Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/11/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
File:Secretary Blinken Virtually Meets with UN Secretary-General António Guterres - 51082420987.jpg
[edit]This file was initially tagged by %USER% as Screenshot —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: mistagged. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyrighted Getty Images photo as used in https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/29/olympic-swimmer-klete-keller-to-plead-guilty-in-trump-capitol-riot.html SecretName101 (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to license it unfer fair use. Better delete this Wu Bai X Tong Nian (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deletion per nomination. Commons does not accept fair use. --De728631 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
title is unknown 125.160.151.101 03:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. --Achim55 (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
copyvio, source indicates it's copyright, Steve Granitz / FilmMagic / Getty Images. No proof of a CC license used Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Credit was given for the image. If anyone is able to assist in providing the correct copyright tags, that would be most appreciated! Mjmatousek (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyright violation. @Mjmatousek: for modern works/websites, unless you see a specific free license granted, assume it is copyrighted and not appropriate for Commons. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a low-resolution and unattributed copy of my original, File:Hopewell MD3.jpg, scraped from the IIP photo archive which scraped it from Commons Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyright violation, reuse without required attribution. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Walter Hampden as Cyrano de Bergerac, drawing by Manuel Rosenberg for the Cincinnati Post, 1924.jpg
[edit]Tagged by User:HombreDHojalata for speedy deletion "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: (c) Manuel Rosenberg (1897-1967) and heirs." Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep Cincinnati Post (US newspaper) 1924 = {{PD-US expired}} -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)- Keep--. HombreDHojalata.talk 21:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Fast closing since user who had tagged it as speedy now voting to keep. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deleion by User:HombreDHojalata "(c) Manuel Rosenberg (1897-1967) and heirs." Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Cincinnati Post (US newspaper), 1925 = {{PD-US expired}} -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep--. HombreDHojalata.talk 21:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: User who tagged as speedy now voting to keep. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion by User:HombreDHojalata Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep 1921 caricature by en:w:Manuel Rosenberg while employee of the Scripps-Howard US chain of newspapers -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep--. HombreDHojalata.talk 21:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy closing, user who had tagged it as speedy now voting to keep. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE 『白猫』Обг. 18:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Main template was already deleted A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Main template was already deleted A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Main template was already deleted A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Main template was already deleted A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Main template was already deleted A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
copyright infringed Netflix Kirham (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mdaniels5757. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Source does not indicate a free license. Lymantria (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio so speedy. --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp Minoraxtalk 10:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Tagged for F10 speedy deletion. Spencer (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
self promotion Trade (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
self promotion Trade (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gavin Cleaveland (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:3ABM logo new.tif
- File:3ABM logo 2019.gif
- File:3ABM logo.jpg
- File:TNT logo from logo collection.png
- File:Eleven logo from logo collection.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gavin Cleaveland (talk · contribs)
[edit]Author "StockGames" and source "stock photo seen on media" do not exactly inspired confidence that these are really CC licensed as claimed. Also out of scope.
Rosenzweig τ 15:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gavin Cleaveland (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope and copyright issues. Authors are respectively "PictureStock.com" and "My dad", the last one I find hard to believe, especially given the history of this user.
Pennenetui3000 (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also note that Silly me.jpg is the only file in Category:Silly men and Category:Men being silly, both created by the same user as these files. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
No educational purpose. unused on user page for a long timr. Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
To Upload high resolution photos Radhikakarthik (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Dw no source since (dw no source since). The uploader attempted to have it deleted after 14 days without a reason. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot, the uploader and nominator are most probably the same. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
MJF attacked Daniel Garcia on a bloody mess on AEw Dynamite Beach Break Anogen29 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Can't find any evidence at the source that this is a real logo, which would mean this image is out of scope. The uploader of this file has uploaded other fake logos as well in the past, and the official logo is File:Fts-los-angeles-a.svg. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 08:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
A twisted and unreadable (thus unusable) logo of "its too hard I cant see this" from "I cant see the words" by "IDK". Pennenetui3000 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 08:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Luckibarbie (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a low-resolution and unattributed copy of my original file, File:New Croton Dam NY1.jpg, scraped from the IIP archive which scraped it from Commons Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted and redirected. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
orphan talk page Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
not notable. uploaded to use on wikidata for self promotion Lectrician1 (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
no context. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pbrks as Logo. COM:TOO, deserves discussion (although I agree it's probably over). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete If that's not over COM:TOO, would anything be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like a fair Delete rationale, while this may be benefir from {{Non-free graffiti}}, Ukraine doesn't have a Commons-acceptable FOP rule for buildings either. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality duplicate of File:Choe Han-gi.jpg —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) ping me plz 02:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal image, non-notable person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Text, presumably out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal logo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal logo not in use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal logo not in use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Promotional from an apparently non-notable designer and not a great logo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal text file. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, selfpromotion Taichi (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope. Taichi (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, selfpromo. Taichi (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, for selfpromo. Taichi (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Dit bestand is een duplicaat van Ueno Station 20220414a.jpg. トトト (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Completely identical duplicate. If there is any valuable difference in the Japanese-language file descriptions, they can be merged or otherwise edited suitably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Qimingfei
[edit]- File:支脉河南水北调河.jpg
- File:杨柳雪镇.jpg
- File:盐田.jpg
- File:新立河居民区.jpg
- File:小清河大桥.jpg
- File:魏氏庄园一景.png
- File:无棣古城.jpg
- File:魏氏庄园.jpg
- File:魏集古村落.jpg
- File:孙子兵法城.jpg
- File:秦皇河湿地公园.jpg
- File:蒲城水库.jpg
- File:龙江湿地.jpg
- File:碣石山.jpg
- File:惠民古城公园.jpg
- File:鹤伴山一景.png
- File:鹤伴山.jpg
- File:杜受田.png
- File:黛溪.jpg
- File:大高航空城.png
- File:博兴县市政广场.jpg
- File:滨州中海.jpg
- File:滨州站.png
- File:滨州黄河大桥.jpg
- File:邹平高铁站.jpg
- File:滨州港.jpg
- File:博兴县新城建设.jpg
- File:博兴县经济开发区.jpg
- File:乔庄镇淡水养殖.jpg
- File:中国最大彩钢厨具市场.jpg
Low res, some of them are either png format or having watermark. Maybe captured from copyrighted video. ----Baycrest (Talk) 06:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Sure looks like a model, not an ordinary person, but especially considering what is and is not in the EXIF, I suspect copyvio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope. — Haseeb (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Degra faradey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
In which country image was made? Does it have Commons:Freedom of panorama? EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:FOP#Guatemala. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No attribution of the work's author. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- That can be fixed - it seems the work is signed "Ed Mencado". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![133 File:Jeff Zimmermann Mural "Change" (349324247).jpg](#File:Jeff_Zimmermann_Mural_"Change"_(349324247).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(47014192881).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ukraine_(44001554582).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_photograph.jpg){kind=link}
_v2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Kept. "El mercado" seems to be the title of the work, I took the other inscription as a signature. Kept per COM:FOP#Guatemala. Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Guatemala per recent discussion at COM:VPC A1Cafel (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Guatemalan FOP is for personal use only since 2006. The artwork author as cited is Maria Nicolasa Chex. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Smokesamir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Фотосессия в Огайо.jpg
- File:Shakhriyor - ParvizDov - Smokesamir.jpg
- File:Московская Область.jpg
- File:Smokesamir.jpg
Mitte27 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Leshapodoshva (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by القارئ اسامه محمد الحسيني (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. OOS
- File:القارئ اسامه الحسيني 511.jpg
- File:القارئ اسامه الحسيني 2624.jpg
- File:القارئ اسامه الحسيني 16624.jpg
- File:القارئ اسامه الحسيني 1230.jpg
--Alaa :)..! 09:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Privacy issue Thinkalvb (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
uncomfortable with use on obit articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyatx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion, especially after four years. In use in articles in 8 Wikipedias. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Many other images that can replace those instances, especially more recent ones rather than one which is 4 years old. S (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Nominator: if you're uncomfortable, stop looking at the photo. Wikimedia does not guarantee that users will find all the content shared here comfortable to view or read. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator is the creator of the image (me). What kind of advice are you actually offering here? Feels disingenuous. S (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but the problem is, the file is in use, so it won't be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
advertisement, spam Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyviol from Instagram's band (as stated by uploader) DeLo 99 (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyviol from Instagram's band (source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CgJrkX8jPPn/) DeLo 99 (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyviol from Instagram's band (source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CgH4eDMDwtm/) DeLo 99 (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyviol from Instagram's band (source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CgH4eDMDwtm/) DeLo 99 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Москвитина (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private files storage. Not used.
- File:Jacket .jpg
- File:Warner Brother .jpg
- File:Byron Major’s 1997 Teleport Moment in Africa .png
- File:THE GODFATHER OF SOULTRONIC.gif
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joseparaib (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non notable singer uploading pictures of himself, currently unused. Also blocked on Portuguese Wikipedia for autopromotion.
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho, 2019.jpg
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho, 2020.jpg
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho, Líbio.jpg
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho, 2022.jpg
- File:Líbio Dantas.jpg
- File:Líbio e Solange Almeida.jpg
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho.jpg
- File:Líbio (cantor de forró eletrônico).jpg
- File:Líbio (cantor).jpg
- File:José Líbio Dantas Sobrinho (Picuí, 27 de abril de 1999), conhecido como Líbio.jpg
- File:Cantor Líbio.jpg
- File:Líbio, perfil.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_conhecido_como_L%C3%ADbio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
likely above TOO GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Uploaded for nonsense, and only nonsense, cf. de:Benutzer:Tobinski2007, de:Gurkistan. No educational use. Schniggendiller (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Gurkistan is a joke. --Achim55 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by PawełMM as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Insignia CFT.jpg. Not eligible for speedy deletion due to different file types, but should be deleted and redirected. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This is exact copy of File:Insignia CFT.jpg. Both loaded by me. PawełMM (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear what is going on at this picture, and its description does not help much. Out of the scope? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear what is going on at this picture, and its description does not help much. Out of the scope? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
All these files are musical albums covers; however, it seems like all of them and their author are not notable and their uploading was a mere act of self-promotion. No educational use foreseeable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- File:Apokalypsis.jpg
- File:Arjensankari.jpg
- File:Millenium enkeli.jpg
- File:Johtava-ep.jpg
- File:Portti paratiisiin.jpg
- File:Kulmankuppilakiertue.jpg
- File:Olanenkelit.jpg
- File:Helppooelämää.jpg
- File:Tuntematonlogo.png
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
small resolution and EXIF. Unlikely to be own work Trade (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
small resolution and EXIF. Unlikely to be own work Trade (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
would this screenshot categorize as a derivative work? Trade (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyvio of a commercial book, unlikely to be own work Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Banners are non-permanent display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
![01:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/11/12#c-A1Cafel-20221112015200-File:Jeff_Zimmermann_Mural_"Change"_(349324247).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
![06:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/11/12#c-IronGargoyle-20221119064300-File:Jeff_Zimmermann_Mural_"Change"_(349324247).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Tiny, probably not usable, and given the size and lack of EXIF, probably copyvio. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Promotional from an apparently non-notable company. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also appears to be copyvio from exif. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Gallery page with one or less images are not allowed Mateus2019 (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep The page now has a selection of several images. You could have fixed the issue quite easily in a few minutes. Ww2censor (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Promo on wikidata and enwp. see also c:Category:Shubham Mishra. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Useless, nonsense Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Obviously spam Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
File:2008.10 - 'Temporary urban street-art on the walls', a painted beautiful horse in blue color, in the Plantage Kerklaan, in Autumn light; Dutch photo - urban photography by Fons Heijnsbroek, The Netherlands (10170750366).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. FOP Netherlands does not apply to temporary art. No VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem like an own work. Copied from https://day-inews.ru/news/1936097/giteli-poselka-s-nazvaniem-rossijskij-podali-v-sud-na-gosudarstvo-izza-ubityh-dorog.html. The source published the file on 17 Feb 2022, much earlier that it was uploaded. Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Я автор фото. зачем удалили ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ильгиз Рависович (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem like an own work. Copied from https://2gis.ru/krasnodar/gallery/geo/3237700966549084/photoId/30258560061795475. The source published the file much earlier that it was uploaded. Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
probably copyviol from Instagram's band, as well as the other pics in Category:WSTR; didn't find the source, but in the metadata says "Screenshot" DeLo 99 (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
probably copyviol from Instagram's band, as well as the other pics in Category:WSTR; didn't find the source, but in the metadata says "Screenshot" DeLo 99 (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not seem like an own work. Copied from https://2gis.ru/krasnodar/gallery/geo/3237700966554996/photoId/30258560061795066. The source published the file much earlier that it was uploaded. Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Its my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ильгиз Рависович (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope ; spam cat Gyrostat (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Crop of image at https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/producer-president-of-marvel-studios-and-chief-creative-news-photo/1334577289. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
no free license found on https://www.skiclassics.com/skier/?fis=3501562 Adjoka (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
wrong orientation. Alan Liefting (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
_(47014192881).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(47014192881).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo Credit is from the Office of the President of Egypt, not a work from the IAEA A1Cafel (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Bollywood Hungama license requires that the image come from parties and events, which is a specific part of their site. This is from a different section of the site, and not covered by the license. Ravensfire (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Thumbnail sized, no metadata. Doubtful own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in UAE. This image focus too much on the copyrighted roof of the Dubai Mall A1Cafel (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
_-_Ukraine_(44001554582).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Ukraine_(44001554582).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Logo presumably over COM:TOO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
From 0:23 till the end, it is from the VTV.vn, not works by VOA A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Standard license from YouTube A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
File:USAID Provides Assistance to Persons with Disabilities Affected by the Flooding in Vietnam (50743158062).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo by ACDC, a local NGO in Vietnam, not works from the USAID A1Cafel (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Guatemala A1Cafel (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Modern building, no freedom of panorama in Guatemala A1Cafel (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Modern building, no freedom of panorama in Guatemala A1Cafel (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Modern building, no freedom of panorama in Honduras A1Cafel (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of Kuensel (also see the watermark at the bottom-left), not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of Kuensel (also see the watermark at the bottom-left), not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of Kuensel (also see the watermark at the bottom-left), not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of Kuensel (also see the watermark at the bottom-left), not works from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in France. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
No FoP in France. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright restored in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright restored in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio as photos on Twitter aren’t freely licensed Schwede66 16:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a historical image, IMO {{PDMark-owner}} cannot be applied here. A more specific PD license is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Does not look like an own work (4 Kb). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Very small picture, does not look like an own work. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm the author of the foto "Ruth Klüger beim Bayerischen Buchpreis 2016.jpg", which was cropped in a very ugly way. I am ashamed of that pic now! - Please delete it. Amrei-Marie (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- But as long as it's in use, it can't be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amrei-Marie Please create a better crop and use it to replace the ‘ugly’ one where it is currently used (simple:Deaths in October 2020); then this one can be deleted.
- CC licenses (at least recent ones) also allow you to demand removal of attribution information. You may remove your name from the crop’s file description. Brianjd (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Ping|Brianjd}} Thank you for your advice! I'm going to replace the "bad" pics! ~~~~ Amrei-Marie (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- done! Amrei-Marie (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Amrei-Marie I have consistently expressed a strong opposition to Commons users interfering in other projects, especially when trying to get files deleted. I reverted your change at the Simple English Wikipedia because I am not sure that the new photo is better. See the talk page there. Brianjd (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- done! Amrei-Marie (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Ping|Brianjd}} Thank you for your advice! I'm going to replace the "bad" pics! ~~~~ Amrei-Marie (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 07:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This chemical structure is incorrect because the left ring should be substituted with two methoxy groups rather than one methoxy group and one hydroxy group. I have created File:Biliatresone.svg as a replacement. See Pubchem and ChEBI for confirmation. Innerstream (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This chemical structure is incorrect because the hydroxy group on the right ring should be in the ortho position, not the meta position. I have created File:Biliatresone.svg as a replacement. See Pubchem and ChEBI for confirmation. Innerstream (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Furthermore, the file is not drawn according to MOS style. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Boylarva99 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Watermark "Captured by Prathibha"|source=https://stock.adobe.com/images/elephant-and-baby/382625545. See also https://twitter.com/Discovery/status/1180870878537666560 (predating claimed authorship date). Nominating for DR anyways because this is from a WMF comms staffer and I'd like to assume they have valid license permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Logo. COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I originally uploaded this to commons because I don't believe it meets the Threshold of Originality. The entire logo is two semicircles and some text. I feel like it falls short, comparing similar examples. Soni (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 07:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
no proof of authorship sent to OTRS, uploaded by a red-linked user, who has the same name as the person in the photo. Unlikely to be own work Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Murals in Guatemala
[edit]No FoP in Guatemala, permission from the painter is required.
- File:Mural, San Juan La Laguna.jpg
- File:Murales of Luciano Pavarotti in the CEP.jpg
- File:San Andrés Xecul, Guatemala 07.jpg
- File:San Pedro La Laguna 42.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Permission of the painter is not required for art displayed in public spaces. Article 64(d) of "LEY DE DERECHO DE AUTOR Y DERECHOS CONEXOS DE GUATEMALA DECRETO NÚMERO 33-98 EL CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA" - not sure that is enough to save these photos though, unless we can find out who painted the murals:
- ARTÍCULO 64. Respecto de las obras ya divulgadas también es permitida, sin autorización del autor, además de lo dispuesto en el artículo 32:
- d) La reproducción de una obra de arte expuesta permanentemente en lugares públicos, o de la fachada exterior de los edificios, realizada por medio de un arte distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, el título de la obra, si lo tuviere, y el lugar donde se encuentra.
- Simon Burchell (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- English version: The reproduction for personal use of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places or on the exterior façade of buildings, made by means of an art different from that used in the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated.. It limit to personal use only, which means it is not acceptable on Commons because it doesn't allow commercial use and the creation of derivative works. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, sorry, the Spanish text doesn't mention reproduction "for personal use" at all. In fact, reading it more carefully, I think we can KEEP these photos because it indeed does say "as long as the name of the author is provided, if known" (my italics). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Simon Burchell: if you are contesting the new interpretation of the Guatemalan law you are free to say your inputs at COM:VPC#FOP guatemala is all wrong which I started, after I discovered that since 2006 Guatemalan legislature has severely abolished freedom of panorama by limiting free uses to personal use only. Maybe you cited an old version of the law that is no longer in effect in Guatemala. The current copy at this one government site from Guatemala bears the personal use restriction.
- Sad to say I am also highly disappointed but, we have nothing to do if the Guatemalan government does not want to allow freedom of panorama, since 2006. For me, Delete all images nominated here. Note that Guatemala did this restriction on the same year Honduras and Nicaragua restricted their FOP to personal use too, and two years before Costa Rica restricted theirs too (to non-commercial). El Salvador and Panama remain the Spanish-speaking states of Central America between Mexico and Colombia that still recognize FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- You're right - I checked the linked version and it does indeed say "personal use" - I must have got an old version that was floating around somewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- No, sorry, the Spanish text doesn't mention reproduction "for personal use" at all. In fact, reading it more carefully, I think we can KEEP these photos because it indeed does say "as long as the name of the author is provided, if known" (my italics). Simon Burchell (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- English version: The reproduction for personal use of a work of art permanently exhibited in public places or on the exterior façade of buildings, made by means of an art different from that used in the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if it has one, and the place it is located are indicated.. It limit to personal use only, which means it is not acceptable on Commons because it doesn't allow commercial use and the creation of derivative works. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Simon Burchell (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment Can someone clarify if this is allowed or not per Commons:FOP#Guatemala? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)- Keep. FoP in Guatemala. --Metrónomo (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Guatemala per recent discussion at COM:VPC A1Cafel (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Kein eigenes Werk. Alter des Wappens unklar (Gründung der Verbindung wann?), daher Urheberrecht unklar GerritR (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by QueerEcofeminist as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the source is no free Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyvio + is that literally a photo of a screen? Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44 talk to me 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope garbage Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope junk
Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope
Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS junk files Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
More OOS junk
Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Out of scope junk Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS crap junk Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No copyright info + OOS Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. Yann (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Load of OOS crap This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
More OOS crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert me if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Oos garbage Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
That was fast. More junk as usual Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted The images were deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nom, some apparent copyviols from social media. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Garbagé de OOS Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
_2.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_posted_on_Instagram_CPvlHbYFa7t(JPG).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:1
[edit]Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual collection of Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Oos garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual oos crap
Dronebogus (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative work of logo. Source country is unknown, so we cannot be sure in freedom of panorama. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Standard license from YouTube A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- How about if I change the license from Standard to Public Domain from Florida because it was published in Florida Rexxx7777 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Rexxx7777: You can't "change the license" of that Youtube video, only CBS News could do that. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Redundant to File:A Day with Thomas Edison (1922).webm PseudoSkull (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Same. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Didn't y'tag 'em with
{{duplicate}}instead of nominating 'em here? - The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 06:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Different version unduly overwritten. — Racconish 💬 08:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Racconish: My version was 5 minutes longer. It looked to me like that was the original version where the 18 minute version may have been incomplete due to elements of that print missing as often happens with these old movies, but upon rethinking it maybe the 24-minute version was a 1929 rerelease, because it mentions an anniversary with 1879 in the intro. If so, it may need to be noted as PD-no-notice in the other video. I'll have to do a careful look through these releases to determine what more exact differences there are. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless, I would still say that File:A day with Thomas A. Edison.webm and File:A day with Thomas A. Edison -.webm are redundant to each other, so 1 should be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This version is not only different but in use in many projects. — Racconish 💬 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn [1]. — Racconish 💬 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Nomination redacted. I still strongly suspect the file reverted back to is an incomplete print while the 24 minute version is the complete version, but if you want to leave it in its own file then ok I guess. Seems a little weird to me for such an obscure movie from 1922 to be released with a 5 minute length difference, although the difference in the intro increases that likelihood. I overwrote it because I believed that was the complete release, but I don't have hard evidence of that, just an intuition, so I'll leave it be. I don't have time to do a side-by-side comparison because it's already late, and little information exists about the film that I can find without some thorough digging, but I don't think any of these details are enough to trash a file altogether. Maybe when I transcribe it on Wikisource, the details will become more clear to me. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Gundam statue in Shinagawa, Tokyo
[edit]
Out of COM:FOP Japan as the copyright of the Gundam franchise is still valid. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:Netherlands#Stamps: stamps from 2002 are not free of copyright. Permission from TNT Post / PostNL and the artist are needed for reproduction. HyperGaruda (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Author request RentEdits (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. File has been on Commons for about 10 years and is currently in use. No other rationale given other than author request. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 16:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE 『白猫』Обг. 18:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 16:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This object is artworks installed in public places of Japan. Then, Wikimedia license for this picture is not consistent with U.S. and Japan copyright law. Loasa (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Just a bell. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Last contributed deletion requests for this file was regected for reasen ”Just a bell”. But the object is NOT ”just a bell”.
- (1). This ring is not simple circle. It is Möbius ring.
- (2) There is a small plate on below part of this ring. This plate is drawn line like fish. This line draw is guessed to signeiture of desiner of this object.
These property be can see on max resolition . These true is evidence that this object is not ”just a bell” , but artworks that have copyright. Unfortunately, I could not find out the designer of this object. But tihs object built Heisei 16 (= 2004) ( by below plate ). Then, if the desiner is not life today, this artwork's copyright is remain, yet.--Loasa (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the logo of a not-very-notable corporation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:PCP: potential copyright violation. Low resolution and lack of proper EXIF metadata, together with loads of hits when reverse image searching (e.g. this tweet from 2012), indicate that the uploader is unlikely to be the original author.
- File:Be61c80fd8a88731dc0f7c0e1bfce477--arabic-quotes-islamic-quotes.jpg
- File:Holy Mecca Saudi Arabia.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
IMHO to close to the original copyright protected Mars Attacks! design! Ras67 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Video capture from Facebook page. No releasing information available. Government website to verify is not available from the facebook page. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
ordinary person; IMG not used @WM Mateus2019 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 13:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Low quality, no useful description, no useful categories. Till (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This looks like a scan from a website photo of unkonwn copyright status. Pierre cb (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC) CiroGalves (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Subiré un archivo con mejor resolución. CiroGalves (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Archivo duplicado de https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Salvador_Borenus_Darko.jpg CiroGalves (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is not a duplicate, but the same file shown at es.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 09:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Solicito que se elimine la imagen a pedido de la persona fotografiada. CiroGalves (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Vk}} per four previous sections, no valid reason for deletion, especially after four years.— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the file should be deleted due to poor image quality and wrong filename. CiroGalves (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- @CiroGalves Image quality is good. The file name being bad is not a reason to delete, but a reason to rename the file. See COM:FR for instructions. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I request that this photo File:Salvador BorenusDarko.jpg be removed and I wish to be allowed to keep File:Retrato de Salvador Borenus.jpg as a substitute for the first mentioned image. I am a perfectionist and I do not want unsatisfactory work to continue in this great community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiroGalves (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per pcp. On the one hand, CiroGalves has tried at least 8 times to have this photo deleted from Commons. The original's account has been removed from Flickr. However, per File:Retrato de Salvador Borenus.jpg and https://www.flickr.com/photos/c1rogalves/52503289180/ the photo has never had a proper license (like CC-0) on Flickr (and now has no camera metadata there), and Salvador Borenus is not the photographer. The "public domain mark" on Flickr is just an assertion that the image is in the public domain. In this case, I see no reason to believe it is an accurate assertion. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Why have we been trying to keep this out-of-scope image that serves no educational purpose? Is the subject notable somehow and I'm missing it? IronGargoyle (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: well then, deleted per the discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
no source no author Hoyanova (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright restored in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by L. Beck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.redbubble.com/de/i/poster/Postkarten-aus-Berlin-18-Monbijou-Br%C3%BCcke-von-zeeny79/81303418.E40HW Yann (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. File has EXIF data that matches the uploader (and all the uploader's other files). Redbubble looks like a downstream reuse (infringing because of a lack of attribution). IronGargoyle (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
False author and permission info. A new image can be a derivative work of an old one, not the other way around. emk (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Spurious file name (now rd) of faked image. I didn't have the option to not leave a redirect when I moved it. This is not 2010 TK7, but 243 Ida. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Support. This image has no educational use and is out of COM:SCOPE, because it is a misleading image. The current redirect should be deleted as well as the renamed file File:Fake image of Earth-trojan asteroid.png. It is a derivative of File:243 ida.jpg (keep that, of course). Ellywa (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrong image AntonioCristaldo (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: reverted. --Krd 10:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
_photograph.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_photograph.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The uploader claims this as "own work" but also that it’s by Thelma Holts company. If it is indeed the latter, then we need evidence to be sent to VRTS. 92.40.212.2 16:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
_photograph.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
_photograph.jpg){kind=link}
Unknown source [2] Boylarva99 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete According to a Tineye search this picture seems to have been published years earlier before it was uploaded to Commons. There seem to exist uncropped versions of this picture. In all likelihood this is not the uploader’s original work (as currently claimed). ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 16:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: different web sources, possible copyright violation, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyvio, the only metadata the image has is the "Original transmission location code". Solavirum (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to be a very big wish to remove from the article an evidence what happened to the Armenian church under Azerbaijani control. Never heard about cleaning metadata on purpose to keep own privacy secure? --Headgo (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Headgo: , "Seems to be a very big wish to remove from the article an evidence what happened to the Armenian church under Azerbaijani control", chill out and read COM:AGF, this ain't a battleground for you. "Never heard about cleaning metadata on purpose to keep own privacy secure?", but keeping the transmission code? Solavirum (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- In which way keeping the transmission code proves anything? Or in which way a photography with not full metadata available proves that it is non own work as it was declared by uploader? I would like to assume a good will from you, but your claims have no ground to do so. --Headgo (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Headgo: , "Seems to be a very big wish to remove from the article an evidence what happened to the Armenian church under Azerbaijani control", chill out and read COM:AGF, this ain't a battleground for you. "Never heard about cleaning metadata on purpose to keep own privacy secure?", but keeping the transmission code? Solavirum (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Delete. No medadata, low resolution. Looks like copyvio. Interfase (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Taking into account that you "voted" for deletion of both pictures (from 1986 and current one from 2000) of this Armenian church in Azerbaijan, as well as for deletion of whole article in which these are currently used, I would say your "Looks like copyvio" is not a real reason for deletion, your suspicions are not valid. --Headgo (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Headgo the continuation of the violation of COM:AGF can result in the restriction of your activities as they're deemed nonconstructive. Consider this a final warning. Solavirum (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've just listed the facts, that can be checked by administrators, so please be polite and do not threaten, if you know real reason why this photo must be a copyvio, if you find same picture somewhere else published by another person, just name it. --Headgo (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Headgo the continuation of the violation of COM:AGF can result in the restriction of your activities as they're deemed nonconstructive. Consider this a final warning. Solavirum (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Unless User:Adamcurley is actually the professional photographer, Rich Waters, this is copyvio. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This picture seems to be copied as it appears here as well, and is credited with the photographer's name. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Daxigua11
[edit]
Low res, some of them are uploaded from other websites as stated at file page, for example "Baidu" / "科右前旗市人民政府". ----Baycrest (Talk) 06:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Very low quality photo of common subject, possibly a photo of a sign (FOP vio without location info) Dronebogus (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Very similar to: File:Dorfkirche Berlin-Karow 004.jpg. Bad Quality. Out of scope. Unused. Lukas Beck (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep They seem to be a reasonably established health care product supplier in India see [[3]] . True, from other attempted uploads, the Uploader Titus Health Tech (which I assume to be the same organisation as the web site ) seems a bit confused about the function of Wikimedia Commons and the copyright status of their own material. But I do not see anything wrong with this File as it below TOO and could be potentially useful say to someone preparing a report on suppliers of healthcare products in India.--Headlock0225 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Author no longer wishes for this work to be viewed publicly. Facts2021 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment One of the subjects has a Wikipedia article about him, but Facts2021, my question would be: Who is the author? Did you take this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek Of this user’s four uploads, two have VRT tags. I don’t know what (if anything) we can infer from that. Brianjd (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I am the author of this photo and with permission of Mr. Newton, who is the subject of the photo, I am kindly requesting its deletion. Thank you. Facts2021 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am not understanding why we should delete a photo of a noted man that you took with permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am not understanding either. @Facts2021 You uploaded this photo, claiming that it was your own work and applying an irrevocable CC BY-SA 4.0 license to it. Brianjd (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is indeed my own work. The subject of the photo no longer wishes for his wedding photo to remain public and kindly requests that it be removed. Since I am the author of the photo I am the one making the formal request for deletion. Facts2021 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Facts2021 Above, you said that the author (you) wants it deleted. But now, you say that the subject wants it deleted. Which is it? Brianjd (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- The subject and I both wish for it to be deleted. Thank you. Facts2021 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Facts2021 And by subject, you mean Todd Newton? Brianjd (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Todd Newton and I both wish for the photo to be deleted as soon as possible as he (Todd Newton) does not wish for the photo of his wedding to be available to the public and I (the photographer, owner of the photo, and individual who initially posted it) am making the formal request for deletion. Are there other steps I should be taking to complete this request? Facts2021 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Facts2021 No, you just need to wait for an admin to close the request (and delete the file, if they agree to do so). Since this request has been open for 10 days, that should happen any time now.
- But I still don’t understand. Todd Newton was OK with this being public, but then changed his mind? Brianjd (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ikan Kekek Brianjd (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Todd Newton and I both wish for the photo to be deleted as soon as possible as he (Todd Newton) does not wish for the photo of his wedding to be available to the public and I (the photographer, owner of the photo, and individual who initially posted it) am making the formal request for deletion. Are there other steps I should be taking to complete this request? Facts2021 (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Facts2021 And by subject, you mean Todd Newton? Brianjd (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The subject and I both wish for it to be deleted. Thank you. Facts2021 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Facts2021 Above, you said that the author (you) wants it deleted. But now, you say that the subject wants it deleted. Which is it? Brianjd (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- It is indeed my own work. The subject of the photo no longer wishes for his wedding photo to remain public and kindly requests that it be removed. Since I am the author of the photo I am the one making the formal request for deletion. Facts2021 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am not understanding either. @Facts2021 You uploaded this photo, claiming that it was your own work and applying an irrevocable CC BY-SA 4.0 license to it. Brianjd (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- You covered it; I have nothing to add. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. It is greatly appreciated. Facts2021 (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- You covered it; I have nothing to add. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I am not understanding why we should delete a photo of a noted man that you took with permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, alternatives available. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
low resolution duplicate of File:Rune stone, Lejsta, Rasbo, Uppland, Sweden (29832065340).jpg Macuser (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I uploaded the high res version over File:U1006 Lejsta - KMB - 16001000540165.jpg so I suggest that we delete File:Rune stone, Lejsta, Rasbo, Uppland, Sweden (29832065340).jpg instead as that contains less metadata and acme to Commons via a more indirect path. /Lokal_Profil 08:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already redirected. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
In use, but - correct me if I'm wrong - probably fair use that requires an upload to Wikipedias that accept fair use and deletion here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in France. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Na boa cara, eu tirei essa foto, você denunciar é sacanagem da sua parte! 2804:7F0:BEC1:83C9:9D43:A1C7:D9D7:EB75 05:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Yuri Granata Delalibera: (if you are the IP user here), (translated via Google Translate) Não há dúvida sobre a autoria de sua foto. Mas sua foto retrata uma obra de arquitetura protegida por direitos autorais em um país que não oferece liberdade de panorama para uso gratuito de obras públicas e arte protegidas por direitos autorais instaladas permanentemente em espaços públicos. Desde que o arquiteto Ieoh Ming Pei morreu em 2019, os direitos autorais arquitetônicos ainda estão em vigor, durando 70 anos após sua morte. Completando o calendário, sua obra arquitetônica cairá em domínio público em 1º de janeiro de 2090. A menos que a lei francesa de direitos autorais seja alterada para permitir a versão comercial da liberdade de panorama, o que eu acho muito improvável, já que o parlamento introduziu uma versão não comercial em outubro de 2016, e os políticos franceses se opõem à liberdade de panorama há anos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
In order to upload more clear and larger version of an image of National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) logo. Ervin111899 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Jeremy.toma
[edit]- File:Valérie Archetto, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Philippe Schwarm, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Philippe Pasche, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Jean-Marc Mermoud, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Isabelle Rasmussen, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Hubert Schneebeli, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Florian Vetsch, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Pierre Heiniger, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Raymond Perrot, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Raymond Barbey, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg
- File:Raymond Barbey, Raymond Perrot, Pierre Heiniger.jpg
- File:Extrait carte cours d'eau Pregny-Chambésy.png (only the first version, the current version is from SwissTopo which is public domain)
All uploaded by Jeremy.toma. I've tried reaching out to him to know if the files were uploaded in agreement with the authors of the pictures but he never answered. -- Espandero (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- According to Jeremy.toma, who is in contact with the municipality of Pregny-Chambésy, the files File:Raymond Barbey, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg, File:Raymond Perrot, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg, File:Pierre Heiniger, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg and File:Jean-Marc Mermoud, Pregny-Chambésy.jpg (and consequently File:Raymond Barbey, Raymond Perrot, Pierre Heiniger.jpg) are released in the public domain by the municipality. The rest however are copyvios. - Espandero (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Insufficient permission, needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Kadı Message 14:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This is a sock puppet of McKinnel 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 17:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, as far as I can tell, all socks are now globally locked 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by HombreDHojalata as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: (c) Ignatz Sahula-Dycke (1900-1982) and heirs. Yann (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep For artwork in the US, what starts the copyright clock is when the artwork was made available to the public, it was drawn in 1937 as a gift to Manuel Rosenberg and Manuel Rosenberg's heirs donated to the library in 1974, so the license is correct. So when an artwork leaves the custody of the artist and is seen by members of the public, it is "published" in legal terms. A Manuel Rosenberg family member uploaded it. --RAN (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN, PD-US-no notice. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
A formal PR picture of Israeli models, clearly taken by a photographer. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Low res, png format, published bofore [4][5]. Maybe captured from copyrighted video. --Baycrest (Talk) 05:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, maybe. But it may not be. The two (same) links do not reveal who the actual author is. No valid reason for deletion given. Keep in the know. It was also decided to keep on April 28, 2022. --Steindy (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unless VRT evidence of authorship can be provided. No metadata, low resolution and prior publication certainly call for VRT verification. Felix QW (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Published on Unsplash after 5 June 2017 https://unsplash.com/photos/TlhrinkHoB4 Boylarva99 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Tagged for {{Copyvio}} speedy, and immediately reverted by the uploader who appears to have missed the instruction to also open a regular deletion discussion.
The text in the PDF is the opinion of the court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music which in two appendices contain the lyrics for Roy Orbison's (1936–1988) "Oh, Pretty Woman" (1964), and a 1989 parody of it titled "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew. The text is available online from all the usual suspects (Cornell, Findlaw, etc.) where it is hosted under fair use exemptions.
While the opinion of the court as such is PD-USGov, the two attached song lyrics are emphatically covered by copyright. In fact, the text itself is a United States Supreme Court opinion that directly concludes that "Oh, Pretty Woman" is covered by copyright and that 2 Live Crew would have been found to have infringed it but for their successful fair use defence.
The file was in use on enWS where the uploader was asked to redact the infringing parts, but as they refused it has now been deleted entirely. The uploader is currently challenging the deletion.
My preferred resolution would have been for the uploader to redact the infringing pages and then revdel the previous version of the file so we could have continued to use the compatibly licensed content, but since they are refusing to do so the alternative is to simply delete the file entirely (and in my opinion, as a speedy, as there is no doubt; and the uploader, as a regular participant in copyright discussions across multiple projects surely knows, or should know, the difference between public record and public domain). Xover (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. This file was transcribed at Wikisource by me, and stayed there for some time, but was recently deleted by the above user, who is an administrator on English Wikisource. The reason for deletion applies to the file and all content derived from the file, which is why the deletion was first proposed. The relevant pages there were deleted without discussion, which I contested, but that dispute isn’t relevant to the file. This PDF is of a Supreme Court case, published in the U.S. Reports. As a work of the U.S. government (namely, the Reporter of Decisions for the syllabus and the various justices for their respective opinions), it is in the public domain in the United States (the country of origin) as detailed in
PD-USGov. The disputed material, which constitutes some appendixes to the Court’s opinion, is beside the point, as the appendixes are a part of the opinion, and are thus alsoPD-USGov. The comment about “public record” as opposed to public domain is misguided, as such a claim is relevant to court briefs (when not authored by U.S. government actors) and material published in the Congressional Record; in both of those cases, it is not infrequently the case that material which is not covered by thePD-USGovis published, but is freely available—as constituting the “public record.” But the file at issue in this case is not a brief authored by a private lawyer in a court case, nor a speech delivered by a non-U.S. government official before the Senate—both of which would be public record but not public domain—but an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is, I hope very obviously, a work of the U.S. government. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)- The lyrics of "Oh, Pretty Woman" was not written by Justice Souter or the Reporter (neither of whom can be authors, for copyright purposes, in any case). It was written by Roy Orbison and Bill Dees, who hold the copyright (modulo any contractual clauses with record companies, rights management companies, and so forth). Inclusion in a public record does not somehow nullify Orbison and Dees' copyrights, any more than Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham entire into the Congressional Record makes Seuss Enterprises lose Dr. Seuss' copyrights (the latter being technically a copyright violation, unless he can put together a successful fair use defence, but Cruz is here protected by the Speech and Debate clause in the US Constitution). Xover (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at e.g. here, there is a notice in the Record about copyright—noting the distinction (though not in the same terms) between the public domain works of U.S. officers (or Senators or Members of the House) and public record articles included in the Record, for which copyright still applies. There is no such notice in the Reports—and the reports are entirely public domain, not public record. I mentioned this difference above in my first comment, about the public domain status of the Reports and the public record status of the Record (even though most of the Record is also public domain). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The lyrics of "Oh, Pretty Woman" was not written by Justice Souter or the Reporter (neither of whom can be authors, for copyright purposes, in any case). It was written by Roy Orbison and Bill Dees, who hold the copyright (modulo any contractual clauses with record companies, rights management companies, and so forth). Inclusion in a public record does not somehow nullify Orbison and Dees' copyrights, any more than Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham entire into the Congressional Record makes Seuss Enterprises lose Dr. Seuss' copyrights (the latter being technically a copyright violation, unless he can put together a successful fair use defence, but Cruz is here protected by the Speech and Debate clause in the US Constitution). Xover (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I think you keep missing the point, over and over and over again. So let me try to explain this in a different way. What people commonly come to Wikisource for (and even Wikimedia Commons) is not necessarily the entire work itself, but to use a portion of the work for some purpose. Say that someone was watching a movie, say The Fighting Coward as an example, and they saw a poem in it that they really liked, so much that they wanted to put it on their website:
A violet by a mossy stone
Half hidden from the eye!
Fair as a star, when only one
Is shining in the sky.
Well, because that film is from 1924 it actually guarantees that the poem is public domain regardless of where the poem originally came from. But to confirm things, you can dig around and find out that the poem actually dates back to 1800, by William Wordsworth, and is called "She Dwelt Among the Untrodden Ways". Because Wikisource is a site for freely licensed content only, it is supposed to guarantee that if there's a poem within a work that someone wants to use for other purposes, then it can be used in its own right.
This is not the case, however, for the Supreme Court case in question. It is misleading on our part to present the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" as a freely licensed piece of a Supreme Court case because it's simply not true. If someone wanted to put the entire lyrics to "Oh, Pretty Woman" on their website because they found it on Wikisource (even though it was in an otherwise public-domain work), it would effectively be our faults for not deleting the content before those people were misled. If someone put "Oh, Pretty Woman" on their front page and they got a DMCA that they then contested, I don't think it would satisfy a court to explain that "oh, well I found it in this Supreme Court case, so that just nulled the 'Oh, Pretty Woman' copyright."
And yes, it is literally misleading and I don't mean it practically or metaphorically, as on the bottom of Wikimedia project pages, it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." Also, in the editor window at the very bottom, you make this agreement: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." So the content you contribute has to at least be compatible with CC BY SA and GDFL to be allowed. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The CC BY SA 3.0/GFDL statement is about contributions of users, not the files themselves. For example, someone uploading a file under fair use terms at enWP would be violating that, and someone working on a page that uses such a file would also be violating such terms. The licensing for files is separate from the licensing for personal text contributions. But to answer the main point of your comment, no statement from WMF will obviate the need to follow applicable laws. There are plenty of images hosted on Commons—trademarks, for an example class—where there is no issue here (because the trademarks aren’t copyrightable), but would (or could) be a problem for reusers if used in violation of the Lanham Act. Similarly, there are a number of laws hosted on enWS from countries which copyright their laws; there’s no problem for reuse in the U.S. because of the “edicts of government” doctrine, but there could be problems in the country where those laws originate, and in countries which recognize such copyright. There are other examples I could make, of course, but what I mean is that the fact that a file is hosted at Commons, or that a text is hosted an Wikisource, is not a guaranty that it can be reused with no restrictions—the “additional terms may apply” language in the boilerplate is very telling. I don’t see how this case is any different; in the context of the file in question, the appendixes are free, regardless of any other copyright restrictions. I don’t find it misleading to present a U.S. court case as
PD-USGov. I was proofreading a trademark infringement case recently, and it showed the trademark. As I mentioned earlier, reuse of the trademark could be a violation of the Lanham Act—and in that case, it was shown to be such a violation. Yet, there is no violation in hosting the court opinion as such, and it is my claim that that logic applies with equal force in the present case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: Notice how all the things you mentioned, i.e. trademark law and copyright laws in other countries, are completely separate from being in the public domain (or otherwise freely licensed) in the United States, which is the baseline rule for content at Wikisource. Trademarks etc. are separate kinds of intellectual property that are not treated the same as US copyright on Wikimedia projects, and as far as I know, even in the US legal system. "I don’t find it misleading to present a U.S. court case as PD-USGov." And I wasn't arguing that. It has been said several times that yes, the court case in question is PD-USGov, but parts of it are not. Do you dispute that parts of it are not? So, do you believe that I can take the lyrics of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and call it public domain because it appeared in a Supreme Court document? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- PseudoSkull: Of course the other which I mentioned aren’t U.S. copyright law, because the opinion isn’t copyrighted. My reference to other intellectual property laws was to make a reference to the fact that reusers must still follow the law in reusing the works on Wikisource or Commons, copyright law aside. As to your last question, I don’t think that I would be allowed to upload the lyrics of “Oh, Pretty Woman” on their own, and I certainly would not try to do so: that is why I did not do so. And yet, I can upload the court opinion which contains the said lyrics, because it is
PD-USGov. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- PseudoSkull: Of course the other which I mentioned aren’t U.S. copyright law, because the opinion isn’t copyrighted. My reference to other intellectual property laws was to make a reference to the fact that reusers must still follow the law in reusing the works on Wikisource or Commons, copyright law aside. As to your last question, I don’t think that I would be allowed to upload the lyrics of “Oh, Pretty Woman” on their own, and I certainly would not try to do so: that is why I did not do so. And yet, I can upload the court opinion which contains the said lyrics, because it is
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: Notice how all the things you mentioned, i.e. trademark law and copyright laws in other countries, are completely separate from being in the public domain (or otherwise freely licensed) in the United States, which is the baseline rule for content at Wikisource. Trademarks etc. are separate kinds of intellectual property that are not treated the same as US copyright on Wikimedia projects, and as far as I know, even in the US legal system. "I don’t find it misleading to present a U.S. court case as PD-USGov." And I wasn't arguing that. It has been said several times that yes, the court case in question is PD-USGov, but parts of it are not. Do you dispute that parts of it are not? So, do you believe that I can take the lyrics of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and call it public domain because it appeared in a Supreme Court document? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Works which in themselves are published by the government frequently include copyrighted content by others, such as courtesy images on American government websites etc. In that case, one can only apply PD-USGov to those parts that have been authored by the American government. This case seems no different. Felix QW (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not such a case, however; it is not a Web-site, and the appendixes are not “courtesy images” (aside from the fact of them not including images) as they are integral to the Court’s opinion—which is, of course,
PD-USGov—as I have explained above in my !vote comment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)- Let me try one more time…With some very specific exceptions (such as works for hire), copyright vests in the author of a creative work. The copyright springs into being the moment the work is fixed in a tangible form, and the term of protection runs from either the first general publication or the death of the author. There is no question the lyrics at issue here were written by Orbison and 2 Live Crew, respectively, and published well before this court case.In order for PD-USGov to apply to these lyrics the actual authorship of the lyrics would have to somehow magically be transferred to the Court, and the first publication paradoxically be transferred through time to the time of the court case. It is not enough that a transfer of title occur, because the US government can actually hold copyrights that it acquires through transfers of title (deed or similar). The federal government just cannot be author for copyright purposes.The use of copyrighted material in litigation, including in opinions of the court, is under the fair use doctrine. And since fair use is an affirmative defence, by its very nature it acknowledges the existence of a copyright that would have been violated but for a successful fair use defence. In fact, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is cited most often as the case that solidified the treatment of fair use as an affirmative defence.Any theory that places copyrighted materials included in an opinion of the court (and by extension, any other government work) in the public domain would also have plainly absurd results. Why would anyone file a suit for copyright infringement if the end result would be inevitably losing the very copyright at issue? How about a criminal case about obscenity that includes third-party artworks (photos, paintings, drawings, etc.) to illustrate a art vs. porn distinction? The court can suddenly make your copyright protection go poof! in a case you are not even a party to? Xover (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Xover: Your “parade of horribles” overlooks the point of this case: the lyrics need to be printed for the Court to undertake the fair use analysis. In a hypothetical case of two books, where infringement was alleged and fair use claimed as a defence, the Court would not need to reprint the entirety of both books to prove the point: and yet in this case, the appendixes did so print, because the text of the lyrics, in their entirety, were thought necessary to carry the argument of the opinion in this case. That the inclusion of previously-published, copyrighted works in government work voids the copyright is a legal doctrine settled by precedent—see ASTM v. PRO and ICC v. UpCodes. The legal documents at issue in those cases were legislative enactments, but the judicial opinion in this case is ineligible for copyright by the same legal doctrine, and the previously-published, copyrighted material incorporated in this opinion is excluded from copyright for the same reason that the previously-published, copyrighted material incorporated into the laws at issue in ASTM and ICC were. And the judges in those cases were not concerned with the original authors of the copyrighted works. I repeat my incredulity in your assertion that the U.S. government relies on fair use to allow its judges (and justices) to right court opinions—I need only direct you to the categories of U.S. government works for review. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You mention ASTM v. PRO, but the court explicitly says "we think it best at this juncture to address only the statutory fair use issue—which may provide a full defense to some, if not all, of the SDO’s infringement claims in this case—and leave for another day the question of whether the Constitution permits copyright to persist in works incorporated by reference into law." The link to ICC v. UpCodes you offer just shows the court denying claims of summary judgment, not a final case. In both cases, the rulings agonized about removing copyright from private works. In this case, you're claiming a court decided a copyright case by effectively putting both works into the public domain, without noting that fact. That's stretching the bounds of reason. The government relies first and foremost on nobody wanting to challenge it. If a copyright holder seriously challenged something like this, only then would the discussion of fair use come up. To solve the problem of the government not having formal permission to use these copyrighted works in the narrow context of a court case, by giving everyone permission to use them in all contexts, is massive overkill and would work against the court system, as copyright plaintiffs would be unwilling to bring cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Prosfilaes: ASTM also involves denying/granting motions for summary judgment; that does not make it any less relevant to this discussion. Judge Marrero does discuss and resolve the public-domain claims in the case; the denial of UpCodes’ motion for summary judgment is for using unambiguously copyrighted works. “In both cases, the rulings agonized”—that was the case at issue, of course they were discussing it. This is not a “narrow context”—it is not as though these are copyrighted works inserted into the record, which would be public record but public domain, which would prevent anyone from bringing a court case. It is that, in the context of the opinion in this court case, the Court thought it necessary to print the lyrics appendixes to be able to quote to indicate the fact of the fair use, just as another court might think it necessary to quote from a book to indicate that there was infringement of copyright. That quotation would vitiate the copyright in the proportion of the book which was quoted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You mention ASTM v. PRO, but the court explicitly says "we think it best at this juncture to address only the statutory fair use issue—which may provide a full defense to some, if not all, of the SDO’s infringement claims in this case—and leave for another day the question of whether the Constitution permits copyright to persist in works incorporated by reference into law." The link to ICC v. UpCodes you offer just shows the court denying claims of summary judgment, not a final case. In both cases, the rulings agonized about removing copyright from private works. In this case, you're claiming a court decided a copyright case by effectively putting both works into the public domain, without noting that fact. That's stretching the bounds of reason. The government relies first and foremost on nobody wanting to challenge it. If a copyright holder seriously challenged something like this, only then would the discussion of fair use come up. To solve the problem of the government not having formal permission to use these copyrighted works in the narrow context of a court case, by giving everyone permission to use them in all contexts, is massive overkill and would work against the court system, as copyright plaintiffs would be unwilling to bring cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Xover: Your “parade of horribles” overlooks the point of this case: the lyrics need to be printed for the Court to undertake the fair use analysis. In a hypothetical case of two books, where infringement was alleged and fair use claimed as a defence, the Court would not need to reprint the entirety of both books to prove the point: and yet in this case, the appendixes did so print, because the text of the lyrics, in their entirety, were thought necessary to carry the argument of the opinion in this case. That the inclusion of previously-published, copyrighted works in government work voids the copyright is a legal doctrine settled by precedent—see ASTM v. PRO and ICC v. UpCodes. The legal documents at issue in those cases were legislative enactments, but the judicial opinion in this case is ineligible for copyright by the same legal doctrine, and the previously-published, copyrighted material incorporated in this opinion is excluded from copyright for the same reason that the previously-published, copyrighted material incorporated into the laws at issue in ASTM and ICC were. And the judges in those cases were not concerned with the original authors of the copyrighted works. I repeat my incredulity in your assertion that the U.S. government relies on fair use to allow its judges (and justices) to right court opinions—I need only direct you to the categories of U.S. government works for review. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Let me try one more time…With some very specific exceptions (such as works for hire), copyright vests in the author of a creative work. The copyright springs into being the moment the work is fixed in a tangible form, and the term of protection runs from either the first general publication or the death of the author. There is no question the lyrics at issue here were written by Orbison and 2 Live Crew, respectively, and published well before this court case.In order for PD-USGov to apply to these lyrics the actual authorship of the lyrics would have to somehow magically be transferred to the Court, and the first publication paradoxically be transferred through time to the time of the court case. It is not enough that a transfer of title occur, because the US government can actually hold copyrights that it acquires through transfers of title (deed or similar). The federal government just cannot be author for copyright purposes.The use of copyrighted material in litigation, including in opinions of the court, is under the fair use doctrine. And since fair use is an affirmative defence, by its very nature it acknowledges the existence of a copyright that would have been violated but for a successful fair use defence. In fact, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is cited most often as the case that solidified the treatment of fair use as an affirmative defence.Any theory that places copyrighted materials included in an opinion of the court (and by extension, any other government work) in the public domain would also have plainly absurd results. Why would anyone file a suit for copyright infringement if the end result would be inevitably losing the very copyright at issue? How about a criminal case about obscenity that includes third-party artworks (photos, paintings, drawings, etc.) to illustrate a art vs. porn distinction? The court can suddenly make your copyright protection go poof! in a case you are not even a party to? Xover (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not such a case, however; it is not a Web-site, and the appendixes are not “courtesy images” (aside from the fact of them not including images) as they are integral to the Court’s opinion—which is, of course,
- Delete I'd talk about fair use, both here and at Wikisource, but I recognize it would be a major change and require a lot of discussion. It's clear to me that these works are copyrighted, and while we could use them as fair use in context of the decision, they are not freely licensed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf. This is what I'd like to call a "de minimis self-contained fair use rationale". Essentially, this is legal for us to host in the United States because of the legal concept of fair use; if the courts thought it was OK to print the lyrics in the context of the whole document, then surely it is OK for us, i.e. the document itself justifies the fair use. From a policy perspective, this is not fair use (which I view as us choosing to use non-free content in order to illustrate something we want to say), but rather de minimis. US courts may not consider it de minimis (since the copyrighted material was intentionally included by the government officials preparing the document), but we don't care; the courts have already decided that the document is legal in the US, so it is only a matter of policy whether we choose to allow hosting it or not. We can define the Wikimedia policy terms "fair use" and "de minimis" however we want, so long as what we are doing is legal in the US and in compliance with the spirit of the Definition of Free Cultural Work. Indeed, this is identical to other cases where we would allow COM:DM: 1) the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it: yes; 2) the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it: yes; 3) the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression: restriction on "in part", but it's the same restriction that we would allow for a US building with some copyrighted sculptures in front of it; 4) the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works: yes, other than the cropping restriction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is technically a case of fair use. We normally do not allow fair use, because files on Commons don't really have a use to go with it. However, it is an interesting question on when the uploaded file embeds the fair use inside of it, and that is OK, if we should allow it. I think we have allowed parody files, which while technically fair use, is typically a complete defense to even commercial use. For something like this, it's a bit different, but really any use of the entire decision text is fine to include the excerpts, I think. Obviously extracting the lyrics would cease to be OK, since they are clearly copyrighted, but that is similar to a de minimis photo cropped to the unlicensed portion. We allow the full photo but delete the crop. The justices obviously included the lyrics to help illustrate the decision, and I don't think it can be infringement including them as part of duplicating the decision. Despite the fair use policy, this feels in the area where we have found some balances before, so I'd lean Keep. But, can understand wanting to blank out the appendixes with the lyrics -- they are not, strictly speaking, embedded in the decision text, so the decision is still a full work without them. If people think there is some possible use of the entire text (including the lyric portions) which could be a violation, then I can understand blanking them. Invoking fair use like this may not hold as much in other countries, but this is a U.S. work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Now, see, this is a reasoned argument. I still disagree with the conclusion, but I have to acknowledge that the argument and reasoning is flawless.The essence of my opposition to this conclusion is that "fair use is fair use", and there's a reason we in general do not permit fair use content. In this particular case it creates a nasty licensing trap for our reusers. For example, on English Wikisource we would typically structure works like this (depending somewhat on total length) by placing distinct units (chapters, appendices, etc.) on subpages (other WSes use sibling top-level pages). If the content of the subpage constitutes a stand-alone work we would categorise the subpage distinctly from the parent page (e.g. in cat "Song lyrics"). We would also create a top-level redirect from the stand-alone work's title (i.e. at "Oh, Pretty Woman"). So now you can go to the web page en.wikisource.org/wiki/Oh,_Pretty_Woman and be served the full lyrics of that song, with no other content except links to the previous/next chapter. There is no commentary, explanatory material, criticism, satire, etc. If multiple courts dealt with the case we might also end up with a disambiguation (versions) page listing three versions of "Oh, Pretty Woman" that we host.Now grab all the pages in [[Category:Song lyrics]], use the ws-export tool to export all of them to ePub, and then publish that as a .99c ebook under the title "The Wikisource Song Book". That's an entirely reasonable thing to do (and it has been done before), explicitly permitted and intended by our purpose, but now all of a sudden we've turned that use into a copyvio. And as the mere existence of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music shows, the owners of the copyright are litigious and will pursue infringing uses of their material.My point is that for this kind of copyrighted work (text) you cannot reasonably treat parts as inseparable because that is not how they are in actual practice used. The same problem really holds true for photographs—where I think de minimis has now become a "magic wand" we wave to make a problem go away, and stretch the concept waay beyond what is justifiable—but there it is much easier to simply rely on a "no cropping" rule, because images are typically used as a single atomic unit (counter-examples exist, of course, but in the general case that holds). These two song lyrics (and they are the full lyrics, the whole creative work, not excerpts) absolutely rely on being used in the context of the containing work in order for fair use to apply. The net effect is not to make the inclusion of the sub-parts trifling, but rather to make the whole containing work behave like fair use for our purposes (cf. the sometimes odious non-free content criteria that enWP has had to adopt, and whose enforcement creates so much discord there).One can certainly argue that this particular issue is one on the borderlines of fair use where we should carve out an exception from the baseline "no fair use" policy (i.e. by making new policy; current policy does not permit it). I think that would be a mistake both in the short term—cf. above—and in the longer term because it is an exception that is almost irresistible for slippery slope-type expansion. See, e.g., in the arguments made above how hard it is—even for people who transcribe Supreme Court opinions on copyright for fun—to realise that fair use is the core issue (even when it is pointed out, repeatedly). Any policy on this stuff needs to be possible for non-lawyers to understand, and for admins who do not specialise in copyright to manage (for example when patrolling recent uploads). This subtle an argument on so obscure an issue does not make for policy that can actually be applied in the real world, and would create multiple inconveniences for both admins, contributors, and re-users. Xover (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree that the fact they are separate appendices weakens the fair use argument. If there were smaller excerpts embedded in the text of the opinion, I'd probably argue more forcefully. The fact the entire lyrics are reprinted could also be an issue. I won't change my vote, and Wikisource would probably be wise to not transcribe those appendices separately (that would be a separate decision for them). It would be legal, frankly, since the use is just as fair as the Supreme Court's, and Wikisource is an educational site, but as a matter of policy it does get touchier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg Even if the author sent a DMCA takedown to us against de minimis properties you said? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Anything de minimis or fair use means it's not infringement, and thus beyond the scope of what a DMCA takedown can do (since those are for actual infringements, to try and get infringing use stopped before it reaches a court case). The Supreme Court would have had to have committed actual infringement for it to be a problem for us. Of course, if the de minimis or fair use situation is arguable, that could become a matter for a judge to decide if you contest the takedown. Many find it easier to just take the work down, rather than argue in court (even if they have a decent case, as there is always risk with that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg Even if the author sent a DMCA takedown to us against de minimis properties you said? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree that the fact they are separate appendices weakens the fair use argument. If there were smaller excerpts embedded in the text of the opinion, I'd probably argue more forcefully. The fact the entire lyrics are reprinted could also be an issue. I won't change my vote, and Wikisource would probably be wise to not transcribe those appendices separately (that would be a separate decision for them). It would be legal, frankly, since the use is just as fair as the Supreme Court's, and Wikisource is an educational site, but as a matter of policy it does get touchier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It seems the rational course of action here is to delete this PDF if it cannot be redacted. Re-transcribe the PD portion to Wikisource and leave off the lyrics. Then we'll have a usable copy of the decision itself. It seems like a PDF is gravy at this point. I see no reason to pussy-foot around with complex reasoning about a putative fair-use or de minimis defense. I mean, it's a #1 hit song; the lyrics are plastered all over the web anyway, and so there's no need for us to reproduce them in posterity anywhere else. Elizium23 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per Elizium23, matches a violation example of COM:DM:
| “ | Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. | ” |
--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Uh no, the text of the judicial decision is the main part of the work, which is obviously PD-USGov. The lyrics are an appendix. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as per TE(æ)A,ea., KoH, and Carl L. The included copyrighted content is de minimis in the whole document. However this content may not be uploaded as a separate file, in the same way as some copyright content can't be imported separately in other cases. See for example the Pokemon Jet case. See also other DRs linked to Category:Pokémon_Jet. --Yann (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
_v2.jpg){kind=link}
_v2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Double with File:Euphrasia tetraquetra (Zuid-Holland, Netherlands) 2.jpg --Abalg (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_v2.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: File:Euphrasia tetraquetra (Zuid-Holland, Netherlands) 2.jpg has been deleted and redirected to this file. --Rosenzweig τ 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
_v2.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Tiffany Novena
[edit]The building was completed in 2020, and there is no freedom of panorama in Guatemala
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - 50557476526.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - 50557604532.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - 50557610832.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - Ciudad de Guatemala.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - Guatemala City, Guatemala.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena - Guatemala.jpg
- File:Torres Tiffany Novena Guatemala City.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, architectural work is authored by AS Arquitectura. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Files depicting Superman or subcategories
[edit]DC Comics retains a valid character copyright on Superman until January 1, 2034. For previous discussions, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Donaldduck-thespiritof43-2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fleischer and Famous Studios Superman images, Category talk:PD Cartoon - Superman#character copyright, Commons talk:Derivative works#Character copyright status, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif#File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif_3. Other current DRs include Commons:Deletion requests/File:1951Superman.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:1951Superman002.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp Day for Superman.jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp Day for Superman (cropped).jpg. Files in Category:Superman and his cast or subcategories which depict Superman or any other DC Comics characters which still have a character copyright are included by reference.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg
- File:Superman against the scientist's weapon.jpg
- File:Superman cartoon showdown.JPG
- File:X-Ray vision.jpg
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The copyright for this particular image was not renewed and has lapsed into the public domain. Kurzon (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kurzon: Which image? How do you know? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: There's a registry in the Library of Congress that lists all copyrighted works that were renewed before 1976. You can read them on archive.org. To renew a copyright, you actually had to register a renewal request with the government. If you didn't do anything, the work would automatically lapse into the public domain when the deadline passed. Now I think it's very likely that this photo of Kirk Alyn is not listed in that registry of renewals. It's just a publicity photo, it was too much paperwork to renew such minor works like this one. If a work does not appear in the registry of renewals, it's safe to assume it was not renewed. Kurzon (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kurzon I see, so you mean File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yep. Although I read somewhere that the Fleischer Superman cartoons are also public domain, because WB forgot to file a renewal request. Kurzon (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Regardless of whether these particular instances have valid copyrights or not, DC Comics still has a valid character copyright on Superman. So unless Superman is painted out of these images, they are copyright violations, as discussed ad nauseum in the previous requests mentioned by Jeff G.. Nosferattus (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per Kurzon. These images are known to be in the public domain and serve a useful purpose in various wikipedia articles. If there's any question re their copyright status, contact Wikimedia's legal department. AshFriday (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Only the Kirk Alyn image. That image does not depict "Superman", it depicts Kirk Alyn in a costume. It has been established on Commons multipe times that costumes are not considered derivative works of characters. Cosplay is allowed, and that is essentially the exact same thing as an actor in a costume playing a role. Delete the cartoon images. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted the 3 drawn images/taken from a film, per character copyright. Kept Kirk Alyn, per my reasoning of Commons:Deletion requests/File:1951Superman.jpg. --Ellywa (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sconosciuto as Fair use (Non-free) and the most recent rationale was: logo. Below COM:TOO? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It looks pretty inventive to me. This is American? Have similarly inventive logos been found to be below COM:TOO here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I didn't label it properly... I was a little confused on which license information to put. But this is the official logo from the media room page of a large healthcare non-profit organization and was made available to the public. Sconosciuto (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't host fair-use images, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. I was using the Johns Hopkins Hospital as a template and their fair use logo is uploaded, but I guess it wasn't done through Commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johns_Hopkins_Medicine_logo.svg
- How can I upload this logo to the right location? Sconosciuto (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- See w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. If all the requirements are met, you can upload the file locally at w:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't host fair-use images, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this is less complex than many of the examples at COM:TOO US which are held to be in the public domain. The only shape is relatively simple and everything is the same color. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Sectors of a circle certainly seem simple geometric shapes to me, and they haven't been put together in that creative a way either. Felix QW (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per remarks of IronGargoyle and Felix QW, below TOO in USA. --Ellywa (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
In use, but I was recently told that COM:TOO is very low in Chile. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:TOO Chile, the TOO is rather low. And the green shapes of this logo are complex, including the shadows. --Ellywa (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Knowing that Tintin is a European comic series that started in 1929 and ended in 1976 (and I know literally nothing about the Tintin franchise or lore other than what I briefly read on Wikipedia), I'm not seeing any reason why this could be considered out of copyright in the US or abroad, and certainly not valid as an individual's CC-BY-SA 4.0 contribution... You can apply this also to a trove of other Tintin related flags and seals, which I'll be linking here too. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- File:Blason sy royaume de syldavie.svg
- File:Blason Sy écu château Kropow.svg
- File:Blason Sy écu royaume de Syldavie (édition 1939).svg
- File:Blason Sy écu royaume de Syldavie.svg
- File:Escudo Orden del Pelicano.svg
- File:Escudo Syldavia.svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
PseudoSkull (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. The flag of the fictional country of Syldavia is designed by Belgian cartoonist Hergé who died in 1983, so I assume it is protected by copyright until 2053 (70 years after the creator's death). This also applies to derivative works such as these files. The two Borduria symbols are apparently not created by Hergé but described as "a possible Bordurian symbol based on the Nazi German Eagle", so apparently the uploader's own invention and therefore not usable. But I'm not closing this deletion request, as it was not properly filed as a mass deletion request and the templates are missing from all but the first of the nominated files, which also means that the uploaders weren't properly informed. I suggest that the nominator adds the missing DR templates and informs the uploaders per standard procedure, then we can delete the files 7 days later if no convincing arguments for keeping are brought forward. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: You'll have to forgive me in that I'm not sure how to properly file a mass deletion request. Would putting a template on all of them necessitate individual deletion discussions? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @PseudoSkull: No, a combined deletion discussion such as this one is fine, but still, each file needs a DR template, and the uploaders should be notified that there is a deletion request for their files. See Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request for a step-by-step instruction. If you want to nominate several files at once in the future, VisualFileChange makes this much easier (places all the needed templates etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: You'll have to forgive me in that I'm not sure how to properly file a mass deletion request. Would putting a template on all of them necessitate individual deletion discussions? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I will nominate the other Syldavia flags for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Zdeněk Burian
[edit]Non-free images because the author (cs:Zdeněk Burian) died in 1981.
- File:An oil painting of mammoths by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg
- File:Encampment of late Paleolithic hunters - an oil painting by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian - SUMPHG.jpg
- File:Expozice Zdeňka Buriana v Lašském muzeu.jpg
- File:Faeburian.jpg
- File:Outdated restoration of Brontosaurus near a lake - SUMPHG.jpg
- File:Outdated restoration of Dipolodocus at SUMPHG.jpg
- File:Stegosaurus and Allosaurus - A painting after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg
- File:Vráz, Enrique Stanko. V zemi zlata a Inků.jpg
Harold (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Warning: this paintings are not made by Zdenek Burian himself but are copies of Burian's works by Javor (Yavor) Vitanov, a bulgarian artist, in the context of communist legislation in Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, which released any work of art into the public domain as soon as the artist had been paid for his work. In my opinion this is "PD-ineligible", isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb1c:821f:a400:e4dd:1832:2c96:2d72 (talk • contribs)
- You probably mean File:An oil painting of mammoths by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg and File:Encampment of late Paleolithic hunters - an oil painting by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian - SUMPHG.jpg (there is Vitanov in descriptions) and maybe also File:Outdated restoration of Brontosaurus near a lake - SUMPHG.jpg, File:Outdated restoration of Dipolodocus at SUMPHG.jpg, File:Stegosaurus and Allosaurus - A painting after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg. I'm not sure about that, but I think the current legislation is important for us, not legislation from 60s or 70s. Back then these paintings maybe were in PD, but are they now? --Harold (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Don't know. I suppose it depends if the current legislation is, or not, retroactive. --2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:88E:92A5:48F3:210B 18:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- You probably mean File:An oil painting of mammoths by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg and File:Encampment of late Paleolithic hunters - an oil painting by Al. Vitanov after Zdenek Burian - SUMPHG.jpg (there is Vitanov in descriptions) and maybe also File:Outdated restoration of Brontosaurus near a lake - SUMPHG.jpg, File:Outdated restoration of Dipolodocus at SUMPHG.jpg, File:Stegosaurus and Allosaurus - A painting after Zdenek Burian at SUMPHG.jpg. I'm not sure about that, but I think the current legislation is important for us, not legislation from 60s or 70s. Back then these paintings maybe were in PD, but are they now? --Harold (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Our page on Bulgarian copyright law, COM:Bulgaria, does not say anything about a previous custom that put works for hire instantly into the publis domain. Besides, if they are copies, they are also derivative works, so it would not be clear whether we apply Bulgarian or Czech laws to Burian's copyright claim. Since Bulgaria also does not have commercial freedom of panorama, I do not see how these can be kept. Felix QW (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Retroactivity is a concept of law which envisages that a legal act may have effects on cases prior to its date of application. It is generally considered as opposite to human rights, as no one can be judged in the name of a law established after his actions. Notable exceptions:
- Retroactivity in mitius: retroactivity is possible if it allows the convicted person to benefit from a milder law, the change of which precisely suggests that the old one was too severe.
- A tax law established in year N generally applies to income for year N-1, which means de facto retroactivity.
- The Nuremberg tribunal evoked with regard to the Nazi leaders the notion of crime against humanity, a notion that did not yet exist in international law at the time of the events.
- Grandfather clause, which is the opposite of the principle of retroactivity: [6].
--2A01:CB1C:821F:A400:4462:2EE5:775A:B96E 10:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. If these paintings are copies, deleted per COM:PRP as no evidence is given about a possible PD status. --Ellywa (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Kurobe Senyo Railway Timetable
[edit]
Text between the route map and the timetable can be clearly readable; possible infringement of literary copyright. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Yasu Kurobe Senyo Railway Timetable.jpg is in use at en:Kurobe Senyō Railway and ja:関西電力黒部専用鉄道. Kurobe Senyo Railway Timetable B.jpg is in use at de:Kurobe Sen’yō Tetsudō, ja:黒部ルート, wikidata:Q6446265 and wikidata:Q11678837. Can we just redact the problematic text? Brianjd (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I think we can, as long as anyone who is willing to do that job appears. Yasu (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Bergmann as original uploader (Kurobe Senyo Railway Timetable.jpg). Pinging @MagentaGreen as uploader of retouched version (Kurobe Senyo Railway Timetable B.jpg). Brianjd (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as nobody took the trouble to remove the copyrighted text from the image. If you plan to do so, please ask for temporary undeletion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:Japan#Terms: Image still under copyright in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely own work as attributed to SIPA USA https://www.alamy.com/voice-of-timon-kevin-schon-arrives-at-disneys-the-lion-guard-return-of-the-roar-tv-movie-premiere-event-held-at-the-walt-disney-studios-main-theatre-in-burbank-ca-on-saturday-november-14-2015-photo-by-sthanlee-b-mirador-please-use-credit-from-credit-field-image412132175.html?irclickid=WVa0Re3W9xyNRw2xKQ3XYSymUkDSi4RBAx-FT00&utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1 -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 12 November 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 – due to insufficient of information like source, author, publication status and creation date – this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Tagged by User:HombreDHojalata for speedy deletion "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: (c) Manuel Rosenberg (1897-1967) and heirs." 1921 US work, notice at bottom right suggests it was printed at time which would make it {{PD-US expired}}. I think this at least needs discussion Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no COM:EVID that this drawing has been published, therefore it has to be deleted imho. --Ellywa (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Per recent VP discission, the freedom of panorama in Guatemala is restricted to personal use only, which is not capable on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Info Permanent link to the VPC discussion referenced above: FOP Guatemala is all wrong. The DR should include all the subpages as well. Right now this template is used for three files:
- File:CocaCola-001.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Escudoaltos 2014-06-16 06-59.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Antigua, Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Merced (15958750335).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- In the latter two cases we need to research whether the depicted objects are still copyrighted. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Info the third photo shows w:en:Iglesia de La Merced, Antigua Guatemala, in which the current building dates to 1767. Already in public domain for roughlt 3 centuries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I've stricken this entry. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Archived link to VPC discussion: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong. Brianjd (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The first image is already under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CocaCola-001.jpg; the coat of arms in the second image has been erected in 1907 and does not seem to bear any indication of individual authorship. If we consider that sufficient for being an anonymous work, copyright would have expired in 1983. Felix QW (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, the template is not completely wrong, i.e. there was FoP in the past and now no longer is. I think the template must be kept and updated accordingly. --Krd 14:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please see this dicussion I have created about the topic. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Rather than deleting this, wouldn't it be better to turn this into a tracking template (like {{NoFoP-France}}), so that we would have a good list of files to review for copyright? I understand that this means that we'd have to substantially alter the current language of the template, but we're going to need some way to review all of the photos with the present tag to check them for potential copyright issues even if the current template is dead-wrong. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Although having NoFoP-Guatemala might be good, this still needs to be deleted. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)