Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/10/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Because it is Blurry Imamtanbu (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Imamtanbu
Keep Of course it is blurry, because it is a crop of Reni 39.b.jpg, which was low resolution to begin with. You may nominate that latter file for deletion if you think it is out of scope. But I think that is unlikely, since the artist has an English Wikipedia article. Brianjd (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Request by another Android app user who could not resist when they saw the button. --Achim55 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
no source no author no permission Hoyanova (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: image intended as advertisement. --Wutsje 07:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I added it by mistake. Михаил Щербань (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 16:13, 29 October 2022 UTC: Copyright violation: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10766410/mediaviewer/rm3296593665?ref_=nm_ov_ph --Krdbot 19:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Advertising spam Dronebogus (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
URV?! en:Lion Feuchtwanger died 1958. 1958+70 is 2028, so this comes too early. Or why else should this be in the public domain?! Fano (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- because Feuchtwanger isn't the author of this title page, because the image consists of the title, year and doesn't have in itself any copyrighted text, for example, see File:Bertolt Brecht. Die Maßnahme. Lehrstück. Berlin, Gustav Kiepenheuer 1930.jpg (printed by the same publisher)
- the one who has uploaded didn't put PD-old in the description, but I have put both PD-old and PD-ineligible
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, obviously {{PD-ineligible}}. --Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I made this crops not knowing that a bot would automatically rotate the images, so they're unnecessary. Please delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Нужно добавить дубликат с другим видомм 2A02:2698:882B:1C0F:911E:A251:26FC:F79C 20:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 20:34, 29 October 2022 UTC: Нужно заменить на другой фвйл / G7 --Krdbot 01:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Bastianatanas (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete, G7 author's request Lemonaka (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
For the record: LTA blocked indef. --Achim55 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Julián Solano Retana (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7 and as unused duplicate of Crucero norwegian sun.jpg.
- @Julián Solano Retana Next time, just request a rename instead of uploading the file again. Brianjd (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupe of File:Crucero norwegian sun.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Because I have no use for it anymore. The article got deleted, and there is no reason to keep the image. Informational Text (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I support a courtesy
Delete. My condolences if you knew him personally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I’m not real keen on courtesy deletions in general, especially given the lack of guidance in that area, but this qualifies for speedy deletion under G7 and is probably out of scope. Brianjd (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
A copyright violation. Image has appeared in multiple websites:
* https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/web-stories/preity-zinta-to-imran-khan-actors-who-took-a-break-from-films/photostory/79364039.cms,
* https://static.toiimg.com//photo/79364054/79364054.jpg?imgsize=297065,
* https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/mahesh-bhatt-sends-his-blessings-for-aashiqui-3-but-find-out-aashiqui-actress-anu-aggarwals-reaction-to-it/articleshow/94019712.cms,
* https://www.india.com/entertainment/bollywood-news-aashiqui-fame-anu-aggarwal-opens-up-on-life-threatening-accident-says-i-took-sanyas-shaved-my-head-4597697/
--2406:7400:70:83E1:0:0:0:1 06:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Also https://www.rediff.com/movies/report/whats-the-aashiqui-stars-afghan-link/20210827.htm. Tagging as {{Copyvio}}. Brianjd (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheOwnkingAyush (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader (0.99 probability), 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
See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumedh Mudgalkar and also see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Sockpuppetry and Impersonation.
- File:Arpan Das 10.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 08.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 09.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 07.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 06.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 05.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 04.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 02.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 03.jpg
- File:Arpan Das 01.png
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: all files already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo is expectly from Mapherson, delete unless the author is live in there
除非作者居住於麥花巨，否則照片須隨時刪除 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.217.189.221 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Big photo with metadata, seems own work. Nominator is blocked as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete argee with Mafalda4144, ad photo 103.250.52.218 08:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason to believe that the uploader didn't take the photo. Belbury (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete support Mafalda4144 103.250.52.218 08:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- This photo is uploaded by a sock puppet of Cheng123xx, Wing1991hk 103.250.52.218 08:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The uploader, since renamed to User:Wpcpey, is not blocked or tagged for any sockpuppetry. --Belbury (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Vandalism. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism only, self edited and diracted 103.250.52.218 07:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, IP blocked. --Achim55 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Useless tiny promotional image, probably copyvio to boot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional image of apparently non-notable company, though correct me if I'm wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PACKAGE. --Krd 06:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - no indication of a CC license at the YouTube link for this screenshot nor on the main page of NJ Spotlight News. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
In use, but very small and without useful EXIF information, so in view of the year of upload, probably copyvio. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
no permission, copyrighted, used for advertising text on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
copyvio from https://www.bouwenwonen.net/artikel/Bobex-neemt-Nederlandse-sectorgenoot-Verbouwkosten-over/49037 no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Ad Image Mafalda4144 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. --SCP-2000 07:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete argee with Mafalda4144, Ad image 103.250.52.218 07:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, not seeing the advertising here. If it's the tiny "JUST DO IT" billboard that's not a reason to delete. Belbury (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is uploaded by a sock puppet of Cheng123xx, Wing1991hk 103.250.52.218 08:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The uploader, since renamed to User:Wpcpey, is not blocked or tagged for any sockpuppetry. --Belbury (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Vandalistic DR of a Hong Kong pic again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Per Belbury, frivolous request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Dubious nomination, blocked user. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 06:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot, no exif COM:SS Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Torao Yazaki
[edit]Per COM:FOP Japan : Torao Yazaki died in 1988.
- File:Statue of Raiden , 雷電爲右エ門像 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Statue of Raiden , 雷電爲右エ門像 - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Statue of Raiden , 雷電爲右エ門像 - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:仏像 - panoramio.jpg
- Category:Pèlerins des nuages et de l'eau (Bois de Vincennes)
- File:"Pèlerins des nuages et de leau" dans le bois de Vincennes (7431618120).jpg
- File:Vincennes 001.jpg
- File:Bois de Vincennes - panoramio.jpg
- File:Bois de Vincennes 20060816 49.jpg
- File:Bois de Vincennes 20060816 50.jpg
- File:Bois de Vincennes 20060816 51.jpg
- File:Bois de Vincennes 20060816 52.jpg
- File:Lac Daumesnil @ Bois de Vincennes @ Paris (23289198313).jpg
- File:Lac Dausmenil @ Bois de Vincennes @ Paris (30042484512).jpg
--Qurren (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
According to the source information, it's taken from the muncipiality's website. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
com:penis out of scope 178.175.141.208 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
com:penis out of scope 178.175.141.208 07:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
User’s only other upload has been nominated for deletion because it appears on many other websites and is therefore a likely copyright violation. This file is low resolution and contains Facebook metadata, so is likely a copyright violation as well.
This user added this image to their user page, and added information to en:Anu Aggarwal nearly two years ago, some of which is still there. So it is possible they have constructive global contributions and this image is therefore in scope. Brianjd (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
What is this image? Album cover? Poster? Is it really the Uploader's work? Description, file name, caption is no help. no help Headlock0225 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Might be an album cover, but what a bizarre file "description" and date! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Didn't spot the date. Very precise at least! Headlock0225 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete on both scope and copyright grounds. Poor quality, even for its low resolution of 259 × 194, and no metadata. Brianjd (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete vandalism Dronebogus (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Title said puberty scrotum, which indicated the subject is likely to be under 18, likely child pornography A1Cafel (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of breasts photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete With a resolution of 300 × 236, no metadata and a source of Wikipedia, it also looks like a copyright violation. Note that Commons:Nudity does not (yet) include breasts. Brianjd (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Educational value is not shown. Unused, no categories, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of nipple photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The resolution of 444 × 478 is much lower than this uploader’s other uploads. Described as Hermosa pequeña teta con pezon. But it shows only part of one breast, and is a bit blurry, making it difficult to judge size. With higher quality and more context (showing the whole chest), it would be more useful. Brianjd (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Cute, but the only two web search results on "poxymut" were Category:Media needing categories as of 19 September 2017 and "Le mot poxymut n'est pas valide au scrabble". It's not clear whether this is copyvio from somewhere (small and no useful EXIF), but it's definitely not notable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Delete For once, DuckDuckGo agrees with your web search. The file is described as El Poxymut listo para salir a una lujosa cena, with no categories, no usage and no incoming links (except those related to this DR). But most damning of all: the same uploader also uploaded Poxymut enfadado.jpg, which was deleted as a copyright violation. Brianjd (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- It’s very small: 223 × 224. Brianjd (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. I used DuckDuckGo to do my search. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek DuckDuckGo is very hit and miss. I would be very wary of declaring something non-notable based solely on DuckDuckGo results. (But I think this needs to be deleted anyway on copyright grounds.) Brianjd (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. I used DuckDuckGo to do my search. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about DuckDuckGo search result quality
|
|---|
|
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality of breasts photo, please see COM:PORN A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Resolution 259 × 210 and no camera metadata. Brianjd (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality breasts photo, please see COM:PORN A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality breasts photo, please see COM:PORN A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality breasts photo, please see COM:PORN A1Cafel (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel I think it’s in scope: it gives the bra size and shows the subject’s face. But see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Boblstr regarding copyright concerns. Brianjd (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
One More unused unnecessary dick 186.173.108.61 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G7-speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Destinycoxx (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that have no obvious place within this project. Commons is not a web hosting platform
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 14.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 13.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 11.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 12.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 10.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 09.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 07.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 08.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 06.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 05.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 04.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 01.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 03.jpg
- File:Destinycoxx exposed 02.jpg
Herby talk thyme 09:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Uploads of this user that lack camera metadata. Suspected copyright violations. Some of these files are already nominated for deletion as violations of Commons:Nudity.
The uploads that do have camera metadata all seem to be from the same camera, mostly with high resolution. On the other hand, uploads nominated here mostly have low resolution and no useful metadata at all. Two of them are collages that lack source information.
- File:An intact frenulum of the penis.jpg
- File:A man urinating.jpg
- File:A penis ejaculating.jpg
- File:38 double d breasts.png
- File:38 DD breasts.png
- File:Glans before and after 10 years of exposure and aging.jpg
- File:Large 38 DD breasts.png
- File:A circumcised penis glans.jpg
- File:A woman performs fellatio.jpg
- File:A fully erect penis.jpg
- File:An male penis in the erect state.jpg
- File:A man's scrotum.jpg
- File:60 year old flaccid circumcised penis.jpg
- File:A man urinates outdoors.jpg
- File:A man urinating outside.jpg
- File:An penis fully erect.jpg
- File:A man performs fellatio.jpg
- File:Balls of an older male.jpg
- File:Male testicles.jpg
- File:Uncircumcised penis in flaccid state.jpg
- File:A micropenis.jpg
- File:A man urinating outdoors.jpg
- File:A penis urinating.jpg
- File:Penis ejaculating.jpg
- File:Circumcised penis with frenulum removed.jpg
- File:Frenulum of the penis.png
Brianjd (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:PORN/COM:NUDE from single-purpose account that has repeatedly had uploads deleted
- File:Nude man standing outdoors.jpg
- File:Nude man standing b&w.jpg
- File:Nude man clothed and unclothed.jpg
- File:A micropenis.jpg
- File:A drawing of the human penis.jpg
- File:An intact frenulum of a circumcised penis.jpg
- File:A male ejaculates from masturbation.jpg
- File:An illustration of an erect penis.jpg
- File:A drawing of the penis and testicles.jpg
- File:Artwork depicting the penis.jpg
- File:A micropenis and testicles.jpg
- File:203.2 mm erect penis.jpg
- File:Performing fellatio.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. User blocked. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio and creepshot Dronebogus (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus Speedy delete I believe the ‘creepshot’ is being overapplied to the point of becoming meaningless. In this case, the term is too weak: it’s an explicit image taken in a place where the subjects would reasonably expect privacy. It’s also a copyright violation. Brianjd (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The subjects consented to the image being taken, but not to the image being distributed. This is a good reminder that there is a difference here. Brianjd (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Still creepy. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus But do you agree with my more specific descriptions? I am trying to establish a precedent here. Brianjd (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- If it’s got “leak” in the name it’s probably illegal regardless of creep intent. Since this example had nudity in it it’s extremely obvious the intent would be prurient. Dronebogus (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus That doesn’t really answer my question. You say that it’s probably illegal. But Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11#Intimate images without subject's consent suggest that neither the law nor Commons policy are so clear.
- Also, what’s the legal status of the Daily Mail image? Brianjd (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is a village pump question, I don’t have an answer. Plus the Daily Mail are notoriously scummy so YMMV on their concern for legality. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- If it’s got “leak” in the name it’s probably illegal regardless of creep intent. Since this example had nudity in it it’s extremely obvious the intent would be prurient. Dronebogus (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus But do you agree with my more specific descriptions? I am trying to establish a precedent here. Brianjd (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Still creepy. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The subjects consented to the image being taken, but not to the image being distributed. This is a good reminder that there is a difference here. Brianjd (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Searching for the filename on DuckDuckGo, the first result is a Daily Mail report about this leak, which includes a redacted version of the image. There are many other stories, most of which do not include such images. Brianjd (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Do any of these freely-licensed images of a 1982 sculpture by Borodai (died 2010) have proper licensing permissions from the heirs of the artist (like via COM:VRTS)? Since there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine, explicit permission is required.
This monument was the subject of four separate cases during 2007–2009, involving four users who exploited depictions of this public artistic work commercially — Ukrgasbank (for their advertisements), FOLIO Publishing House (for the book cover of their non-educational book), Molochnik, and VK and K (the last two mentioned used an image of the monument as food packaging design). According to Shtefan (2019), "all these cases went to trial and in each case the courts came to the conclusion that the author's rights were not respected." (See this paper, on page 23).
- File:80-382-0454 Navodnycky Park.jpg
- File:Kij szczek choryw lybedz.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founder and mother.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders in the morning.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders1.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders2.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders3.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders4.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders5.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders6.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders7.jpg
- File:Kyiv - Founders8.jpg
- File:P1010753-1.JPG
- File:Paton bridge night4.JPG
- File:Paton bridge night5.JPG
- File:Paton bridge night6.JPG
- File:Paton bridge night8.jpg
- File:Statue Of The Founders Of Kiev (232423633).jpeg
- File:The founders of Kiev - Основателям Киева - panoramio.jpg
- File:Зупинімо погляд 01.jpg
- File:Зупинімо погляд 02.jpg
- File:Зупинімо погляд 03.jpg
- File:Киев. Памятник основателям Киева - panoramio.jpg
- File:Киев. Памятник основателям Киева 2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Ладья.jpg
- File:Монумент засновникам Києва на світанку.jpg
- File:Монумент засновникам Києва.jpg
- File:Наводницкий парк в Киеве. Фото 53.jpg
- File:Наводницкий парк в Киеве. Фото 54.jpg
- File:Наводницкий парк в Киеве. Фото 55.jpg
- File:Наводницкий парк в Киеве. Фото 56.jpg
- File:Наводницкий парк в Киеве. Фото 62.jpg
- File:Наводницккий парк памятник основателям Киева.JPG
- File:Наводницький парк 01.JPG
- File:Наводницький парк 94.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк IMG 3451.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк IMG 4719.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк IMG 4747.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк IMG 9867.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк, Печерський район, Набережне шосе.jpg
- File:Наводницький парк,пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак 8727.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак засновникам міста Києва.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на відзнаку заснування м. Києва (човен)!.JPG
- File:Пам'ятний знак на відзнаку заснування м. Києва (човен).jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на відзнаку заснування м. Києва (човен)2!.JPG
- File:Пам'ятний знак на відзнаку заснування м. Києва (човен)3!.JPG
- File:Пам'ятний знак на відзнаку заснування м. Києва 2021.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва (1).jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва (2).jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва (3).jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва (4).jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва 02.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Засновникам Києва.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник засновникам Києва.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник засновникам Київа.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник засновникам міста Києва.jpg
- File:Памятник основателям Киева.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник засновникам Києва навесні.jpg
- File:Щек хорив кий лыбидь - panoramio.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- The relevant court cases, as per Shtefan (2019) but in Ukrainian
- Case 22-5874 Joint-Stock Bank 'Ukrgasbank' v Vasyl' Boroday (2008) — http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/4611925
- Case 3/109/08 Vasyl' Boroday v Limited Liability Company 'FOLIO Publishing House' (2008) — http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/5749072
- Case 22-51 Open Joint Stock Company 'Molochnik' v Vasyl' Boroday (2009) — http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/8795295
- Case 3/60/07 Vasyl' Boroday v Private enterprise 'VK and K' (2007) — http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/560241
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: Unfortunately, there is no acceptable freedom of panorama in Ukraine.
- File:Kyiv n 31.jpg
- File:Paton bridge night3.JPG
- File:Paton bridge night7.JPG
- File:Засновники Києва на світанку.jpg
- File:Пам'яті засновників міста присвячується.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак IMG 9866.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва 01.jpg
- File:Пам'ятний знак на честь заснування міста Києва.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Засновникам Києва (Наводницький Парк).jpg
- File:Печерський ландшафтний парк 05.jpg
TadejM (t/p) 22:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. TadejM (t/p) 22:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Cute, but a combation of what's presumably copyvio from Warner Bros and non-notable art by a 2-time contributor to Commons in 2017. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by File:Air Macedonia2.png. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
No evidence this photo is owned by the user. reppoptalk 03:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Likely FLICKRWASHING; user has other images that are copyrighted as "public domain," for example, this photo of Tupac which is stated to be "public domain." All other photos are taken from other places. reppoptalk 03:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable former user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
河崎良行が1968年に制作した像で著作権が切れていないため Naokijp (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The nomination says that the artist’s copyright, from 1968, has not expired. COM:FOP Japan says that there is no FoP in Japan for artistic works. Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, w:ja:河崎良行 says that he's still alive. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226 Not surprisingly, that article doesn’t exist. Did you mean ja:河崎良行? Brianjd (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Maurice Oly as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the author of this photograph is John Cervantes uploader has no proof the author of the photo has approved the upload, so this is a copyright violation.|source=author box in file summary
If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:VRT Storkk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am so bored with this WIKIpedia nonsense. I'm a journalist that worked for the BBC for 20 years and understand everything there is to know about Copyright. Please see John Cervantes FLICKR account with this photo and then his copyright notices which state it is not for profit creative commons licensed. [3]https://www.flickr.com/photos/johncervantes/5916148120/in/photostream/
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ 194.75.43.162 12:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment Images uploaded to Commons have to be usable for commercial as well as non-commercial purposes. Please don't confuse Commons with en.Wikipedia, which allows fair use in certain circumstances and therefore, I think, could be OK with a CC license that precludes commercial use; see w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless permission is provided, see Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. Hekerui (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This file almost fully contains of spelling mistakes, and I have replaced its use with a SVG version with correct spellings Gzhegozh talk 09:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Found here dated 2018 - https://deschrijverscentrale.nl/auteurs/1446259 - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
High quality photo shot on a hasselbad, unlikely to be own work of uploader whose only upload is this Gbawden (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apetrov09703 as Speedy (db)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no rationale as provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No apparent problem per Túrelio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion is no objects location clearly atributed for the file as well as no real info on Samara from the image Apetrov09703 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Those are not deletion reasons in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- May be, I'm not going to insist. However, the file looks not really useful Apetrov09703 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely not great technical quality, but you do see a pattern of these birds on branches, and I like the composition, so I don't think it's so bad and useless that it should be hidden. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, let it be :) I finally updated description of the file and added right caregory for it Apetrov09703 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely not great technical quality, but you do see a pattern of these birds on branches, and I like the composition, so I don't think it's so bad and useless that it should be hidden. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Those are not deletion reasons in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- May I delete db-template or should be any procedure for the case? Apetrov09703 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
No meaningful exif, found on the internet, unlikely to be own work Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Date says “c. 1991”, yet the licensing says it was published between 1923 and 1977. She wasn’t governor until 1991. This is her gubernatorial portrait. Corky 10:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
selfie, wrongly categorized EdycjomanCommons (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Categories can be changed, but this is not a very good picture and not in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I improved the categories. I think it’s interesting that one person is using one hand to pull down their mask (which should have a category, though I can’t find one) and the other hand to make a V-sign. Brianjd (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, we can disagree about this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Can you find such a category? Brianjd (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Suffering from a moderate case of COVID, too tired. There's no category for masks? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Keep There is the category People with masks (semi-removed) during the COVID-19 pandemic, but I found only one image of someone using their hand to pull down their mask (CPIPANDEMIA - Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito da Pandemia (51176854193).jpg), and it’s completely different to this image. Brianjd (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
- Suffering from a moderate case of COVID, too tired. There's no category for masks? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Can you find such a category? Brianjd (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK, we can disagree about this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This flag isn't any official Kurmanbek (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
duplicate Kurmanbek (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Probable copyvio of https://tamil.asianetnews.com/tamilnadu/world-tallest-salem-muthumalai-murugan-temple-kumbhabhishegam-going-on-today-r9wguw. Nothing indicates a licence of any kind, let alone 'CC-BY-SA 4.0' as filed. Website footer states: '© Copyright 2022 Asianet News Media & Entertainment Private Limited | All Rights Reserved', indicating that at least some of their content is copyrighted. https://www.asianetnews.com/terms-of-use also states that it is possible to infringe their copyright to certain information. Per COM:PRP we should delete this file. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
If we follow the logic of the uploader, the author of this map is unknown to them, but at the same time they undertake to assert that this unknown person died 70 or more years ago. More logical evidence needed to prove this is PD. Xunks (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- UPD. This edit makes another obviously false statement, the new source website is not cc-by-sa-4.0. --Xunks (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional, and otherwise a blurry photo of an unidentified person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional with watermark and no evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
No watermark or obviously promotional description, but is this useful? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional and without evident educational value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
self promotion Trade (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
May he rest in peace: I found out in web searching that he was a poet who passed away in 2018. He has 1.3K Facebook friends on his legacy page, but this was his only contribution to Commons, with all his other Wikimedia contributions being to his user page at fr.wikipedia. Fr.wikipedia didn't find him notable enough to cover, nor are the search results for him that extensive, so we should probably delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Drive-by file upload (only contribution to Commons), not a notable individual. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is very similar to the one in the copyrighted site https://www.meteoprofessionisti.it/omd-premio-sergio-borghi-5a-edizione-2021/ . It is likely a copyvio. Pierre cb (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm Massimo Enrico Ferrario the Secretary of AMPRO (Associazione Meteo PROfessionisti) see here:
- https://www.meteoprofessionisti.it/organi-sociali/
- The photo of Dr. Sergio Borghi Director of "Osservatorio Meteorologico del Duomo - Milano" is was granted by the Observatory itself to enrich the "World Meteorology Day" page since Dr. Borghi often organized in the 1990s celebrations of this occasion, because they don't have ANY ACCESS to Wikipedia.
- No problem with photos of Dr. Sergio Borghi.
- AMPRO Association and the ""Osservatorio Meteorologico del Duomo - Milano" are in good relation.
- Dr. Massimo Enrico Ferrario Massimo Enrico (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Massimo Enrico: You have to contact Commons:Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) to certify this. Pierre cb (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
FBMD in metadata. Unlikely to be own work. Copyvio? Correct permission is required See COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Advertising spam Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
My own upload but it turns out it already existed so now it is a double. Robotje (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7 and as duplicate of Portret van Idzerd Aebinga van Humalda (1754-1834).jpg.
- @Robotje: Next time, please link to the duplicate to make it easier to check.
- They are not exact duplicates; the system did not flag them. But I cannot see any difference. Brianjd (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. - Robotje (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry EdycjomanCommons (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @EdycjomanCommons Speedy keep This image is used all over the place. Brianjd (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kit right arm Fiorentina1718tb.png. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Yann (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dharmajyoti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of project scope.
- File:Dharmajyoti Konwar1.jpg
- File:Dharmajyoti konwar.jpg
- File:Dharmajyoti k.jpg
- File:Dharmajyoti.jpg
- File:Dharmajyoti Konwar.jpg
— Haseeb (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient following to be notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
user-requested deletion of recently uploaded file TheTaraStark (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also not in use. Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G7. Brianjd (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The artwork in the background of this photograph is substantially more than de minimis, and there is no indication that it is under a free license. Seraphimblade (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade Delete Agreed, and Software used: Instagram in the EXIF data (with no camera data) doesn’t give us much confidence either. That’s before we start talking about scope issues. Brianjd (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused logo and images by non contributor.
- File:No-image-found.jpg
- File:Background World is Beautiful Online.jpg
- File:Mandiraz.in.logo1.png
- File:Mandiraz.in.logo.png
Netora (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I discovered that this picture looks cropped from this official photo: the cut out head appears like an awkward attempt to get rid of the attribution claim (“Photo: Alessandro Michelazzi”). This leads to the conclusion: either the uploaded is Michelazzi himself and he should contact VRT to effectively free the photo with an appropriate licence, or this is a copyright violation and this photo should not be here. εΔω 16:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Low resolution file missing EXIF data, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
A small and dark image, unable to see the object clearly A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
file in copyviol / photo by Maria La Torre, cf. forbes.com — danyele 16:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
mon travail est regulierement supprimé par lefringant en fonction de ce qu il juge bon ou pas Je ne perds plus mon temps a faire du travail de recherche pour qu il soit ensuite supprimé Yvesdebxl (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Aucune raison valable pour la suppression (No valid reason for deletion). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
COM:DERIV photo of a poster, where the poster includes an uncredited (presumably publicity shot) image of Annie Lennox. Belbury (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Better version here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_of_William_Walworth_-_Gules,_a_bend_raguly_argent_between_two_garbs_or_(fixed).png 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Taken from https://www.wikiart.org/en/enrique-enn Trade (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Artist died in 2013, the work is protected until 2084. 4ing (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete (undelete later). COM:FOP Norway imposes the -nc condition, which makes it non-free for Commons purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
personal photo not used on user page GPSLeo (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Dupe of svg version, unused Юрий Д.К. (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Posed photo unlikely to be taken amatour lacking EXIF data. Similar to a Spotify profile photo. Probably not own work. Also seems out of scope. ~Cybularny Speak? 18:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, identical to a photo used as album art: https://open.spotify.com/track/0ypLeLDOmOQ1XR83d4xKvm Belbury (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
unlikely own work GPSLeo (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Author field links to the uploader’s user page; licensing section uses {{Self}}. I’d call that a claim of own work. Brianjd (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that, but wouldn't we usually require VRT where it's not obvious the uploader is the same person whose copyright is stated on the linked page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Delete I only said that the uploader claimed it was their own work, not that the claim was credible. Actually, I don’t think it is (an external source that seems to have nothing to do with the uploader, resolution 320 × 240 and no metadata): VRT seems appropriate. Brianjd (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
- Thanks for catching that, but wouldn't we usually require VRT where it's not obvious the uploader is the same person whose copyright is stated on the linked page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- For the record: This file is currently in use at en:Monterrey, Casanare and es:Monterrey (Casanare). It depicts a food dish; it has no description (besides the filename); its only meaningful category is Cuisine of Colombia; its source is given as https://restaurantlacupula.com/. Brianjd (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
clear copyvio, listed a copyright by the artist, no proof this is "Own Work" as the uploader states Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- what kind of proof is required. This image is Mr. Albair's work, taken by Mr. Albair. 50.1.125.167 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
very likely a copyvio, no proof submitted to OTRS that this is "own work" as the uploader suggests Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content. Raw text better hosted elsewhere. Unused. Headlock0225 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope: No realistic educational value Headlock0225 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Book cover? see COM:BOOK Headlock0225 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
It’s a duplicate, slightly edited version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_23.jpg It does not make any sense to keep both images. Maybe both are irrelevant for wiki commons. Jnmths (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed again. I think there could be a question about how many similar photos of this building we want. If all the ones you are requesting to be deletion are deleted, how many will remain in this series? If it's 100 or 50 and they're all really similar, just with different cars in the parking lot and so forth, that might be problematic, but I don't think it's worth the trouble to decide which of 15 or so to delete if they're all the same color. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- The series has now 21 photos, but most of them are double. One times the original (like 23.jpg) and one a horribly edited version (like 24.jpg). So we don’t lose any pictures when we delete these, only duplicates. Jnmths (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Right, but that wasn't my question. If we delete all the dupes, how many are left in the series? It sounds like around 12, in which case, I think after the dupes are deleted, we should probably keep the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
It’s a duplicate, slightly edited version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_25.jpg It does not make any sense to keep both images. Maybe both are irrelevant for wikicommons. Jnmths (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that 25.jpg is the better image. However, I would certainly keep 25.jpg. There is a significant article about Infosys in en.wikipedia and there are several related articles (e.g. w:Infosys Prize, w:Infosys BPM). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The YouTube channel that uploaded the source video has since been terminated, and the source is not archived, so there is no way to verify the video was licensed under CC-BY. Yeeno (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Not confirmed by reliable sources Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see anything copyrightable. --RAN (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is not verified by sources Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be copyvio - small pic and no camera info in metadata Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Likely copyvio: looks like a pic of a pic (note the cellophane on top), no metadata, unlikely date. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Taken from Facebook, likely copyvio and unlikely date. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are right. According Wikipedia regulation publisher doesn't own this picture. It must delete. 2A01:CB08:529:5000:F1EF:3010:592F:3AD6 09:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- You are right. This picture must be deleted. Troiscarres (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have the right for this picture. Troiscarres (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
In use, but likely copyvio of photo based on metadata? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep It's a non-creative PD-art of PD-scan photo of a PD 2D artwork. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- For the record: In use at fr:Art et mathématiques. Brianjd (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: (C) AFP via Getty Images
Unclear whether AFP/Getty are the copyright holders, or just claim to be the licensors. We may need to delete the file, but I don't think it should be speedied without discussion. Storkk (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Info: This one is watermarked "AFP" and the BBC tagged it "GETTY IMAGES" on this page. See also EXIF data. --Achim55 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Spurred by Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Wikipedia in heraldry. Is this within SCOPE? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley I can’t believe I’m saying this: Speedy keep In use at wikidata:Q7404282. Brianjd (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Err. That someone made up a coat of arms for Wikipe-tan and then added it to Wikipe-tan's Wikidata entry as though it's real is closer to vandalism than evidence of educational purpose. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- It’s been there since January and no one has complained? At some point it becomes in scope for the same reason as Wikipe-tan herself is in scope?
- Anyway, I think we can keep it as a user page image of a user with significant contributions. Brianjd (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The idea that nobody has complained about a page that's not exactly highly monitored isn't persuasive, but on reflection I think I'll draw my Wikipe-tan line at the nude/sexualized images of it and not worry about the rest. — Rhododendrites talk | 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd, well feel free to say it (you just did). But if this exists, it justifies the existence of the container category, which thus influences the CfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Err. That someone made up a coat of arms for Wikipe-tan and then added it to Wikipe-tan's Wikidata entry as though it's real is closer to vandalism than evidence of educational purpose. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in use on a humor page, humorous project fanart, harmless. There’s no Wikipe-tan “canon” and it’s not vulgar/nonsensical so it’s not vandalism and there’s no reason it couldn’t be added to Wikidata. Dronebogus (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Brianjd and Dronebogus. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 11:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Явное нарушение авторских прав Содержание файла является явным нарушением авторских прав с имеющимся доказательством того, что правообладатель не выпускал файл под лицензией, совместимой с правилами Викисклада. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --✗plicit 06:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused logo for non-notable company Yeeno (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Chester Correctional Facility is a state institution; thus image was not created by federal employee and is copyrighted by the state. Yeeno (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:DW; no copyright information. Author appears to be residing in Lebanon (cf. w:Jamil Molaeb) so COM:FOP Lebanon likely applies. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Image still under copyright in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:SIG United Kingdom says most signatures from UK are protected works in the UK. So this would be free enough to host without needing fair-use exemption on, for example, enwiki, but is not free enough to host on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: This is said to be the signature of Albert, the prince consort of Queen Victoria. Albert died in 1861, so his signature is clearly in the public domain because its protection has expired a long time ago. --Rosenzweig τ 15:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Source says "© Sapienza University of Rome Expedition to Motya" Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The images and the content were published in the public domain. See original post source. Eli+ 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Elias Ziade: Yes, I saw the original source and that's why I'm listing these images for deletion because it's clear that neither the site or the image is in the public domain. The Creative Commons license at the top is CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0, a license not permitted on Commons (see Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses). Second, the license statement under each image clearly says "© Sapienza University of Rome Expedition to Motya", meaning it's copyrighted and not in the public domain. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rolling the following images from the same source into the discussion:
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate upload Norman.seibert (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate upload Norman.seibert (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
This Norwegian sculpture is a work of living sculptor Odin Øistad and therefore still protected by copyright. Per COM:FOP Norway, Norwegian freedom of panorama for sculptures like this one prohibits commercial use and is therefore incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. The file can be restored 70 years after the artist's death. Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm adding these images showing the same sculpture:
- File:Honningsvåg 2013 06 09 3506 (10319250644).jpg
- File:Honningsvåg 2013 06 09 3504 (10319439833).jpg
- File:Honningsvåg 2013 06 09 3500 (10319287105).jpg
- File:Honningsvåg 2013 06 09 3505 (10319272925).jpg
- File:Honningsvåg 2013 06 09 3501 (10319265374).jpg
--Rosenzweig τ 21:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
У файла отсутствует источник. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: author request, unused. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcoilardi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Cecere management.png
- File:Ipsar food gestione magazzino scuole.png
- File:Microdelivery app mobile ristoranti pizzerie consegne a domicilio.jpg
- File:Microrecipes restaurant manager cloud software.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ciao Eugene la prima immagine della Cecere Management mi ha chiesto di caricarla il titolare dell'azienda Nunzio Yari Cecere, le altre quattro sono immagini di applicazioni che ho sviluppato io i loghi sono tutti originali sviluppati dal mio grafico Marcoilardi (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 17:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Who is the sculptor and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Likely above the threshold of originality in Australia. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 23:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Due to COM:FOP Japan. The sculptor of the statue is 西村忠(Nishimura Tadashi) according to [4]. This author died in 2016 (written as 平成26 28年 in Nitten's deceased member list). Therefore, the statue's copyright is kept until 2086. Now commons can't keep this photo. Netora (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- File:最上義光像／霞城 - panoramio.jpg, File:霞城公園最上義光像 Statue of Mogami Yoshiaki at Kajo Park - panoramio.jpg have the same problem. --Netora (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Minor correction: 平成28年. (2016 is correct.) --emk (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Меридианец (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivatives of copyrighted artworks, no FoP in Russia and Kazakhstan.
- File:Памятник Денису Тену (Алма-Ата).jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Фёдору Алексеевичу Головину в Омске.jpg
- File:Памятник Ф.М. Достоевскому в Омске.jpg
- File:Скульптура "Подвиги героев революционной борьбы".jpg
- File:Мемориальная доска Жамиле Шашкиной в Караганде.jpg
- File:Бюст Манякину Сергею Иосифовичу в Омске.jpg
- File:Памятник жене генерал-губернатора Сибири Г.Х. Гасфорта.jpg
- File:Памятник Ван Гогу в Омске.jpg
- File:Скульптурная композиция "Счастье моё" в Астане 2.jpg
- File:Скульптурная композиция "Счастье моё" в Астане 1.jpg
- File:Мұқағали Мақатаев. Шілде, 2015 жылы.JPG
- File:Народная артистка Бикен Римова и писатель-драматург Шахмет Хусаинов.JPG
Xunks (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danny Alberto (talk · contribs)
[edit]I have deleted several uploads of this user as COM:NETCOPYVIOs now; these are the rest. I suspect these are copyright violations as well and think they should be deleted per the precautionary principle. The image dimensions suggest that these are screenshots from videos (Youtube or similar), and File:TCBOG.jpg has a partially visible copyright notice at the bottom of the image.
- File:Chinazuntower.jpg
- File:TCBOG.jpg
- File:Pgifc.jpg
- File:Quillamiami.jpg
- File:Edificios del Norte de Barranquilla.jpg
- File:The-Icon-Barranquilla.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete besides, these're photos of buildings in colombia, usa and china, which is quite uncommon for any photographer. RZuo (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The license available in the source page is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Never files say "All illustrations on this site are copyrighted to Nobu Tamura. The low resolution versions of the images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license meaning that you are free to use them as long as you properly credit the author (© N. Tamura). High resolution versions are available upon request. Questions: contact me at nobu dot tamura at yahoo dot com." This would indicate that this licence also applies for all images on the site, which should be fine according to Commons:Multi-licensing. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Source page reads "All images on this site are copyrighted to Nobu Tamura under a Creative Commons 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license meaning that you are free to use them for non commercial purposes as long as you properly credit the author (© N. Tamura)." --Achim55 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Logo of apparently non-notable company. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader(s), 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 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader(s), 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 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 09:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously not a selfie, as said. Culex (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems useless and violative of privacy, even if it's their own privacy, but I think we don't host copies of receipts unless there's an exceptional reason to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Of course we do, in the category Receipts. Receipts are clearly an important part of this world; why would we not host pictures of them?
- But this is not a receipt: it says the amount is to be paid (as opposed to already paid). It has an invoice number, so I’ll call it an invoice. It’s a special kind of invoice, though, because it also has a description of the goods to be shipped.
- Keep Added to category Invoices, bills and receipts. Brianjd (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, to clarify.
- @Ikan Kekek I was about to close this, but then saw that the uploader wrote on their user talk page:
- Please delete the content.
- Brianjd (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, let's leave this to the discretion of an admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, @Brianjd: I can not apply G7. Author or uploader request deletion here because he/she uploaded it here in 2017 and the user only wrote: Please delete the content. The user did not provide enough information about privacy etc. Now, I am not closing the discussion in order to get more information from @Vijintalk. Kadı Message 11:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, let's leave this to the discretion of an admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, little educational purpose. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This photograph is taken by Maryam Zandi, who is still alive. The source does not say it was released under a free license like Creative Commons. The only way it could be free is to prove it was published +30 years ago (PD-Iran). The source says these pictures were published in October 2014, so it is not PD. HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplikat, leicht bearbeitete Version von https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_07.jpg Jnmths (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplikat, leicht bearbeitete Version von https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_13.jpg Jnmths (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplikat, leicht bearbeitete Version von https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_16.jpg Jnmths (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplikat, leicht bearbeitete Version von https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_19.jpg Es macht keinen Sinn beide Dateien zu behalten, wenn überhaupt eine relevant ist. Jnmths (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Duplikat, leicht bearbeitete Version von https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Infosys_limited_Zurich_Switzerland_(_Ank_Kumar_)_20.jpg Es macht keinen Sinn beide Dateien zu behalten. Fraglich ob nicht beide überflüssig sind. Jnmths (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Works created by county officials are not public domain in Colorado. Yeeno (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please cite the law or statute which makes that the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken You seem to have some understanding of copyright; you would be aware that most works are automatically copyrighted. No specific law for government officials is necessary. Also, the well-known exception for US government works applies only to the federal government.
- Unless there is some exception for Colorado that I am not aware of, your question makes no sense. Brianjd (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Colorado Open Records Act, mugshots are public documents. Please do some research before you make deletion nominations.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: The Harvard State Copyright Resource Center lists Colorado as "Red", which indicates the documents are "presumptively copyrightable". Compare this with Florida, which is listed as "Green", meaning documents are "presumptively public domain" (hence why we have {{PD-FLGov}}). Yeeno (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken Actually, it was Yeeno who made the nomination, and it sounds like they have done their research.
- Also, the onus is on the uploader to demonstrate that the file is free, and this file’s tag of {{cc-zero}} demonstrates only that the uploader doesn’t understand copyright (at least it’s better than the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag that was initially added). Brianjd (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- My reading of CORA is that it means that mugshots in that state are public. If someone has an alternate reading of that Colorado Law, please be specific about what, exactly, makes them ineligible under that statute. Third-party determinations are not the point, the actual law is the point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- On Harvard's page for Colorado, it cites Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 24-72-203, which says "[n]othing in this article shall preclude the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political subdivisions from obtaining and enforcing trademark or copyright protection for any public record, and the state and its agencies, institutions, and political subdivisions are hereby specifically authorized to obtain and enforce such protection in accordance with the applicable federal law; except that this authorization shall not restrict public access to or fair use of copyrighted materials and shall not apply to writings which are merely lists or other compilations."
- Basically, the government is allowed to copyright any public records to the extent that it does not restrict public access to these records. Yeeno (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not exactly, the statute clearly means that CORA makes the documents public unless and until copyright is claimed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- My reading of CORA is that it means that mugshots in that state are public. If someone has an alternate reading of that Colorado Law, please be specific about what, exactly, makes them ineligible under that statute. Third-party determinations are not the point, the actual law is the point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Colorado Open Records Act, mugshots are public documents. Please do some research before you make deletion nominations.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This image is available for noncommercial use, according to the email I received yesterday from the County Attorney of Chaffee County, Colorado, responding to an email I sent about this to records@chaffeesheriff.org:
- The Chaffee County Sheriff's Office asked me to respond to your question regarding the use of booking photos. Booking photos are criminal justice records under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act ("CCJRA") C.R.S. § 24-72-301 et.seq. The use of criminal justice records, including booking photos, are regulated by C.R.S § 24-72-305.5, which states that criminal justice records shall not be used by any person for the purpose of soliciting business for pecuniary gain. In addition, C.R.S. § 24-72-305.5(2)(a) regulates the use of booking photos and states:
- "It is unlawful for a person to obtain a copy of a booking photograph in any format knowing:
- (I) The booking photograph will be placed in a publication or posted to a website; and
- (II) Removal of the booking photograph from the publication or website requires the payment of a fee or other exchange for pecuniary gain."
- While I cannot advise you on whether the use of this particular booking photo is in violation of the CCJRA. I can state that the CCJRA prohibits posting a booking photo to a website that requires the payment of a fee or other exchange for pecuniary gain in order to remove or delete the booking photo from the publication or website.
- If you have any other questions please direct them to me. Thank you.
- Best,
- --
- Daniel Tom
- County Attorney
- Chaffee County Government
- Office: 719.530.5563
- www.ChaffeeCounty.org
CONCLUSION: If w:Creative Commons NonCommercial license is allowed on Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia, then this mugshot should be fine. Otherwise, not. Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DavidMCEddy NC licenses are not allowed on any Wikimedia site (except for the very limited exceptions for fair use, and even those are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons).
- But that doesn’t matter. The restrictions described in the e-mail you quoted sound like non-copyright restrictions. Brianjd (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: I think it will NOT work.
- I just received the following from the Chaffee County Government attorney.
- Sorry I did not respond sooner. Not all County records are in the public domain, some records are subject to privileges and may be protected documents. The booking picture is a record maintained by the County and can be considered a copyrighted record since it was created by the Chaffee County Sheriff's Office Statute regulates the use of booking photos and prohibits them from being used for the purpose of soliciting business for pecuniary gain. Additionally, the statute regulating the use of booking photos contemplates the use in publications and websites, such as newspapers and associated websites, so long as the use is not associated with payment of a fee to remove that photo. Wikipedia use of a booking photo does not violate statute so long as it does not require the the payment of a fee or other exchange for pecuniary gain to remove the booking photo. As an example see, https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-iris-eytan-attorney-representing-barry-morphew
- My conclusion: If it "can be considered a copyrighted record", I think we can NOT use it, essentially because their license is roughly equivalent to CC BY-NC, and the NC (noncommercial) restriction is prohibited on Commons: They allowed Fox News to use it, because Fox was NOT demanding remuneration for that particular image. However, if the image is on Commons, we can NOT preclude someone from, e.g., selling a poster of that image for profit in direct violation of the license terms I got from the Chaffee County Attorney. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Nopenis}} 2A02:A451:A77B:1:1977:E630:F190:96EE 19:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator is anonymous and has done nothing else but this nomination, which is somewhat prominent. The nominator has not given any explicit arguments. The video in question is of better quality than most of the videos in the same category, including a thorough description. Wikimedia is not censored. Richiex (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Keep vote above is from uploader. The nomination was too prominent; I have added {{Tl}}. Brianjd (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 03:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
mot probably not PD or CC Plánovací kalendář (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Found on Flickr with license CC-BY-NC-ND, also there is no indication of OGL on Twitter. National archives only provided content until 30 June 2022, thus image published afterwards are not yet licensed under OGL A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Cabinet Office has confirmed that it is under OGL. [5]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Mike Rohsopht. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Found on Flickr with license CC-BY-NC-ND, also there is no indication of OGL on Twitter. National archives only provided content until 30 June 2022, thus image published afterwards are not yet licensed under OGL A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prime Minister Rishi Sunak chairing the first meeting of his Cabinet.jpg. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Kwidzyn most , z drogą fotowoltaiczną przestrzenną na wodzie ogniwa na słońce i wiatr.jpg
[edit]This file was initially tagged by 94.42.50.201 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Compare name in Exif data with en:Special:Diff/1116506491. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed by following the instructions at COM:VRT. Storkk (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The description is given only in Polish. Here it is, collapsed onto one line: narysowałem na podstawie zdjęcia z wyszukiwarki google Kwidzyn most , z drogą fotowoltaiczną przestrzenną na wodzie ogniwa na słońce i wiatr , jak dmuchnę to w dzień na Marsa dolecisz.
- DuckDuckGo gives this translation: I drew on the basis of a photo from the google search engine Kwidzyn bridge, with a photovoltaic road spatial on the water cells for the sun and wind, if I blow it in the day you will fly to Mars.
- This suggests that this is a derivative work. Brianjd (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The nominated image does show a bridge with other (presumably fictitious) equipment drawn around it. Brianjd (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The EXIF data says: Author: Foto Aleksander Lubinski. But the linked diff, by the uploader, says: Hello my name is Sebastian Laskowski. Brianjd (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Jest to artystyczna wizja — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk • contribs) 2022-10-30T05:53:48 (UTC)
- That comment was added with this edit summary: Ważna treść. This is either a hopeless language barrier or vandalism. Perhaps someone should explain the situation in Polish? Brianjd (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Lilo Stein died 1997. What is the reason for CC? Goesseln (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Goesseln Because whoever inherited the copyright decided to release it under CC BY-SA 3.0? Brianjd (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Question Don't we usually ask for VRT proof in such instances? Felix QW (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Felix QW Do we? The only other cases of inherited copyright I can think of are Infrogmation’s uploads. Brianjd (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know - I just imagined that if we ask for VRT if someone claims to be, say, Fred Stein, we would also ask for VRT if someone claims to be the heir to said Fred Stein. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- what is in question is the permission given by the heirs of Lilo Stein and not of Fred Stein.--Goesseln (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, although they very likely overlap or even coincide. I used Fred Stein as an (at least somewhat pertinent) example since he is doubtlessly notable, and we use VRT to verify the identity of notable people. Felix QW (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- what is in question is the permission given by the heirs of Lilo Stein and not of Fred Stein.--Goesseln (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know - I just imagined that if we ask for VRT if someone claims to be, say, Fred Stein, we would also ask for VRT if someone claims to be the heir to said Fred Stein. Felix QW (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Felix QW Do we? The only other cases of inherited copyright I can think of are Infrogmation’s uploads. Brianjd (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of a permission to upload this under a CC license. Taken in Paris, so apparently a French work, and since Lilo Stein died in 1997, protected by copyright in France (or any other 70 years pma country) until the end of 2067. The file can therefore be restored in 2068. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
File:Bye Bye Birdie musical poster, 1975 production, Colfax, Washington - DPLA - d9aed71d7f8156904475ea5bb24498dc.jpg
[edit]Arm is above COM:TOO and used in other promotional material for the musical, ie.[6]. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per {{PD-US-no notice}}. This has no notice, but it is obviously not the original promotional material. I reviewed a range of promotional material for the 1960 Broadway production that used the arm and/or lips motif (posters, programs, cast record, and sheet music). None displayed a copyright notice for the cover art. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Rosenzweig τ 14:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
COIN. User is Julieta Marina Vanney, a researcher for the project that uses this logo [7] MexTDT (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is PD-shape anyway. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rosenzweig τ 14:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also:
This file was initially tagged by Gyrostat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Former Twitter PP according to TinEye
Small size, no metadata, previously published photo of a public figure. Copyright holder should confirm license via COM:VRT. Storkk (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; tasked CommonsDelinker to do a universal replace with File:Nicolas Bay - MEPs debate measures to improve Europe (50348598583).jpg. —howcheng {chat} 19:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Foto del II Coloquio Internacional de Trans.Arch Archivar, desarchivar, anarchivar. Memoria y estrategia.jpg
[edit]COIN. User is Julieta Marina Vanney, a researcher for the project that uses this logo [8] Out of project scope. MexTDT (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COIN is not a valid reason for deletion, but as the image is unused anywhere, it seems to be out of scope. —howcheng {chat} 19:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Ad Image , LTA Mafalda4144 (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, this is a photo of some buildings, it's not an advert.--Belbury (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- 意見:此照片經常於[9]被替換上來，原為住宅廣告用戶上傳，多次變換傀儡帳號每次重新上來就變更，為避免不知情使用者被誤判為廣告用戶，希望能移除此圖片。 Mafalda4144 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Dubious nomination, blocked user. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete uploaded by an LTA Lemonaka (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to describe the uploader as an LTA, or for why it should be deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please check CentralAuth. Lemonaka (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- So you think they're a sockpuppet? Yet your own edits should be taken at face value? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Please check CentralAuth. Lemonaka (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to describe the uploader as an LTA, or for why it should be deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Sorry, going to need a clear policy-based reason for deletion. Nominator's block was removed as having been erroneous, but uploader has been indef-blocked for sockpuppeting. However, there's no speedy deletion criterion for contributions by banned users. —howcheng {chat} 19:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely above COM:TOO Australia. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, On the official website for the Australian Labor Party (alp.org.au) is a page titled "Privacy and Legals" (alp.org.au/privacy), this page sets out the content listed on the website as being subject to copyright, permission is provided for non-profit electronic viewing and distribution, however content can be used and reproduced without written permission provided that the material has not been modified and its acknowledgements (source) have been given, therefore I believe this file is within COM:TOO Australia. However, I am not a regular Commons user, if I am mistaken then please inform me otherwise and explain my misunderstanding of said material, thank you. Aeyeu (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think "Permission is given for non-profit electronic viewing and distribution" is equivalent to a CC BY-NC-ND license, which is not free enough for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Any sort of "non-commercial" clause is obviously ineligible for Commons AFAIK. It should be transferred to the English Wikipedia. Mellohi! (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think "Permission is given for non-profit electronic viewing and distribution" is equivalent to a CC BY-NC-ND license, which is not free enough for Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Australian TOO is *very* low. Textbook violation. -FASTILY 04:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Image still under copyright in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Image still under copyright in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lemonaka as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.rom.on.ca/en/collections-research/magazine/sherwani Yann (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per [10] (and other websites), this is a 1896 painting by a painter named Bert Harris, which means it qualifies for {{PD-old-assumed}} even if the year the painter died is not (yet) known. The painting was part of a travelling art exhibition called Peacock in the Desert: The Royal Arts of Jodhpur, India in 2018. --Rosenzweig τ 20:07, 5 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 🇺🇦 14:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: I couldn't find it on the web before its upload date here, so apparently it's not a COM:NETCOPYVIO, there's also no other evidence against this being the uploader's own work, so I will assume it is the uploader's own work. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Явное нарушение авторских прав Содержание файла является явным нарушением авторских прав с имеющимся доказательством того, что правообладатель не выпускал файл под лицензией, совместимой с правилами Викисклада. Андрей Очурдяпов (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: photo apparently shows the uploader, but it's not used on a user page, so out of scope. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
According to COM:RUSSIA, tv programs and films are in public domain only when punlication date was prior to 1952 Renvoy (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work. Yann (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 188.123.231.41 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: stolen from vk.com (23 Nov 2013): [11] 1901 x 2048 px
This was then contested by uploader, who wrote Unsubstantiated submitted for quick removal. The photo was taken by me, and the fact that it is in a social network, so only because it was liked by a subzh, with whom I have been communicating since 1992., but did not complete DR.
Kolchak1923 please follow the instructions on COM:VRT to confirm you are the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unsubstantiated submitted for quick removal. The photo was taken by me, and the fact that it is in a social network, so only because it was liked by a subzh, with whom I have been communicating since 1992. Kolchak1923 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Requires COM:VRT. --Xover (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Despite camera details being present there have all the appearances e of screenshots of a copyrighted production
Possibly a production shot created by/for the production company, in which case if they do intend to license it freely, this should be confirmed by following the instructions on COM:VRT Storkk (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Luan as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Imagem constrúida a partir de alguma pintura como seu plano de fundo, mas não há fornecimento dos créditos quanto a isso. Yann (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The background image seems like it's probably PD-old, if someone can identify it. —howcheng {chat} 19:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep since the source for the background is almost certainly either File:Convicts (1), da Coleção Brasiliana Iconográfica.jpg, File:Convicts (2), da Coleção Brasiliana Iconográfica.jpg, or File:Convicts (3), da Coleção Brasiliana Iconográfica.jpg. --Xover (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Xover. Ruthven (msg) 15:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Steinninn as Logo PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per Yann: simple logo. Ruthven (msg) 15:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
out of scope 178.175.141.208 07:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- What is? The penis or the flower?
- The flower photo looked good, even at full resolution; it might be worth keeping (under a different name). The penis photo is not so good, but shows the ring just below the corona (which is at the opposite end of the penis to where the ring normally is). Is that interesting? Brianjd (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting if we don't have a better example, yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:NUDITY. --Ellywa (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Finnusertop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contains File:QT1.jpg in all revisions (bottom right) Uploaded 10 years ago, widely used. Yann (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the uploader (Nguyen1310) has not been active in years, so they will probably not be able to help. They added the sources in Special:Diff/110435309, but gave the same sources for the second and third rows. Brianjd (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Civil-POV alert. 2601:601:9C80:8660:B958:8184:42A1:CF70 03:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Brianjd (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd and Yann: Either of you interested in replacing that image with a different one? Then we can just delete this revision. —howcheng {chat} 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Brianjd (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This was never copyvio, since File:QT1.jpg was deleted for lack of source rather than a copyright problem as such. The original source of the problematic image is almost certainly the photo on p. 366 of CMH Pub 30–22: American Military History vol. 2 (2010), "The United States Army in a Global Era, 1917–2003" by Richard W. Stewart (ed.). Published by the Center of Military History of the United States Army. The book doesn't explicitly list the source for this particular photo, but it lists "courtesy of" sources for photos from other branches of the military, private archives, etc. (and blurs out images for which they do not have digital distribution rights, so they have done thorough copyright clearance) and then a blanket statement that "Other illustrations from Department of the Army files." In other words, this photo is from the army's own files and was most likely taken by army personnel while on duty and presumably as a part of their duties. In other words, File:QT1.jpg should be undeleted and tagged as {{PD-USGov}} (or one of the more specific templates) and with the above book listed as its source. This file should then list File:QT1.jpg as its source. --Xover (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There is insufficient evidence that File:QT1.jpg is in PD. The book referenced by Xover does not give specific evidence for this particular photo, but it may be in PD. If somebody requests undeletion of File:QT1.jpg and if succesful, this photo collage can be undeleted as well. But is has to be deleted per COM:PRP for now. --Ellywa (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nițu Alina Karina (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of physical photos. No proof of authorship.
- File:Citind.jpg
- File:Georgeta Mircea Cancicov la masa de scris.jpg
- File:Georgeta Mircea Cancicov.jpg
Gikü (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep They appear to meet the requirements set out in PD-Romania. --RAN (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. All three are photos dated to c. 1940 or c. 1950. At the time the term was pma. 30, which was extended to pma. 50 in 1956. A photographer alive to take a photo in 1940 would have to die within six years in order for the copyright to expire before 1996 when 1) the URAA would have restored its US copyright to a pub. +95 year term, and 2) the new Romanian copyright law extended the term to pma. 70. The assumptions needed to make these PD are therefore very improbable. --Xover (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of Xover, thanks. --Ellywa (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Tineye finds this at https://healthylifefestival.com on 25 June 2019
Contesting my own request because of date and time I the EXIF. However, I feel we need the uploader to give correct licencing information to COM:VRT EXIF data signifies when the picture was taken, but not whether the uploader is the copyright owner 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP. Uploader – who was notified about this request – did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright situation of this image. Therefore the image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The copyright policy of the Indian Army website is in the following link. https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=E9d1ZBFPlP+TuXvqgtLAUw==&ParentID=QWRYMKYE9uH04Lni8aQOvA==
- Although not explicitly mentioned, twitter handles of the Indian Army and its public relation departments follow the same policy. Akk7a (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge" on indianarmy.nic.in does not apply at all to twitter.com Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Akk7a: is this file published on indianarmy.nic.in? Can you find policy applying to twitter handles of the Indian Army? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are a limited number of image files published on indianarmy.nic.in. Most updates and images are posted through the twitter and facebook accounts (https://twitter.com/adgpi and https://www.facebook.com/Indianarmy.adgpi/), both of which mention indianarmy.nic.in as the official website. Neither of the sites talk about a copyright policy. A limited number of the same images are published on the Press Information Bureau, Government of India website. The copyright policy can be found here (https://www.pib.gov.in/content/102_2_Copyright-Policy.aspx). In general, the Government of India policy has been that all images on the government websites in India must be accessed and used freely, as per the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India. This can be accessed at https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf. Akk7a (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And how do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? That is why GODL requires license to be clearly marked - because without that omnipotence is required to know whether this (or some other exclusion) is applying Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny, this is an photo of an armed division publicly posted on a twitter account, I doubt this is "non-shareable and/or sensitive". --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the GODL "applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India". The Indian Army is generated using public funds [] of the Government of India. I don't see an exception that applies. We have also published the attribution statement [of the data concerned], including the [...] or the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) by publishing the URL. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- We cannot know whether only "non-sensitive data" is there (also can it change retroactively? Because something become embarrassing or become treated as sensitive)? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the GODL "applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India". The Indian Army is generated using public funds [] of the Government of India. I don't see an exception that applies. We have also published the attribution statement [of the data concerned], including the [...] or the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) by publishing the URL. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny, this is an photo of an armed division publicly posted on a twitter account, I doubt this is "non-shareable and/or sensitive". --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 19:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mateuz Konieczny: According to §6g. of this gazette notification, it says to [s]ee [§] 2.10 and 2.11 of NSDAP, 2012 for the definition of restricted and sensitive data, on the last page's footnote. The NSDAP is available here.
Restricted data is "[d]ata which are accessible only through a prescribed process of registration [...] by respective authorities. This isn't restricted data because there's no prescribed process. You just download it from Twitter.
The definition of sensitive data, on the other hand, is way less clear. It just says "[s]ensitive data as defined by various Acts and rules of the Government of India". --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 23:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mateuz Konieczny: According to §6g. of this gazette notification, it says to [s]ee [§] 2.10 and 2.11 of NSDAP, 2012 for the definition of restricted and sensitive data, on the last page's footnote. The NSDAP is available here.
- Note: I seem to have thought that URL = attribution statement. This is not true. According to §5 of this gazette notification, it states that [u]nless the user is citing the data using an internationally accepted data citation format, an attribution notice in the following format must be explicitly included [...]}. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I am staying the heck away from GODL-related deletion discussions in general, but I've got to say… when the situation is so unclear and complicated I think it's better to just nuke everything and only re-upload whatever has a very clear provenance and licensing status. Because otherwise we'll end up relitigating the issue in every individual deletion discussion. Like this one. --Xover (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Somebody has to close this DR after such a long time. In the discussion, it is not clearly shown this image is licensed with GODL-India. The twitter account https://twitter.com/prodefencechan1 does not show a link to the copyright statement of the Indian army. They could have done so. In addition the copyright statement on the Indian army website is not compatible with the GODL license template on Commons, as it states ‘’This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.’’ So making derivative works is not allowed it seems. Regarding all uncertainties and a lack of clear evidence I decided to delete this photo If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement. Like probanly all 11746+ images from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And how do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? That is why GODL requires license to be clearly marked - because without that omnipotence is required to know whether this (or some other exclusion) is applying Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: {{Indian navy}} applies.
- Great! I am a bit confused why "This image, which was originally posted to Indian Navy, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India for further instructions." is still shown on the image page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: {{Indian navy}} applies.
Deleted: The copyright policy on the website of the Indian Navy, with the source of this file, states “Contents featured on this website belongs to Indian Navy. Contents of this website should not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from the Indian Navy. Its content, if referred to and/or forms part of content of another website, the content-source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website cannot be used in any misleading or objectionable context.” This incompatible with the GODL-India or any other Commons licencing. In addition, there has been a VRT correspondence, ticket:2013090610005872 from 2013 concerning some images. I doubt this is still valid for other images from a later date (this image has been uploaded in 2017), especially taking into account the wording of the copyright statement as it reads today. Regarding all uncertainties and a lack of clear evidence that this image is freely licensed I decided to delete this photo. If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement. Like probanly all 11746+ images from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- The copyright policy of the Indian Army website is in the following link. https://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=E9d1ZBFPlP+TuXvqgtLAUw==&ParentID=QWRYMKYE9uH04Lni8aQOvA==
- Although not explicitly mentioned, twitter handles of the Indian Army and its public relation departments follow the same policy. Akk7a (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And how do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? That is why GODL requires license to be clearly marked - because without that omnipotence is required to know whether this (or some other exclusion) is applying Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Somebody has to close this DR after such a long time. In the discussion, it is not clearly shown this image is licensed with GODL-India. The twitter account https://twitter.com/Whiteknight_IA does not show a link to the copyright statement of the Indian army. They could have done so. In addition the copyright statement on the Indian army website is not compatible with the GODL license template on Commons, as it states ‘’This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.’’ So making derivative works is not allowed it seems. Regarding all uncertainties and a lack of clear evidence I decided to delete this photo. If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement. Like probably all 11746+ images from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- If this file is bad then *File:2022_ceremony_Nari_Shakti_Puraskar_to_Jodhaiya_Bai_Baiga_(sq_cropped).jpg
- also goes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- ?? If I was concerned thar 11,000 photos on commons were possibly illegal if viewed from a certain ungenerous legal direction then I would nt nominate one for deletion. Its pointless, I'd work out how they could be saved. A more productive route might be to contect the copyright owners via Wikimedia India and ask them if they want the images (oh and Id copy in the 100s of people on Wikipedia who would lose their photo on their article) removed?. Victuallers (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Victuallers: Advertised at Template talk:GODL-India#Deletion requests (again). Brianjd (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- "A more productive route might be to contect the copyright owners via Wikimedia India" feel free to do this. For obvious reasons it is OK to delete files with invalid copyright status without putting effort into rescuing them (Commons deletion process is overloaded already, and uploaders are obligated to provide clear copyright info, not people who found files with invalid state) @Victuallers: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny Who says that these files have an invalid copyright status? Your discussion links both lead back to Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India, which ended in a procedural close with no documented consensus on the license issues. The instructions for reviewers merely state that the media must be available on a government website, not that the license needs to be marked. I don’t have 10 lifetimes to read through all the other discussion; is there a credible summary somewhere? Brianjd (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And even in that DR, all the arguments seemed to be about whether the license covered images, and whether it was marked, not whether it needed to be marked. Brianjd (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny Who says that these files have an invalid copyright status? Your discussion links both lead back to Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India, which ended in a procedural close with no documented consensus on the license issues. The instructions for reviewers merely state that the media must be available on a government website, not that the license needs to be marked. I don’t have 10 lifetimes to read through all the other discussion; is there a credible summary somewhere? Brianjd (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I requested via the Centre for Internet and Society that a lawyer examines the scope of the GODL. However this was never done. Yann (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny In the DR linked above, another user used the same quote to support the opposite argument (that the license is valid). Simply repeating stuff here without context is not helping. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Given that preamble starts from "Structured data available in open format and open license for public access and use, usually termed as “Open Data,” is of prime importance in the contemporary world." this is at least not the intended interpretation. Also, where it is even claimed by publisher that this license applies to this image? How do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny In the DR linked above, another user used the same quote to support the opposite argument (that the license is valid). Simply repeating stuff here without context is not helping. Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This and all such similar files must be deleted. GODL-India only applies when the data set metas / formats are published to DATA.GOV.IN (or to those published earlier under the old NDSAP). This flows from certain clauses of the NDSAP implementation guidelines. The work in question has to be explicitly published under the open data formats of GODL-India after considering all the essential ingredients like "shareable", "non-sensitive" etc. - which can only be done by the data provider. Furthermore the sharing of such data is only envisaged among the registered users source. SinghIsFxing (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Somebody has to close this DR after such a long time. In the discussion, it is not clearly shown this image is licensed with GODL-India. The twitter account https://twitter.com/rashtrapatibhvn does show a link to the website of the president. The copyright statement on the president website is not compatible with the GODL-India license template on Commons, as it states ‘’This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India, If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website can not be used in any misleading or objectionable context.’’ So copying work or making derivative works is not allowed it seems, from the website, but probably the same will be true for the twitter account. Regarding a lack of clear evidence this image being freely licensed I decided to delete this photo. The argument of GODL-India will only apply to data, adds to the lack of clarity. If you do not agree with my decision to delete the file(s), please ask for undeletion on COM:UNDELETE. If you do so, formulate your motivation why this image (or these images) can be maintained very clearly and base your motivation on the Commons policies. After that, another administrator will take a decision.. --Ellywa (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
GODL requires license to be clearly marked, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Media_in_Category:Unreviewed_photos_of_GODL-India and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=680893121#Copyright_query It appears that this image fails this requirement. Like probably all 11746+ images from Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, it is an invalid license use, claimed license is for data (including graphic representation of data) - not for photos. See "“Data” means a representation of information4, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata,5 that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used.6" in license text Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And how do we know that "b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorized to license, that is data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive;" exclusion is not applying? That is why GODL requires license to be clearly marked - because without that omnipotence is required to know whether this (or some other exclusion) is applying Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't COM:CUR India apply? {userpage! | talk!} 00:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible for photographer to hold copyright of photo itself, even if underlying work is freely licensed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (@Matr1x-101: )
- @Mateusz Konieczny: probably not, since something equivalent to {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-Art}} applies. {userpage! | talk!} 18:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Then maybe some India-currency-specific template would be useful? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny: probably not, since something equivalent to {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-Art}} applies. {userpage! | talk!} 18:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is it possible for photographer to hold copyright of photo itself, even if underlying work is freely licensed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC) (@Matr1x-101: )
- @Mateusz Konieczny: correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't COM:CUR India apply? {userpage! | talk!} 00:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![3 File:Логотип МБОУ "Школа №1 города Ясиноватая".png](#File:Логотип_МБОУ_"Школа_№1_города_Ясиноватая".png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg){kind=link}
_26.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2336-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2319-1.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg){kind=link}
_18.jpg){kind=link}
_21.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_celebrated_its_Golden_Jubilee_Raising_Day.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
_(cropped).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&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}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
!.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2!.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3!.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=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}
.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}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_24.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_23.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg){kind=link}
_26.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_26.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_25.jpg){kind=link}
_26.jpg){kind=link}
_26.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§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2336-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2336-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2336-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2336-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2319-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2319-1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2319-1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_DSC_2319-1.jpg){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}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_06.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_13.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_17.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_16.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg){kind=link}
_18.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_18.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_19.jpg){kind=link}
_18.jpg){kind=link}
_18.jpg){kind=link}
_21.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_21.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_20.jpg){kind=link}
_21.jpg){kind=link}
_21.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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}
![[11]](https://sun9-east.userapi.com/sun9-28/s/v1/if2/ldsyVcEcSRdIJoKiTBwsGU8mSRmCoJ61TTufWUZXSxaMm2UbrWKCMYpaYPzT2ik3Q8-WEliHgSnLa4DHSsz1PuNn.jpg?size=1901x2048&quality=96&type=album){kind=link}
,_da_Cole%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Brasiliana_Iconogr%C3%A1fica.jpg){kind=link}
,_da_Cole%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Brasiliana_Iconogr%C3%A1fica.jpg){kind=link}
,_da_Cole%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Brasiliana_Iconogr%C3%A1fica.jpg){kind=link}
_celebrated_its_Golden_Jubilee_Raising_Day.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_celebrated_its_Golden_Jubilee_Raising_Day.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_celebrated_its_Golden_Jubilee_Raising_Day.jpg){kind=link}
_celebrated_its_Golden_Jubilee_Raising_Day.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Although the coin itself is in PD according to COM:CUR India, there remains copyright on the photo of the coin, as the coin is 3D. So imho this photo must be deleted (I cannot reach the source website). --Ellywa (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
