrait, it's important to illustrate it. -Helloiamauser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloiamauser (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Should be kept. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Helloiamauser and Tim O'Doherty: Please provide a valid reason. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because it illustrates the subject well, is an official portrait and a high-quality image. Odd that you didn't ask Hérisson grognon to provide a valid reason though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- The license is clear... Hérisson grognon (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as an anon user, i agree w/ helloiamauser and tim o'doherty. she is best illustrated with their official portrait, taken when she had the title. deleting this and using the prev image is outdated.
- 141.193.118.4 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- The license is clear... Hérisson grognon (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because it illustrates the subject well, is an official portrait and a high-quality image. Odd that you didn't ask Hérisson grognon to provide a valid reason though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Helloiamauser and Tim O'Doherty: Please provide a valid reason. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep this is her official portrait and she is best represented that way. -Pickmyusernameidc2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickmyusernameidc2022 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - this was her official portrait during her tenure as Prime Minister and should be used to depict her THeShavidow1 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Helloiamuser, Tim O'Doherty, Pickmyusernameidc2022, and THeShavidow1: kindly provide copyright rule-based reason why the image can be kept. We do not question the usefulness or timeliness of the subject, but rather the question is about the inconsistency of the metadata copyright claim (claiming non-commercial use is forbidden) as compared to one at the official UK government site. Just a note, Wikimedia Commons cannot accept content that cannot be exploited commercially by end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support reasons made by ThatRandomGuy1, the image is just a cropped version of the one displayed on the government website so is under the OGL while the full image is not THeShavidow1 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Helloiamuser, Tim O'Doherty, Pickmyusernameidc2022, and THeShavidow1: kindly provide copyright rule-based reason why the image can be kept. We do not question the usefulness or timeliness of the subject, but rather the question is about the inconsistency of the metadata copyright claim (claiming non-commercial use is forbidden) as compared to one at the official UK government site. Just a note, Wikimedia Commons cannot accept content that cannot be exploited commercially by end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The image is actually the same as the one published on the UK Government website. It is however cropped and at a lower resolution than the Flickr image. As per the closure of this discussion, I think the image should be kept as it is part of the cropped area and therefore under the OGL even at a higher resolution, while the full image that it was extracted from should be deleted as it goes beyond the crop published on GOV.UK. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There are two other versions of the GOV.UK image on Commons (this file which is the same as the GOV.UK file but at a higher resolution and a cropped version here). These files appear to have the same issue as the one A1Cafel nominated for deletion. That is, the original file is from Flickr and has been licensed there under CC-BY-NC-ND and not the OGL. However, they are still licensed to Commons under the OGL as in their permission section there is a link to a National Archives copyright advice document which says: Crown copyright is administered by the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office from The National Archives. Any application to deviate from OGL as the default licence for Crown copyright must be submitted to the Information Policy team at The National Archives and can only be authorised by the Controller. I'm not sure about this, but the image A1Cafel has nominated for deletion is also a crown copyright work, so surely this advice would apply to that file too? Including the full official portrait of Truss that it was extracted from and not just the cropped one shown on GOV.UK? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Number 10 has since confirmed on their Flickr page that All content is Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/v... and that only Material marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- As an aside, it's worth noting that The UK Government Flickr account has different wording: Crown copyright pictures on this flickr profile can be downloaded in high res format and used in accordance with the terms set out in the specified Creative Commons license. Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may not be downloaded or redistributed.. Something about events in breweries comes to mind. I have written to the Cabinet office, asking them to standardise on the OGL wording, for all government Flickr accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Official portraits are fine, yeah people who run that flickr page are morons, every image they release under a free licence can and should be used on commons but the person uploading it to commons needs to ensure thay put the OGL license as well as the one its released under on flickr, if they tagged an image as NC and/or ND but that same image was used on their gov.uk page, that image is allowed to be used here but the user needs to link to the .gov.uk page as well as the Flickr page in the source of where they got the HQ version and put the OGL licensing template in the image, yes its a pain in the posterior but our Wikimedia UK arm has failed us many times by not getting this fixed for over a decade now so we are using this unfortunate "compromise" instead.. now all this does not apply to Official portraits, regardless of whatever license it has been put under on flickr or any other site, if its an official portrait of a cabinet minister, its OGL which this image is ...--Stemoc 03:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: The opposite outcome seems to have been (wrongly) decided in a similar case recently, see VPC discussion. See also my Twitter posts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- yeah official portraits are 100% OGL regardless off what license it gets put under but other images could be debated, we had to make a compromise a few years back of only using images on OGL if that image is used on that gov.uk website and only that specific image even though all images involving all govt ministers and not just the PM are technically OGL.. the issue is that all images are 'crown copyright' first then OGL and because flickr doesn't offer either licensing, they are using those closest to it which honestly is cc-by but they lack the knowledge apparently on doing it correctly, EXIF should then becomes useful but they always have those wrong too lol and in most cases contradictory as one part would say its for editorial purpose only and NC-ND but then another part will say its under OGL which allows commercial and modifications...i sometimes think the OGL situation is worse than the Brexit situation they have right now.. Stemoc 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: The opposite outcome seems to have been (wrongly) decided in a similar case recently, see VPC discussion. See also my Twitter posts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think it matters why UK government works are OGL. The difference between the US government and a private individual is that works by the former are public domain by law; 17 U.S.C. § 105 is the required evidence of permission. So even if a work does not have a valid free license, as long as it is verifiably by the US government, it is automatically public domain no matter what the page says. For a work by a private individual, it becomes freely licensed only upon the application of a free license by the author. I was able to find UK government licence guidelines, which state: "To facilitate re-use, public sector bodies must: [...] Use a standard licence that is as non-restrictive as possible." It then continues: "The Open Government Licence (OGL) is the default for central government departments and agencies, and the preferred licence for all other public sector bodies, in cases where information is supplied for re-use and no charge is made. [...] The Non-Commercial Government Licence is an acceptable alternative when the OGL is not suitable. Crown bodies may use this only if approved by The National Archives." So the question is: 1) Did the National Archives actually authorize the Flickr account to use an NC-only license, or did some random employee accidentally hit the wrong button? 2) If the Flickr account is in violation of UK government policy, what is the corrective measure? For US government works, if some agency claims copyright in violation of US copyright regulations, the corrective measure is that such claims are null and void, and the works are public domain anyways. But if Person A releases a work under CC-BY-SA and Person B makes a derivative work under ARR, the corrective measure is not that B's work is automatically CC-BY-SA; rather, A can sue B for copyright infringement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is, Flickr does not allow a choice of the OGL itself (or the NCGL); rather they only allow the actual CC licenses. So if they choose CC-BY, then the file is also actually licensed under CC-BY as well as the OGL, which they may not want. So maybe this is simply dual licensed OGL and CC-BY-NC-ND, so that the free license is the one with the wording and legal code that the UK government controls. I don't think we can take the Flickr license as "where otherwise stated" and assume away the OGL, basically. It would need to be a non-Crown copyright work, or need some other particular statement, to not be OGL given the statement on the Flickr account, for me. So I guess Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is, Flickr does not allow a choice of the OGL itself (or the NCGL); rather they only allow the actual CC licenses. So if they choose CC-BY, then the file is also actually licensed under CC-BY as well as the OGL, which they may not want. So maybe this is simply dual licensed OGL and CC-BY-NC-ND, so that the free license is the one with the wording and legal code that the UK government controls. I don't think we can take the Flickr license as "where otherwise stated" and assume away the OGL, basically. It would need to be a non-Crown copyright work, or need some other particular statement, to not be OGL given the statement on the Flickr account, for me. So I guess
- Keep per Clindberg. This is a mess, and one must be careful not to apply PD-USGov style assumptions to UK works, but even in light of those cautions this particular photo seems to be a good case for the reasoning Clindberg articulates above. Absent actual evidence the photo is owned by a third party, or that it is subject to a proper application to deviate from the default OGL policy, it is reasonable to assume OGL in this case (this !vote is not support for making that blanket assumption in all Crown Copyright cases). --Xover (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Somebody has to decide on this DR after such a long time. The listed file is the same (apart from cropping and resolution) as previously available on https://web.archive.org/web/20220930174959/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss, with the OGL licence. The current official image, as published on https://web.archive.org/web/20220905130934/https://www.gov.uk/government/people/elizabeth-truss has been made at the same session, by the same photographer, and is showing somewhat more of a smile. On flickr the old version is still available. Imho, if the UK Gov did not want this image with less of a smile to be published, they would have removed it from flickr by now. As they cannot select the OGL license on flickr, they used CCBYNC licensing, which formally we cannot cuse. However, on Commons, we do use the OGL licence, so I think the image can be kept with the OGL licensing. Therefore decided to keep the image, including two cropped versions. --Ellywa (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}