Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/12/27

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive December 27th, 2022
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.

File:Church's Texas Chicken logo.svg

[edit]

It is a Duplicate of Churchs-logo.svg Chjocgxidhxodzhi (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No permission. Krd 05:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, unused dupe with false license claim. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Edge and Christian April 2018 crop.jpg

[edit]

Edge is dying 2001:8003:2468:3100:1C7B:A7AF:21E4:BE0D 05:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seen like a valid reason for deletion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, this is not a reason to delete anything. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Edge and Christian April 2018 crop.jpg

[edit]

Edge of the 2001:8003:2468:3100:E900:5E88:58E9:4F19 02:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Yuvaan Logo.svg

[edit]

Unused, broken svg --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting it. Its Me The User (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, uploader concurs with deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Coins of Mexico

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Mexico

A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¿Cuál es la razón de la propuesta de borrado? Si no sabes español trae a alguien que sepa el idioma para que me explique. Saludos. Inri (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mira Ud Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico/es#Moneda. Las monedas modernas de México (después de 1928) tienen derechos de autor, no tienen licencia libre. Saludos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, entonces que se borren.--Inri (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 2.jpg

[edit]

Reduntant. Image of the same object is here (better focused to penis). Kulmalukko (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 2.jpg

[edit]

typical selfshot exhibitionist bad quality out of project scope penis image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 2.jpg

[edit]

Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, give us this day our daily penises ... Taivo (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 2.jpg

[edit]

out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


kept: Natuur12 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 2.jpg

[edit]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Mediocre quality penis selfie, not useful photo of very common object which Commons already has many better quality illustrations. (Note: Different photo than earlier deletion of same name). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

COM:PENIS BrightRaven (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, very poor quality orphan own penis snapshot -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

out of project scope Taivo (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, by Denniss. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


deleted: --Krd 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Penis 4.jpg

[edit]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Monnaie actuelle دراهم اليوم (31421986021).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Algeria A1Cafel (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Royal Academy (3424694680).jpg

[edit]

The banner in the centre of this image is surely above COM:TOO. It needs to be eveluted whether the underlying painting is already in the public domain or still in copyright of the artist. In the latter case it needs to be deleted as it is only temporarily "installed" and thereby does not fall under U.K.'s freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Herbert Ortner; info on derivative banner of PD artwork added to image description. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Marc Moncada.jpg

[edit]

probably offensive image Docosong (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: CV image with false description used as troll/personal insult. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:ISO 7000 - Ref-No 0251.svg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Mrmw as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: file already exist, requestor for deletion is uploader himself. Mrmw: what is the name of the other file this duplicates? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757 sorry, my mistake, didnt recognize redirect - i already removed request for deletion - thx --Mrmw (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:This is a website logo.png

[edit]

I uploaded it by mistake Bazmelahooti (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:231shrdhdha singh.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 00:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mala ram.jpg

[edit]

Probably not own work. 64.9% of the image appears to be a set of frames with no source. Violates CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors). See also this log.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 00:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Wappen Jägerbataillon Oberösterreich.png

[edit]

For sure not their own work. Maybe it can be kept under some PD license Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I added {{PD-AustrianGov}} to the file and removed the incorrect structured data from the page --D-Kuru (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio from https://www.redbubble.com/fr/i/carte-de-v%C5%93ux/Della-Duck-par-GlointheArt/64441096.5MT14 AviaWiki (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 15:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:WBEH-CD.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Mvcg66b3r as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not "own work"; may be above TOO King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The only way this could be construed to be "own work" is that this looks like a fake logo to me (the "38" does not exactly have the polish, for lack of a better word, I'd expect even from a low-power, low-budget station). In any event, the América Tevé logo contained therein is currently asserted to be non-free on the English Wikipedia, for what that may be worth on the TOO side. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; apparent return of bad faith blocked uploader. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:North Sudan the Cushitic peoples.jpg

[edit]

This is a copyrighted image by Marwan Ali of the Associated Press (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/28/sudan-resistance-protests-bashir-regime) Pathawi (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Obviously photoshopped images from a long-gone user whose (deleted) user page was a pretty transparent hoax about shipping and pizza company. I wouldn't even rely on any of these having clean copyright status.

Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Manipulated or misleading images with no satisfactory explanation of valid purpose. It's a bit of a shame if we cannot unmanipulate the MV Southsea image especially, albeit the photo quality is not great, as we have only two other pictures of this splendid old ship, which I remember travelling on, and none in this livery. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Norbert Simonis 03.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Norbert Simonis 01.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Norbert Simonis 02.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Vincenthefti.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Vincent001.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Lois Martin.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Abhishekchouksey.jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Abhishekchouksey.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, non-educational, not used vanity shot composite... Wikimedia is not a personal photo album. Acabashi (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Iamdoctorfresh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:LINGANNA HOMECARE PHRAVATE LIMITED 1.png

[edit]

Seems to be out of scope. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:'Pakistan'-Lok Virsa Museum- Islamabaad @ibneazhar Sep 2016 (670).jpg

[edit]

Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Santa Cruz, Argentina.jpg

[edit]

License doesn't seem valid for a Google Street View image. --ghouston (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Paris (23848108816).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Street art @ Paris (30972010032).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Street art @ Paris (31078646556).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mv Southsea .jpg

[edit]

Because I no longer need it and it was uploaded by accident not knowing it was copyright StaceyShippingLine (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same file is listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89. Ellywa (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
[edit]

Because I no longer need it and it was uploaded by accident not knowing it was copyright StaceyShippingLine (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Stacey British Railway's class 489.jpg

[edit]

Because I no longer need it and it was uploaded by accident not knowing it was copyright StaceyShippingLine (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
[edit]

Because I no longer need it and it was uploaded by accident not knowing it was copyright StaceyShippingLine (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mycurleychickstacey89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:2002 World Cup Logo.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Paris, view of the church Sacré Coeur at Montmartre (37134395132).jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Governador João Doria durante visita à Expo Dubai (51636390265).jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Buildings of Radiotelevizija Slovenija

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: copyrighted modern architecture, unfortunately outside the scope of Commons.

The building is work by Franc Rihtar (died 2021) and will enter the public domain in 2092.

TadejM (t/p) 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Rogaška Slatina 2022.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: at least one photo in the collage depicts copyrighted architecture. TadejM (t/p) 09:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, also cannot verify copyright status of original photos. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Šolski center Celje.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: copyrighted modern architecture. TadejM (t/p) 09:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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.

File:Srednja-sola-za-gostinstvo-in-turizem-Celje.png

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free modern architecture; outside the scope of Commons. TadejM (t/p) 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Upper Ground, SE1 (3424684630).jpg

[edit]

The depicted banner is surely above COM:TOO and recent enough to be copyrighted. As it is likely only temporarily installed and anyway a "2D-graphic work" it does not fall under UK's freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Srednja-ekonomska-sola-Celje.png

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free modern architecture; outside the scope of Commons. TadejM (t/p) 09:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:HotelCeleia Ce.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free modern architecture; outside the scope of Commons. Work by M. Božič (d. 2008). TadejM (t/p) 09:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Sophie Ryder1.jpg

[edit]

Image depicts a copyrighted sculpture at a temporary exhibition, which is thereby not covered by UK's freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Rising, Sophie Ryder.jpg

[edit]

This image says to depicted sculptor Sophie Ryder in front of one of her sculptures. However, no location was provided, whereby it's unclear whether the image is covered by a freedom-of-panorama exception or not. In addition, the image wasn't uploaded by the claimed photographer Ash Mills, but by the account User:Sophieryder, which may be related to the depicted sculptor. So, two permissions are missing here. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:آلت مردی 1.jpg

[edit]

I want you to delete this image permanently because it was posted inappropriately and without my consent 9156Ramin (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Blurry dick pic. --Rosenzweig τ 21:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Pengen curhat nih podcast Irfani zhang.jpg

[edit]

no source no permission used for promospam only Hoyanova (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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.

File:Irfani di acara hari guru.jpg

[edit]

no source no permission not notable young person used for promospam cross wiki Hoyanova (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Pranav Patadia.jpg

[edit]

ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Янковский Игорь Аркадьевич.jpg

[edit]

Portrait of a person out of project scope, deleted from ruwiki Ignatus (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:B copioli-fmi.jpg

[edit]

https://www.dueruote.it/news/attualita/2022/12/05/giovanni-copioli-vice-presidente-fim.html Maybe75 (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Pratenbauer - UN TALENT PERDUT.jpg

[edit]

probably offensive image based in photograph of leo messi in copyright Docosong (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mural in Paris Rue de Metz (28).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Profile photo chetan bhagat.jpg

[edit]

previously deleted as Profile photo of Chetan Bhagat.jpg MB (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Diego Gutiérrez cuba 2.jpg

[edit]

Metadata credits Silvio Rodriguez, not the Flickr uploader Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Murale AC Milan 2022.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Corso di Porta Romana (Milan) - Murales

[edit]

No FoP in Italy, permission from the artist is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Port Elizabeth South End Museum mural.JPG

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Creative art wall.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Cape Town MyCiTi IRT artwork.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in South Africa A1Cafel (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Male laser hair removal 05.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Circumcised Glans Close-up.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Erect Human Penis While Sit 1.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Erect Human Penis While Sit 2.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Human Flaccid Penis Close-up.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Totti murales.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Angelll2351125.jpg

[edit]

Pixabay image published after January 2019 fails COM:L A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, also issues with the underlying Christmas ornament. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Self-portraits by Jean De Boë.jpg

[edit]

Author died less than 70 years ago Trauenbaum (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Undelete in 2045. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Inter Wall.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Legs-2144697.jpg

[edit]

It seems to be a temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Filippo Repetto.jpg

[edit]

Self-promotion, content already deleted on it.wiki. Melquíades (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Pareja de juancho hernangomez.jpg

[edit]

ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Md. Rafique Khan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:20190411033207 IMG 4403.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:20190511 Folketingsvalg 2019 3 (47787765032).jpg

[edit]

and:

Commons:Derivative works from posters. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Balsamao.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a web photo found at https://www.booking.com/hotel/pt/convento-de-balsamao-casa-de-retiro-e-repouso.pt-pt.html and elsewhere Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:SB 33cl flesje SG.png

[edit]

no source no metadata no permission Hoyanova (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:SB 33cl flesje DG.png

[edit]

no permission no photographer given Hoyanova (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:SB 33cl flesje HR.png

[edit]

no permission no photographer Hoyanova (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Daniels o dna.jpg

[edit]

Possible ad, according to the description, No encyclopedic use CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Alessandro 03.jpg

[edit]

unused self-promotional image; can't see any educational value - wikimedia is not facebook Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Alessandro 04.jpg

[edit]

unused self-promotional image; can't see any educational value - wikimedia is not facebook Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Alessandro 05.jpg

[edit]

unused self-promotional image; can't see any educational value - wikimedia is not facebook Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Alessandro Cotrufo 01.jpg

[edit]

unused self-promotional image; can't see any educational value - wikimedia is not facebook Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Alessandro 02.jpg

[edit]

unused self-promotional image; can't see any educational value - wikimedia is not facebook Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Hans Beltz.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio: Obviously derivative work from somewhere (newspaper?), certainly not "own work" from 2019 (the image subject died in 1977). 87.150.9.158 17:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Lotte Klemm.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio: Certainly not "own work" from 2013 (the image subject died in 1989). If the picture was taken around 1970, there is no way the photographer has been dead for 70 years. 87.150.9.158 17:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:UB Pravin Rao.jpg

[edit]

Previously published at https://www.infosys.com/confluence/virtual/speakers/pravin-rao.html - Copyright © 2021 Infosys Limited - & not clear how uploader claimed "own work" David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Audience at Buckingham Palace (38563762812).jpg

[edit]

Wrong attribution. Photo credit should read: Gareth Fuller/PA Wire 116.49.148.95 18:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Unidentified people

[edit]

Out of scope - unused personal images/unused images of non-notable people/groups of people

INeverCry 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment – File:Aarons-CustomerCore-1000StoreCelebration-7402 (10929000135).jpg is now in use at w:Hair#Curly hair – Wdchk (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment – Given that so many of these nominated images are now in use within Wikipedia articles, it appears that the nominator has simply nominated for deletion most, if not all, of the images within the Category "Unidentified people" without regard for their content or possible usefulness for educational purposes. More care needs to be taken before nominating files for deletion, and mass nominations such as this one should be discouraged. ̴̴̴̴

̽ <bɾ>

  • Oppose – Little or no attempt has been made by the nominator to determine if any of the listed files may have an educational purpose, and in fact most of these files do have educational value, and many of these files are now in use within Wikipedia articles. The nominator is attempting a mass-deletion of files based solely on the fact that each was listed in the category “unidentified people”, despite the fact that many of the above files are mis-categorized because the people in many of the files are identified. The indiscriminate culling of files based on nothing more than categorization (or mis-categorization as the case may be) is not acceptable. Dolovis (talk), 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Delete to the Aarons-CustomerCore images, they serve no educative process, and that Dolovis has gone and added that rubbish to articles to try and justify their usage/etention is somewhere between ridiculous, and a disappointing abuse. The others, really do we have to step through a non-thematic compilation of images and try to provide an opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete File:2tone SG Dallas Shoot.jpg for licensing/impersonation problems (either it is uploaders own work and they are impersonating the subject, or it is someone elses work and the subject hasn't provided evidence of authors permission).
 Delete the entire Aarons-CustomerCore-1000StoreCelebration collection because these are out of scope and have been added to articles with tenuous links - this sort of photo stream is more appropriate to the company website or You-Twit-Face,
 Keep File:Actstrange1.jpg because it does fit into the article it has been added to but needs a description,
 Delete all the ones from File:Adima Porträtfoto.jpg to File:By MuRaT11.jpg as unused and/or out-of-scope (including the ones added to articles in a rather weak attempt to provide EDUSE's),
 Delete File:Capo (Rapper).jpg because although it is in use at de-wiki, it is of questionable copyright status based on this Google search limited to similar images before 1 October 2012,
 Delete all the ones from File:Cardan.jpg to File:Djwars.JPG as unused and out-of-scope images. Green Giant (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: one kept, rest deleted as blatantly out of Commons' scope FASTILY 09:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Unidentified people

[edit]

images of unknown persons - not in use - no educational value (no COM:EDUSE)

CoCoCounty97 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unidentified ladies lamenting Keopuolani's death.jpg is in use.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A historical image from the US National Archives of President Franklin Roosevelt's funeral is of "no educational value" because the people pictured are not identified? It seems pretty clear the files nominated here haven't been individually considered, and this seems kind of disruptive. Dominic (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hanxu 2.JPG is obviously identified.--維基小霸王 (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an insane number of mutually unrelated images to take up in a single request. That said, on the four images of mine I see among those nominated:
Disruptive, as Dominic wrote above, appears to be an appropriate chracterisation of this mass deletion request. Concerning the three files made and uploaded by me (1, 2, 3): They are part of a concert gallery, Category:Manu Delago Handmade (Popfest 2014). I'd rather not believe, that images of musicians are not welcome here, because only the bandleader has an article (yet). --Tsui (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hotel Bristol dinner.jpg is clearly identified, and is in use on dewiki. I'd  Keep on principle since the nominator has failed to properly check to see whether the files that have been put in this category actually meet the criteria specified in the DR. Overeager deletionism of historically valid images in use on Wikimedia projects benefits nobody. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a few of these, more or less at random:
I propose a speedy close and keep. If some of these merit deletion, let's see them nominated in some reasonable manner. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all above, speedy close and keep. Nom clearly hasn't done their homework. My 4 that are listed are historic and clear enough that historians would be able to identify whom they seek.
 Keep Clearly a sloppy, disruptive and verging on vandalism DR. The files uploade by me (as others) are clearly educational and in scope:

Images of movie premieres: File:Dreamgirls Premiere (366221052).jpg File:Miss Potter Premiere (313202507).jpg File:Miss Potter Premiere (313202986).jpg File:P1090527 (155443143).jpg File:Wolfgang Petersen - Poseidon Premiere 5.jpg

Closing ceremony of the 2015 Military World Games File:Cerimônia de Encerramento (22218092771).jpg

Informal meeting of the EU competitiveness and telecommunications ministers File:Informal meeting of competitiveness and telecommunications ministers. Arrival and welcome Delegate (35856017401).jpg File:Informal meeting of competitiveness and telecommunications ministers. Arrival and welcome Delegate (35988640145).jpg

Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation

File:Επίσκεψη ΥΦΥΠΕΞ Κ. Γεροντόπουλου στο Ερεβάν της Αρμενίας (11355064175).jpg

Brazilian Senate

File:Solenidades. Homenagens (21768451894).jpg

In a few words, all in scope and sloppyly nominated for deletion. Tm (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It seems that this vandal as nominated thousands of images, in this DR and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified men. Speedy close all of them and was blocked as a possible sockpuppet of a former prolific user. True or not, this Drs are pure vandalism, so better not waste peoples time with this actions. Tm (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There are other things in many of those photographs than just people. I am fine with deletion of few useless images but such large DR seems like waste of time. --Jarekt (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep and re-nominate in smaller batches, preferably less than 25 at a time. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. File:Nickfalcon.jpg is in uses in en:w:Nick Fallon (as can be seen on the image page); apparently shows notable person in scope, though uploader unfortunately neglected to put a proper text description on Commons. Seems a sloppy mass deletion request done without checking usefulness/use of individual images. I suggest closing the batch as kept as too much useful would be lost. Individual images or more thoughtfully/carefully selected sets of images may be resubmitted for deletion request; this batch is too large and diverse. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] - a notable in scope person in a notable location; another person in the photo is not identified, so the nomination states "images of unknown persons - not in use - no educational value". This nomination is simply irresponsible and completely inappropriate. "Category:Unknown persons" is *NOT* an inherent reason to delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEPT per Artix Kreiger and other comments above. Inappropriate and irresponsibly sloppy mass deletion request. (This is a decision on the mass deletion listing; individual images may be relisted.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Unidentified people

[edit]

COM:CSD F10 personal photos of non-notable people.

RZuo (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Coffs Harbour campus - gathering Space.jpg

[edit]

Metadata show “Image is copyright Elise Derwin Photography” Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Revised Haynesville, LA, welcome sign IMG 2199.JPG

[edit]

Per COM:FOP US, no freedom of panorama for public artwork in the US. Unless we can prove that this date to before 1978, we can't host this on Commons. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Gerard Beaulieu auto-portrait.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=479886240847069&set=pb.100064770906252.-2207520000.&type=3 AviaWiki (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Holocaust Sculpture, Las Vegas, NV, Artist Rita Deanin Abbey.jpg

[edit]

Copyright status Deerstarlings (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Zux Ginger 1 (1).jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Zux Ginger 2 (1).jpg

[edit]

out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:"Roses For Stalin".jpg

[edit]

Publication date and the death of the author is after 1946, it is copyrighted in the US per warning A1Cafel (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Banknotes of Australia

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Australia

A1Cafel (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:IV1970 E.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Bulgaria A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:IV1970 T.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:CUR Bulgaria A1Cafel (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:(Views of) Chinatown area, Washington, D.C. - DPLA - f8e216be6ce00167b17d8500a237fc1c.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:CUR China A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Yellow Boats Tour @ Dubai Marina (15684333959).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Stadio Filadelfia.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Docmar90 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Charles Briot.jpg

[edit]

Il s'agit d'un portrait du compositieur Charles de Bériot (père ou fils) et non du mathématicien Charles Briot. Voici la source de l'image : https://www.naxos.com/CatalogueDetail/?id=8.570748 (il sagit vraisemblablement d'une reproduction de ce portrait : https://www.europeana.eu/fr/item/401/item_XVQV5OYDVGEZPYJL3KBW52WQJJ4ZUVWM) Un véritable portrait de Charles Briot est disponible ici : https://books.openedition.org/editionsulm/1656 (portrait par Vuillier selon : https://www.mathouriste.eu/Hermite/Hermite.html) et un autre là : https://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=es&p=charles+auguste+albert&n=briot. Plusieurs sources font la confusion entre ces trois hommes. Twanes (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: and renamed. --Achim55 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Laksamana TNI Yudo Margono, Panglima TNI.jpg

[edit]

due to an error in the image NotRicard (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which error? Krd 06:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Observation towers in Slovenia

[edit]

Copyrightable towers, created after 1945.

Eleassar (t/p) 20:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 00:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files in Category:Observation towers in Slovenia

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free architecture; outside the scope of Commons.

TadejM (t/p) 09:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative design choices had to be made here, which makes these copyrightable architectural works. --TadejM (t/p) 21:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We even had a court case in Slovenia where the court found sales stands to be copyrighted.[3] This is much more complex. --TadejM (t/p) 22:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as too simple and functional structures. I do not agree with the sales stand counter-example. I could see considerable room for creativity in a sales stand that I do not see here IronGargoyle (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can also see considerable room for creativity in observation towers, just as much as with a sales stand. Both are a utility structure. I made a preselection and have left the less creative ones (e.g. [4]) out of the DR. --TadejM (t/p) 12:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Finlandia-Laponia-Monte-Aurora-Boreal (1).jpg

[edit]

Pixabay image publish after January 2019 fails COM:L requirement A1Cafel (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As the uploader of the latest version, I'm good with this. Sunset taldea had initially (and incorrectly) marked the photo as {{Own}} so I corrected the source info. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Blaynoise.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: The picture is in the image of this YouTube video from the channel of the artist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHs-Qvg_Upo CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mustafa Adrisi 1977.jpg

[edit]

This is a copyright violation from alamy [5]. Highly unlikely this is an "own work". Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Aaron Vail in 1845.jpg

[edit]

It is doubtful that the uploader, who has claimed this as an "own work", painted this portrait in the 1840s. Indy beetle (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the information you needed was in the metadata on the image page. Image title: NYH149700 Portrait of Aaron Vail (1796-1878) c.1845 (oil on canvas) (see 149723 for pair) by Lopez y Portana, Vicente (1772-1850); 128.2x89.5 cm; Collection of the New-York Historical Society, USA; (add.info.: American Charge d'Affaires to Great Britain 1832-36 and later to Spain;); Spanish, out of copyright. New uploaders choose the default settings when uploading. We even have an entry at Wikidata for the painting: Aaron Vail. --RAN (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep. Obviously public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Rita Deanin Abbey bridge mountain.jpg

[edit]

Not my work. The photographer has been contacted by another user and will be handled from there. Deerstarlings (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:ИПС.jpg

[edit]

non-free, no government permit. 38.242.7.246 00:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambleme with two-headed eagle, planted here, belongs to the Ministry od Defence of Serbia, not to the Institute nor to the Ministry of education or science. Recommended: speedy deletion!198.203.28.215 10:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Branden Condy.jpg

[edit]

out of scope Trade (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope is not a valid/supported or specific enough reason to nominate for deletion. It falls into the category of "Generally, photos you have taken yourself of uncopyrightable subjects such as views; nature; yourself; and people who have given their consent for you to photograph them and for you to publish the photograph.", therefore it is within scope. Paulturner15 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulturner15 That line comes from Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter; the key word is copyright. There are other issues to consider besides copyright, such as Commons:Project scope. The latter page is the one that people are referring to when they say out of scope.
The file is in scope, at least for now, because it is in use at wikidata:Q68259302 (but Wikidata has its own scope policy, and the Wikidata item may be deleted if you cannot demonstrate that this person is notable). Brianjd (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, people who have given their consent for you to photograph them and for you to publish the photograph is poor wording and I am going to start a discussion there about it. Brianjd (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whats wrong with the wording? Trade (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade I mentioned this here because that text had already been quoted here. But this discussion is off-topic here. See Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Personality rights are not a copyright issue. Brianjd (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Sandersgrand (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright, yet again. Two works by an artist who died before they were uploaded (so they can't be the uploader's "own work"), and two very old photos of the artist. It's conceivable that one or even both of the photos is the uploader's own work, but it seems very unlikely.

Hoary (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second the deletion request. Not the uploader's work. Deerstarlings (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Huthayfah Halabiyeh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Clear flickr washing.

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Adae2b (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Doubtful own work. Varying sizes, no metadata. File:Elliott at Austal.jpg is clearly a screenshot.

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:755977412615513 ori crop MASTER 0x0.jpg

[edit]

Wohl URV direkt vom hersteller Jbergner (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Modell 22 t offener Gueterwagen der EIR.jpg

[edit]

Hallo, ich habe jetzt gerade erst bemerkt, dass ich beim Hochladen die falsche Lizenz gewählt habe. Das Bild ist nicht CC BY-SA 4.0, sondern CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 und darf ja somit hier nicht verwendet werden. Daher bitte löschen. Bernhard Rieger (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as per nomination, original source does not allow commercial usage. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: highly unlikely to be own work. PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per user:RAN. --Wdwd (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:DW. Neveselbert (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your case. Why do you think it is a derivative work and why do you think that makes it eligible for deletion? Without further details, this will likely close as keep by default. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see the notification. I don't see any evidence that this work, which is a derivative as a "Scan from the original work", is in the public domain as there is no evidence provided that this work was published circa 1905. Neveselbert (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Ok, let's break this down then. First off, we have a photo of unknown origin. While it may have been manipulated in the scanning process, there is currently no evidence of that. On Commons we treat scans that make minimal changes to the base work as de minimis; in general no new copyright is generated from the scan. Unless additional details are provided, I think we should set aside the derivative work argument for now as your main focus is on the status of the original work. The file was uploaded with a claim of own work and a date of 4 October 2022.[6] That date is a little odd as the file was uploaded on 3 December 2022 - the difference in date means the uploader made a conscious decision to set it rather than inserting the date of upload as we see with many false claims of own work. The date was then changed by RAN first to circa 1900[7] and later to circa 1905.[8] RAN's habit of changing the dates of files up for deletion has caused difficulties in previous discussions, as it often appears to be based more on intuition than any solid evidence. Until RAN clarifies their position, I am working on the assumption that the circa 1900 date is based solely on the appearance of Donald in this photograph (perhaps he looks 24 in this photo?). The circa 1905 date appears to be linked to him taking on the position of chief from after the death of his father - I am unclear whether there is any evidence in the content of the photo that he was chief at the time (is there some aspect of the clothing here meant to denote that?). The claim of this being an anonymous work has come from RAN rather than the uploader.[9] RAN also set {{PD-UK-unknown}} at the same time. However, the PD-UK-unknown template can only be used where we have made a reasonable enquiry about the identity of the author. As the uploader is still active on Commons but has provided no comment on the source of this file, I don't think we can say we have acted in a "reasonable" manner (a guess by an unrelated user on Commons is not a "reasonable" amount of effort when a better source of information is available). We don't know the date of creation of the image, we don't know if it was published or if the uploader found it in a private collection. The uploader also has a history of uploading copyright violations to Commons. @Fitzkarl: Can you please provide us with some details on where you found this image and anything you know about the date of creation, the photographer or a date of publication? In the absence of any further information, I will have to opt for deletion on the basis that we have not made a reasonable effort to justify the current licence on the file page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it was taken after 1953, perhaps post-mortem, and the license does not apply? Do you think it was actually taken in 2022, and I should revert back to that date? Almost every image taken before cameras recorded the date are estimates, unless taken on a recognizable datable event. If you don't want changes made to images in the deletion queue, lobby to have them locked during the process. --RAN (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1953 (as it is recorded in {{PD-UK-unknown}}) is only a valid date for this discussion if this is an anonymous work or if a reasonable enquiry has been made to establish the author's identity. My point here is that we haven't asked the uploader what they know about the file, so we wouldn't stand a chance of defending our claim in any UK court on the grounds of reasonableness. You have not explained your basis for those dates I questioned, so I have to assume my hypothesis was correct on how they were generated. Now, for the sake of argument, we make a reasonable enquiry and the uploader tells us the image was taken in 1900 but also gives us the name of the photographer, whom we find to have died in 1960. That would mean the file is still in copyright in the UK until 2030. Without making a single enquiry of the uploader, we have assumed a work is PD when there is a reasonable hypothesis that it isn't. That goes against the precautionary principle. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already done a reverse image search, and searched under this person's name looking to see if this image has a named creator, you can confirm the same thing in just a few nanoseconds of search time. Precautionary principle actually says there must be: "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". Theoretical speculation, that if we just search a little bit harder, and a little bit longer, we will find a named creator doesn't rise to the level of "significant doubt". The same theoretical speculation can be said of any of the >10,000 images using this license. Reverse image searching compares to over 1 billion images. A Google search by name looks in over 1 million scanned books, and over 100 million websites. --RAN (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image may have come from a private collection or a non-digitised book, so wouldn't show up in a reverse image search. The thoroughness of your search and the extensiveness of the Google database (as you point out) makes this more likely to be an unpublished image from a private collection. And yes, conducting a Tineye search was one of my first actions before commenting here. The uploader knows where the image came from but has not commented in the last discussion or on the file (despite being active in the last month). Independently of any information from the uploader you have made the decision that this is an anonymous work and applied a licence that requires you to make a "reasonable enquiry." My contention is that the "reasonable enquiry" here is to ask the uploader (who is still an active user) to provide details on where they obtained the image. If this was an older upload and the uploader had been inactive for a period of years, then our own searches could (perhaps) be judged the most reasonable action in the circumstances. The continued presence and silence of the authoritative source makes any independent searches void. The uploader wants the file here; it is reasonable for the uploader to tell us where they found it. As stated in the precautionary principle, a bad argument in these situations is, "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" which is effectively the argument you are using by unilaterally declaring this as an anonymous work. Now, I suggest we leave this for other editors and the closing admin to draw their conclusions. I am not going to be changing my mind that asking the uploader is the "reasonable enquiry" in this case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference of the closing admin, the uploader has been active on the English Wikipedia since my previous comment. They should have received notifications for the messages on their talk page and my ping asking them to participate here. If they choose not to clarify the situation here before the discussion closes, I would ask for that to be considered as part of the closing comment (whether the decision is to keep or delete). From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As some related evidence, the user uploaded another file for the 23rd Chief and gave relevant birth dates, source and author.[10] On checking the source, that image was clearly labelled as the 24th Chief[11] and our file here was renamed. As a user that uploads random screenshots of internet pages as own work and misidentifies individuals named in the source material when they do declare it, I am not sure it is safe to assume this particular image is of the 25th Chief (which throws out any guesswork on dating). From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment without new evidence on when was this underlying work first published, {{PD-UK-unknown}} seems to be the reasonable work license for now. First condition states: "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1953)." But the underlying work does not appear to be a photograph: it resembles more of a painting that is just included in a publication of some sort (a book or a post card?). Third condition states: "An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), or a literary work, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1953)." Still "1905" must be confirmed as the date when this underlying painting was first made to public, as a notice exists at the bottom of the licensing template: "Unpublished anonymous paintings remain in copyright until at least 1 January 2040." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it is indeed an old photograph (in sepia), not a painting. So likely,  Weak keep. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a highly compressed jpg with compression artifacts that give it an odd look. That is why I usually store scans as png files, despite the problems with contrast in thumbnails. --RAN (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Licensing seems correct; from apparent age of person date range close enough to apply. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg

[edit]

There is no evidence that this work, which is a derivative as a "Scan from the original work", is in the public domain as there is no evidence provided that this work was published circa 1905. Neveselbert (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg

[edit]

no permission; taken from website : https://www.bruceofballater.co.uk/our-products/art/signed-print-of-sir-donald-walter-cameron-of-lochiel-25th-chieftain-of-clan-cameron Fitzkarl (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can be viewed here. Fitzkarl (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and warn people who repeat useless nominations. This is the 4th nomination excluding the multiple speedy deletions that were denied. Please look for sockpuppet activity between accounts that are nominating. As before, republishing an historic image to your website does not transfer the copyright to you, or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Last time that I participated in this DR, I was unsure that a search for the photographer had been done. Now, we know the photography studio (George Crow & Co. Publishers, 34 St. Enoch Square, Glasgow), and the latest date it was published (1900). The Crow studio moved in 1900 to 136 Buchanan St. http://www.thelows.madasafish.com/cards/crowgco_136.htm Research on the studio turned up at least two photographers. George Crow and Robert Kerr https://digital.nls.uk/directories/browse/archive/85327533 I haven't found a death date for either, but since this was published in 1900 (and probably created around then), this qualifies for PD-old-assumed-expired, and probably qualifies as PD-UK-unknown because we may not be able to find out who the actual photographer of the image is. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep For the reasoning outlined by Abzeronow and the prior deletion nomination discussions. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Simone.Pe

[edit]

I harbour doubts about the licensing. I will show that the declaration as "own work" is, unless proven wrong, likely bogus. Hence, all files provided are in jeopardy.

Most of these files were edited with Adobe Photoshop CS3, often breaking the EXIF data in the process. Where this didn't happen, the field "Copyright holder" on files annotated with (1) points to a member of the Austrian armed forces: “BUNDESHEER/KONRAD”. File (2) was shot with a different kind of DSLR (Konica Minolta Dynax 5D) but edited with PS CS3 also; files with (3) were shot using the same DSLR (Nikon D100) as those of (1) marked with “Copyright holder: BUNDESHEER/KONRAD”. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Face gisant Philippe Pot (cropped).JPG

[edit]

Bad crop, now replaced by File:Face gisant Philippe Pot (cropped) (cropped).JPG Ceoil (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no reason for deletion (will break the source links). --Wdwd (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Rubysihota (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These were uploaded with a self license, but there is no evidence that Rubysihota actually represents/works for Molson Coors Brewing Company, which is listed as the author of these images (except for Brasserie.jpg, which is listed as "unknown author").

IagoQnsi (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, kept File:Brasserie as PD-old. --Wdwd (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Входной зал станции метро Новопеределкино.jpg

[edit]

This file is a copyright infringement. Original author is Alens Lidaks. The uploaded photo has EXIF author data replaced. Alens Lidaks has RAW files (and any other evidence) as a proof of authorship. After deleting these files, Alens Lidaks would like to reupload the images under free license. Alensli (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Оформление колонн Новопеределкино.jpg

[edit]

This file is a copyright infringement. Original author is Alens Lidaks. The uploaded photo has EXIF author data replaced. Alens Lidaks has RAW files (and any other evidence) as a proof of authorship. After deleting these files, Alens Lidaks would like to reupload the images under free license. Alensli (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by AngelaJubilee (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photo, a proper source and license is required

A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, kept File:Queen Elizabeth II at Jubilee Market, Covent Garden.jpg as PD-old. --Wdwd (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Kinallen province.png

[edit]

Blatant hoax 10mmsocket (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Nonsense/G1. --Wdwd (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Addres sharifgsme.jpg

[edit]

Not own work, screenshot from webpage/online map HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Masjid Besar Nurul Iman Kijang.jpg

[edit]

no source given - seems to be copied from elsewhere and artifically modified as well Hoyanova (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Emir-Dilaver.png

[edit]

no cc-by-3.0 on this youtube video — Dudek1337 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudek1337, thanks for noticing! Usually I upload files/pictures from the youtube channel PIXSELL which has that attribution on their videos. It seems that I made a mistake since the channel that uploaded the interview from which I sourced the file/picture is not PIXSELL but uses PIXSELL. Admins, please delete this file and File:Nenad-Bjelica.png. Croxyz (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Nenad-Bjelica.png

[edit]

no cc-by-3.0 on this youtube video — Dudek1337 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins, I, the uploader made a mistake (see: [12]). Please delete this file and File:Emir-Dilaver.png. Croxyz (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Fabián O'Neill - Cagliari Calcio 1999-2000.jpg

[edit]

The source, which was not linked by the uploader https://twitter.com/CagliariCalcio/status/1448563826320941062 makes no mention of public domain status. Simply uploading an image to Twitter does not mean the author relinquishes all rights to it. 90.240.29.158 13:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Interscope Records.png

[edit]

For the reasons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interscope Records.svg. Thuresson (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per COM:TOO US. ✗plicit 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Ercole del Rio, italský šachista.jpg

[edit]

This is not Ercole del Rio, as claimed by the source website, but Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart, a son of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, specifically a crop of a portrait by Karl Gottlieb Schweikart. Jaqen (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybee, this is right. I uploaded this picture by source website. I am sorry, if it is not right. --Chalupa (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination -- As noted, there is a full version of the portrait with much better quality. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Whitfield Street, London W1 (3424732064).jpg

[edit]

The depicted "mosaic" is likely above COM:TOO and recent enough to be copyrighted. It needs to be evaluated whether it falls into the category of "2D works of artistic craftsmanship" per UK-copyright law. If yes, it is covered by UK's freedom-of-panorama exception. If considered a 2D graphic work, it needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

Similar problem with:

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - 1 deleted per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Letter of Appointment of Bishop Ulep.jpg

[edit]

COM:Derivative work violation. This appears to be a letter from Pope Francis' office. Per COM:VATICAN, the copyright over pope's works or the works under his office are under perpetual copyright of the Holy See government for 70 years (up to the 70th anniversary of Pope Francis' passing in the future). No evidence of commercial license permit from the Holy See, the copyright holder. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Novagromada (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably not own works. No other sources specified. Only uses were in enwiki user page, since deleted.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by 102030MK (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Inconsistent EXIF suggesting that these are not all taken by one person. Three of these are missing EXIF, while the other three were taken with Sony, Nikon, and Canon respectively in a span of just three years. The uploader will need to provide more context on the authorship of these photos.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Garde im April 1938.jpg

[edit]

I doubt that this image is freely licenced or was taken by the uploader. The uploader name "Schreiber kdoGd" is german and translates roughly to Writer of the guard commando. Some of the files listed below could be kept with some PD licence, but it looks like the majority was just found on the internet and uploaded to Commons by some enthusiast. The images look like a mix of old and some PR images. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does also apply to:
- File:Linked Seas.jpg
- File:Repräsentation und Einsatz.jpg
- File:LID.jpg
- File:LINKED SEAS.jpg
- File:ÖBH Garde - altes Truppenkörperabzeichen.jpg
- File:Truppenkörperabzeichen Garde.jpg
- File:Garde in Paris.jpg
- File:Gardemusik.jpg
- File:Gardeponys.jpg
- File:Ehrensignalhorn.jpg
- File:Aufgaben.jpg
- File:Energie 99.jpg
- File:Ausbildung.jpg
- File:AssE.jpg
- File:Provisorischen Grenzschutzabteilung.jpg
- File:Gardisten der ersten Republik.jpg]
- File:Parade-Exerzierdienst.png]
- File:Letzte Truppenparade.jpg
- File:ÖBH Garde - Kompanienlogos.png
- File:Dienstuniform.jpg

Deleted: per nomination - Taken with a wide variety of cameras -- unlikely to belong to one person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Andreas-Hofer-Kaserne südansicht.jpg

[edit]

No indication that this file is or ever was published under a free licence. The author name "6jgbrig ÖÄ & KOMM" roughly translates to Public Relation and Communication office of the 6th Infantry brigade. Looks like some enthusiast just took a bunch of images and uploaded them to Commons. Some images could may be used under some PD lisence. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to:
- File:PiB2.jpg
- File:JgB23.jpg
- File:Wappen StbB transparent dev.gif
- File:Wappen StbB transparent dev.gif
- File:MTPZ Pandur.JPG
- File:Brigadewappen neu.png
- File:Verbandsabzeichen 6JgBrig.jpg
- File:6 jägerbrigade verbandswappen.jpg]
- File:JgB26.jpg]
- File:Andreas-Hofer-Kaserne ölgemälde ostansicht.jpg]

 Delete While cleaning up category Unit badges of the army of Austria I came across this discussion. Turns out that I already requested the deletion of some images by this user like 11 years ago: Commons:Deletion requests/File:6jgbrig HGeb (6).JPG --D-Kuru (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Philippe Petain 1941.png

[edit]

This uploader has uploaded numerous of historic figures files labled "own work". It is highly unlikely they took this portrait of Philippe Petain or otherwise hold the rights to it, especially considering that the small size of the image indicates it was lifted from another web page. Indy beetle (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Miroslav Antoňak.jpg

[edit]

Idoubt that this image was published under a free licence. It looks much more like some sort of book cover. Apperently the unknown author published this image under a license that requires attribution. Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Ndifreke Ukpong pix.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by SVTCobra as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 IMO high quality portrait. Yann (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Ndifreke Ukpong pix.jpg

[edit]

This picture was taken directly from Facebook. As such it's presumed to be a copyright violation until we have a permission that proves otherwise Trade (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Ikan Kekek, and SVTCobra: --Trade (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is high resolution, sure. It is not a good picture though for any realistic educational purpose. Should we really keep every high-resolution vanity shot from non-notable self-promoters and the simply vain when they get uploaded? IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good portrait of a man wearing an interesting shirt is clearly of no realistic educational purpose to you, but that doesn't mean that it's actually out of scope or not useful to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Is there a reason why I don't see any EXIF? Lymantria (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is a duplicate of File:Ndifreke.jpg, which has EXIF. Yann (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Lymantria (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly we don't need both. I just don't like letting people keep their uploads if they do it as part of a cross-wiki campaign to elevate their online presence. And this is not a rhetorical question, who owns the copyright for a portrait like this? The subject or the photographer? SVTCobra 23:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Trade. Brianjd (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Flipped duplicate of File:Ndifreke.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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.

File:Ndifreke.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by SVTCobra as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 IMO high quality portrait. Yann (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Ndifreke.jpg

[edit]

This picture was taken directly from SoundCloud. As such it's presumed to be a copyright violation until we have a permission that proves otherwise Trade (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Ikan Kekek, and SVTCobra: --Trade (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Trade. Brianjd (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? Trade (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Files in Category:Moscot

[edit]

These files were all uploaded with CC-BY-SA-4.0 license tags, source "moscot.com" (no specific links to any pages), author "MOSCOT". However I either don't see them on the Moscot web site or if I see them (like the mannequin head), I don't see a CC license there. The CC license tags were not verified, and it seems unlikely these images were ever offered with a CC license on that web site. Which means the files are copyvios and should be deleted.

Rosenzweig τ 21:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mando dalianis.jpg

[edit]

Greece has a copyright length of 70 years, a 1960s image is still copyrighted. The original uploader may not be the copyright holder A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Bahaadab.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work, low size and resolution and no metadata HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Bonnie And The Jets Pressebilde 1.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: The name of the photograph is mentioned in the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Djadimax.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Profile picture of this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/djadimax CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for the removal of the request: Removal of the deletion: Profile picture of a Wikipedian--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nomination withdrawn. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Djadimax.jpg

[edit]

Change of mind, this contributor only contributed to his own profile CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Rasendra.jpg

[edit]

SD F10, but used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thexpertbd/sandbox . The page itself is nothing more than a templae for new articles. Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hangman'sDeath Unlike the other F10 case I just commented on, here you noticed right away that the file’s use was not constructive. (We could say that it technically could be constructive, as a bit of information has been filled in, but your nomination suggests that it’s definitely not constructive.) So why did you challenge the F10 tag? Brianjd (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some people complained because I used the SD F10 marking one a similar image that was in use as well but equally as useful. Considering the edit history of the uploader on https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Thexpertbd this user does not contribute any useful edits to any project other than creating an unfinished page about himselve. I see this deletion request as waste of time since the use of this file and it's usability on any project is limited at best. However, if the rules say that files that are in use should not be marked for speedy deletion I don't care all that much. --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Abdallah Sherif Private Museum 2.jpg

[edit]

Because it is Blurry Andraas (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Farbiges Punktraster.jpg

[edit]

DW of artwork. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be a useless contribution 37.5.242.109 10:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: Same as File:Raster mit farbigen Punkten, Öl auf Hartfaser, 1972.jpg --Achim55 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: apparently a duplicate of File:Raster mit farbigen Punkten, Öl auf Hartfaser, 1972.jpg (which has a VRT permission), just rotated by 90°. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Kraft Josef s.jpg

[edit]

282 / 5.000 Übersetzungsergebnisse Übersetzung The person depicted, Josef Kraft, died 77 years ago. It is implausible that the uploader took this photo himself. It's probably just a reproduction. There is no indication of the photographer and the clarification of the copyright and license rights of the original photographer. Quedel (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kraft Josef.jpg. No author given, no anonymous-EU-works (as there is no publication given and if the photographer unknown is, there is no word about this). Delete. --Quedel (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"anonymous" as photographer was added by another user, without reason why it should be publiced anonymous. Or does he mean only "the author wasn't credited by the uploader". --Quedel (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have access to over a billion scanned images, via a Google search, which is the only due diligence that I am aware of that is required. Epistemology says that there is nothing you can show to prove a negative, so we rely on due diligence to see if an author has been credited. If you are aware that an author has been credited, now would be the time to disclose it. We house over 10,000 images with this license. --RAN (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read Commons:Anonymous works and the differences between an anonymous work and unknown author. The second is the case here - and therefore the anonymous-law cannot be applied. And a google search can be a positive evidence, but the lack of information on google for a 79-year-old photo isn't any evidence. --Quedel (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at a random dozen images under this license that include a link to a source and not a single one has that website declare that image is anonymous, the websites just don't mention a known author. For all legal purposes under International copyright law and WikiCommons usage, anonymous work = unknown author = no author disclosure, after performing due diligence with Google Image Search that no authority has named an author for that image. As I said previously Epistemology says that there is nothing you can show to prove a negative. --RAN (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
   Da sich hier ohnedies nur Deutsche beteiligen, setze ich die Diskussion in deutscher Sprache fort.
   @Quedel Deiner Stellungnahme ist mehrfach zu entgegnen:
   1. Es handelt sich sehr wohl um ein "Lichtbild", und nicht um ein Lichtbildwerk. Ein Gesichtsfoto vor einfärbigem Hintergrund hat nämlich keinerlei künstlerische Höhe. Ein Lichtbildwerk läge zum Beispiel vor, wenn das Motiv arrangiert oder dekoriert ist, oder eine besondere Stimmung eingefangen wird, oder durch Accessoires eine bestimmte künstlerische Aussage getätigt wird, sei sie ernster oder heiterer Natur. Ein primitives Gesichtsfoto ist eine rein handwerkliche Sache. Die von Dir - mM nach überspitzten - Formalkriterien anwenden, so wäre jedes Lichtbild, bei dem eine menschliche Hand auf den Auslöser gedrückt hat, ein Lichtbildwerk, und für den urherberrechtlichen Tatbestand "Lichtbild" bliebe als einziger Anwendungsbereich nur noch ein Foto vom Passbildautomaten. Da es ein Lichtbild ist, ist die 50-jährige Schutzfrist abgelaufen und das Bild frei.
   2. Angenommen, was ich bestreite, es wäre ein Lichtbildwerk. In diesem Falle ist beim Urheberrecht zu unterscheiden zwischen dem (unveräußerbaren und unverzichtbaren) Recht, als Urheber genannt zu werden, und dem Werknutzungsrecht bzw. Werknutzungsbewilligung. Wie Dir der User stenonik = Rupert Paul (mein Bruder) schon mitgeteilt hat, ist es ein einfaches Papierfoto von einem unbekannten Fotografen, der auf der Rückseite keinen Namensstempel o.ä. angebracht hat, sodass wir gar nicht wissen, wer der Fotograf war - mutmaßlich irgendein Fotogeschäft. Beim entgeltlichen Bezug eines Fotos gehen die Werknutzungsrechte bzw. die Werknutzungsbewilligung auf den Käufer über. Bestes Beispiel dafür sind Baupläne, die man bei einem Architekten zeichnen lässt und bezahlt: nach Deiner Theorie wäre dann bei jedem späteren Umbau des Hauses das Urheberrecht des Architekten verletzt, wenn man einen auf dem ursprünglichen Plan beruhenden Umbauplan machen lässt. Das ist natürlich nicht der Fall, denn der Besteller hat das Werknutzungsrecht am Plan erworben. Werknutzungsrechte bzw. Werknutzungsbewilligungen können auch schlüssig übertragen werden, es braucht dazu keinen schriftlichen Vertrag, siehe den OGH-Rechtssatz [1]https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizEntscheidungsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=False&GZ=&VonDatum=&BisDatum=04.01.2023&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=RS0106668&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=bcc27728-d98f-44b9-865e-676dbb31eee9&Dokumentnummer=JJR_19960812_OGH0002_0040OB02161_96I0000_002. Wenn nun ein Fotograf ein angefertigtes Lichtbild, und sei es auch ein Lichtbildwerk, einem Kunden verkauft und hinten nicht einmal seinen Namen draufschreibt, so ist das jedenfalls eine schlüssige Übertragung des Werknutzungsrechts/der Werknutzungsbewilligung, welches somit in unserer Familie als direkte Nachfahren und Erben nach Josef Kraft liegt. In Ausübung dieses Werknutzungsrechtes dürfen wird das Foto auch veröffentlichen,
   3. Überlegt doch mal den Sinn und Zweck der restriktiven Urheberrechtsregelungen von Wikipedia: diese sind grundsätzlich natürlich sinnvoll und haben den Zweck, Wikipedia davor zu bewahren, dass nach der Veröffentlichung von Fotos/Bildern plötzlich irgendwelche Abmahnschreiben bzw. Geldforderungen "verletzter" Urheber eintrudeln, mit denen sich Wikipedia dann herumschlagen muss. Deshalb ist hier Vorsicht geboten, soweit das irgendwie sinnvoll ist. Bei einem Foto einer überlokal völlig unbedeutenden Person aus ca. 1943 aber, dessen Fotograf unbekannt ist, weil er sich gar nicht erst deklariert hat, ist es mit 100%-iger Sicherheit auszuschließen, dass dessen Erben (es müssten mindestens die Enkel, eher die Urenkel sein) nach 80 Jahren daherkommen, das Foto ihres Urahnen als sein "Lichtbildwerk" erkennen und Urheberrechte geltend machen. Ganz abgesehen davon, dass sie das wegen des abgetretenen Werknutzungsrechtes ohnedies nicht könnten. Eine so extrem formalistisch-strenge Linie zu fahren, wie Du es in Deinem Löschantrag tust, ist hier vom Ergebnis her nur noch "l'art pour l'art" und hat für Wikipedia keinerlei Nutzen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebhard Klötzl (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the arguments presented above is in line with Commons understanding of copyright and common practise.  Delete per nomination, no permission. --Krd 11:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Close-up photographs of human penis 2.jpg

[edit]

Poor quality image of uploader's genitals Glandular (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Close-up photographs of human penis 2.jpg

[edit]

Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per previous DR and Ikan Kekek. Also, the juxtaposition of long, curly hairs on the legs and short, straight hairs on and around the penis is interesting. Brianjd (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep it’s fine Dronebogus (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by Itawitnak (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All of these uploads are described as coming from Facebook under various authors. Note that even if the uploader uploaded bigger resolution versions to some, there is still an issue whether the authors agreed to the uploader's use of commercial Creative Commons licenses. By default in the principle of copyright the licenses are unfree. Needs COM:VRTS correspondence of commercial license authorizations from the authors of the following photographs.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:TFLV logonew.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Yeeno as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I believe the 4 figures above the text to be above TOO. —holly {chat} 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Croatian euro coin

[edit]

Statements like "without relief" and " does not deform, mutilate or similarly deface the design..." implies a no-derivative work restriction on the coin. I don't think according to the Croatian law, the national side of the euro coin of Croatia can be accepted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A1Cafel, as the original author of the template, I'd like to challenge this request:
  • Before I created this template, I posted a question about this in the Village pump and nobody had any objections, other than the possibility that some derivative works may be limited. I based this template on another, similar one, {{EEK coin}}, which poses the same restriction but has not been deleted.
  • I would argue these restrictions are not a barrier for Commons, since Commons has an official policy regarding Non-copyright restrictions. The policy states:

While all material on Commons is free to use under its respective license, some materials may be subject to additional legal restrictions when they are used in particular circumstances or in particular ways. These limitations may arise from laws related to trademarks, patents, personality rights, political censorship, or any of many other legal causes which are entirely independent from the copyright status of the work. Wikimedia Commons policies forbid content which is not sufficiently unrestricted for reuse. However, non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations.

  • In reading Commons:Derivative works, nowhere is it stated that all possible derivative works must be allowed. Derivative works from these images are allowed, except if such works fall under the specific conditions outlined in the license. The paragraph above states "Wikimedia Commons policies forbid content which is not sufficiently unrestricted for reuse.". Since there seems to be no clear definition of sufficiently unrestricted, I would argue that this license and all works licensed under it should be allowed on Commons.
Thank you! —Ivi104 09:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivi104 Actually, all possible derivative works must be allowed (from a copyright point of view) per Commons:Licensing. But I am not sure about this template. It sounds more analogous to freedom of panorama rather than a free license. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Perhaps we waited until January 2023 to see if there is any updates on the changes of Croatian law regarding the euro coins? --A1Cafel (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel Are we expecting such a change? I don’t follow Croatian law. Brianjd (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianjd: Actually not a change, simply a possibility that the law will change because of changing the currency. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed (for now) - I do agree that Commons should discuss whether the non-copyright restrictions imposed by the Croatian law make the national side of Croatian eurocoins unsuitable for inclusion per project's goals. That is, to me, still an open question.
But, deleting the only template that has attempted to tackle the issue and provide clarity is not the way to do that. If the request creator wishes to establish concensus on the inclusion of national side of Croatian euro coins, they should do so at a more appropriate venue, and once that conversation reaches its conclusion, deleting or keeping this template can be considered in light of the concensus/legal advice. Melmann (talk)—Preceding undated comment was added at 10:13, 5 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Kept: COM:VPCOPY is a better forum for this discussion, as per Melmann. —holly {chat} 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:KUR coat of arms.jpg

[edit]

Hallo, ich habe jetzt gerade erst bemerkt, dass ich beim Hochladen die falsche Lizenz gewählt habe. Das Bild ist nicht CC BY-SA 4.0, sondern CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 und darf ja somit hier nicht verwendet werden. Daher bitte löschen. Bernhard Rieger (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 AI artwork by Benlisquare

[edit]

Same derivative work copyright concerns as for Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare. Should also be deleted as of COM:PCP.

GPSLeo (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png:
Prompt: (highly detailed, shiny:1.1), (glossy hair:1.2), beautiful detailed eyes, (highly-detailed face:1.2), purple eyes, (open mouth), tongue out, big eyes, realistic, hair bangs, (full color), fully clothed. Image of a maid with an open mouth.
Negative prompt: lowres, bad anatomy, bad hands, text, error, missing fingers, extra digit, fewer digits, cropped, worst quality, low quality, normal quality, jpeg artifacts, signature, watermark, username, blurry, artist name, mosaic, ahegao, distorted mouth, multiple girls, (disembodied), (poorly drawn hands), (poorly drawn face), (mutation), (ugly), blurry, (bad anatomy), (bad proportions), (extra limbs), bar censorship, censorship, elongated face, ((black and white))
I see no references to specific artists or artwork, so what is it supposed to be a derivative work of?
Choosing another random file that I haven’t looked at before (File:Algorithmically-generated photorealistic closeup painting of young woman.png), I find:
Prompt: female face, extremely detailed, intricate, clear_focus, perfect face, very deep eyes, round pupils
Negative prompt: (((deformed))), [blurry], bad anatomy, disfigured, poorly drawn face, mutation, mutated, (extra_limb), (ugly), (poorly drawn hands), messy drawing, ((((mutated hands and fingers)))))
Again, what is this supposed to be a derivative work of? Brianjd (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The software cuts the original works into small pieces runs some calculations over them and then generates a new image. The original work is part of the new generated file. Like File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png consists of many photos these files also consist of the input photos. You can also not make a filme out of a playbook without the permission by the playbook author, even when you do major changes to the plot. GPSLeo (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the software works. No part of the works fed into the code are literal part of the output. You can certainly make a generic comedy after studying many comedies. There are cases where images fed in repeatedly can be copied, like Mona Lisa, but in general it's just in the style of many works, and in these cases many artists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GPSLeo. Brianjd (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at File:This AI-generated woman does not exist.png you can definitely see parts coming directly from the input photos and are not just inspired. We deleted many much less clear cases under COM:PCP and COM:DM policies. If there is a court decisions (and there definitely will be many cases) that this kind of photos do not violate the rights of the original creators we can undelete those files. But for now we should not host them to not bring third party reusers at risk. GPSLeo (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo I was not sure about this one:
Prompt: Lovely cousin Matilda, fair daughter of England. In Costco. Eighteen years old, a woman full-grown. My timid darling, my shining angel, O good heavens! Her eyes are like the morning sun. Her strange clothes are so amusing. I would trace the contour of her delicate hair. She is my heart's delight. 2018
Negative prompt: toy, B&W, nudity, (painting), outside, greenscreen, studio, ugly child
But you say you can see parts coming directly from the input photos? Can you cite examples?
Pinging @Prosfilaes. Brianjd (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamps, product packing and shelf labels look to realistic to be totally generated. They are generated but the input was a copyrighted photo which was needed to create this. It is not just a simple information of the original photo it is a huge amount of information taken from the original photo. The amount of information taken from the photo is enough to be a derivative work. GPSLeo (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo But the point made by Prosfilaes is that these are not copies of photos of lamps, packaging and labels, but rather composites of many different photos of those things.
Suppose a person draws a generic set of product packaging. At some level, that drawing would be a copy of various sets of packaging they had seen. But it would probably not be a copy of any particular packaging. And it would not be copyright infringement, despite most packaging being copyrighted. It’s the same idea with AI. Brianjd (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is how we end up with the nondescript and unrecognisable products for sale in the store, and the illegible signage, as noted in the file description. Brianjd (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say the same thing about a human work? The lamps are blurry bright rectangles in the distance, so I don't see why you would have needed to copy them. The packaging is among most "creative" parts of the picture; it shows the AI is trying to create a picture of packaging, but instead of copying anything, it creates its own image that shows it doesn't know what humans look for in packaging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: (from Special:Diff/720361864 by uploader, who is currently blocked) Comment: A typical Stable Diffusion-based model checkpoint file, for instance Stable Diffusion v1.5, is typically around 3.97GB in filesize. The AI model saw 6 billion pictures from its training dataset, and formed a set of algorithms stored in a single file totalling at roughly 4 billion bytes during the AI training process. Please explain to me how it is possible to fit an entire picture within 66% of a single byte of information? For context, the ASCII letter "a" is one byte, and the UTF-8 character "中" is two bytes. AI models contain algorithms that are trained on the training data, they do not store the training data, and you cannot retrieve something to photobash it into a collage if you do not store it. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 01:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep ludicrously indiscriminate, you can’t copyright styles, concepts or vague elements. This has been discussed already Dronebogus (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to add that prompts mean almost nothing and can only “steer” the AI in a general direction; I might upload some examples of how I used copyrighted media -based keywords that resulted in an output nothing like the thing in question. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also was hesitant to delete the Sakuya and Marisa art because, unlike Reimu’s extremely distinctive design, it’s difficult to copyright things like “blonde witch girl” or “silver-haired french maid”. But YMMV. Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Dronebogus. You can't claim massive gross copyvios if you can't even tell us what copyright is being infringed. Especially not when the uploader has just been indef blocked to stop them discussing these images, and admins are using fake SPEEDY reasons and premature DR closures to hide as many of these as fast as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that admins are clearly abusing privileges here, but the uploader was behaving extremely poorly. Dronebogus (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's to be done with the uploader? An indef block for un-Islamic behaviour? Banned from Commons for their behaviour on projects that aren't Commons? All their uploads summarily deleted because "we don't like them" ? Images deleted under CSD F10 as "they're not a contributor to Wikimedia projects", despite 50k edits?
"We're angry at this editor, lets block them, then delete all their content while they can't say anything to stop us" is not any sort of deletion policy we should be following. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first part (plus adding porn to a discussion to make a WP:POINT, which is blatantly disruptive), with no prejudice to an unblock. The rest was gravedancing and admin overreach pure and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Following the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle of Commons #4, just because we can't tell whose copyright has been violated is not a sufficient argument. For example, without knowing the basis of File:This AI-generated woman does not exist.png we don't know if someone just superimposed an image of a woman onto a non-free image someone has from inside a Costco. I presume the woman is completely generated but we don't know if the computer literally took a separate image of a the body, or was this an image of a women inside a Costco and generated just the face. File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Kirisame Marisa.png is specifically an AI-generated artwork based on copyrighted works. Since we don't know what the computer used as a basis for making these images, this isn't very far from "I found it on the internet, trust me, it's okay to be here." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is precedent that we accept a human-drawn portrait that is derived from so many copyrighted images that no individual link to a particular image can be identified; see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Illustrating known people? for examples. I think of AI-generated artwork, such as File:This AI-generated woman does not exist.png, as the same. You should not think of generative AI models as cutting and pasting portions of unidentified copyrighted images, but rather constructing the new image from scratch having learned from its training set, much as a human artist studies the work of other artists to improve their skill. With human-drawn art, if the creator asserts that it does not use any copyrightable aspects of existing non-free works, then the burden of proof is on the person requesting deletion to identify a specific work or works that they believe it to be a close copy of; I don't see any reason we should treat AI differently. However, I agree that File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Kirisame Marisa.png should be deleted per COM:FAN since a specific character is named. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Because a specific character is named" is a bizarre rationale. If the uploader had not put the name in the title, would you support keeping it? The next uploader will simply have an AI draw copyrighted pictures all day without telling us the source material. Why not feed the software just one image and have it "generate" a new one off that? Ricky81682 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't the file name, it's the prompt passed to Stable Diffusion that included "Kirisame Marisa". This isn't a new problem, this is applying the same standards as in 2015 for generic art vs. fan work of copyrighted figures. SnowFire (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Exactly per SnowFire, as long as the prompt is not highly suggestive of a specific copyrighted subject then we should have no issues. It's like the difference between asking a human artist to draw Kirisame Marisa vs. asking them to draw an anime girl. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such an extreme interpretation of COM:PCP would mean that Commons would not allow any user-created photography either, given that there's always the chance that the uploader could be lying about the origin of the photo, and things such as EXIF aren't a foolproof sign of authenticity given that anyone with 3 minutes of reading time can use readily-available FOSS software to falsify EXIF information. This could even be extended to anything user-generated, from SVG diagrams to Wiktionary pronunciation recordings. Commons operates on the trust and goodwill of its contributors, and yes, from time to time that goodwill will certainly be tested by malicious actors, however this doesn't mean that COM:PCP can be used as a catch-all argument to make blanket deletions; if there genuinely are COM:DW concerns, they can be appropriately handled on a case-by-case basis. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 23:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we presume when the uploader says that they created it, it is theirs. The EXIF is a separate argument. If I find the image on another website, that's evidence that it isn't theirs. If it is a screenshot, that's evidence. Evidence is evidence. If the uploader claims they made these pieces, we assume they did. If the uploader says "my friend made this", we say "get permission." If the uploader says "I had a monkey create it for me" we follow the copyright rules and say it's a free image. But if the uploader says "I had a computer create this, no one knows what it used to train on but it should be kept anyways," that isn't much different than "I found it on the internet, it may be copyrighted but I don't know whose copyright so it doesn't matter" to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AI is like the case where the uploader says "my friend made this", except that there is a law stating that any works created by this "friend" are ineligible for copyright. If the artwork were created by an actual human friend, we wouldn't ask them (the friend) to prove that it wasn't closely derived from the works of other artists; we'd just take their (the friend's) word for it unless there is evidence to the contrary. No one knows what previous copyrighted works our human friend has learned from, but we don't care. No reason to treat our AI friend any different from a human friend. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually believe that, then why not say all these images are public domain and not GFDL? This is the first time you've mentioned it. It would make derivative works someone more straightforward as the human component is required to have any license from then on. I don't think that's been the rulings by court as of yet. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benlisquare, King of Hearts, and Ricky81682: That is a good point that I did not notice before. Why not tag these files as {{PD-algorithm}}? Brianjd (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like why {{Licensed-PD-Art}} exists. Right now, if someone photographs an old 2D painting or prompts an AI image, the official Commons position is that they have no rights, and no license from them is required in order to host the image on Commons. However, there could be jurisdictions where this does not hold, or laws or their interpretation could change in the future, so {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is a fail-safe: maybe some day Bridgeman v. Corel is overturned and we have to delete all our PD art photographed by third parties, but the license will make sure that we can keep Commoner-photographed PD art. Similarly, maybe the legal landscape changes with AI art, so having a license that may or may not be necessary can't hurt but could possibly help. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ricky81682 For example, without knowing the basis of File:This AI-generated woman does not exist.png we don't know if someone just superimposed an image of a woman onto a non-free image someone has from inside a Costco. I presume the woman is completely generated but we don't know if the computer literally took a separate image of a the body, or was this an image of a women inside a Costco and generated just the face. This is just making up accusations of copying – it’s not how AI actually works, as other users here have already explained. Brianjd (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the AI works by being trained on images. We don't know what the "in Costco" portion of the prompt was generated from. It is very specific to me which is why I question how many Costco images the AI is trained on. It wasn't "in a store" but specifically "in Costco." I highly doubt there are thousands of images tagged "Costco" but I don't know if the entire basis was copyrighted images. For example, I can't tell but it looks like the store signs are fictional/machine-generated nonsense rather than a foreign language. It's entirely a black box and a guess that this particular image or that particular image isn't problematic. If the prompt was "a women in the style of Emma Watson" versus "Emma Watson" versus "a women in Disneyland" versus "a women in Disneyland on June 20, 2021," we remain stuck at the black box problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ricky81682 I question how many Costco images the AI is trained on I don’t know about the AI training data specifically. But to give an idea, I just searched Commons for ‘Costco’ and, just from search result thumbnails, found Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 12.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 1.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 33.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 34.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 26.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 8.png, Costco aisle in N. Plainfield 15.png, Inside Costco Perth.jpg, along with dozens of other images showing the interior of Costco stores. I’m not surprised that the AI recognises the term ‘Costco’.
    it looks like the store signs are fictional/machine-generated nonsense rather than a foreign language Yes, this point was raised earlier and supports the claim that this image was generated, not copied.
    But if you still think the AI is copying images, perhaps you could answer Benlisquare’s question above: How does the AI manage to fit an entire image into roughly ⅔ of a byte? Brianjd (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, delete fan-art ( File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Sakuya Izayoi.png and File:Algorithmically-generated AI artwork of Kirisame Marisa.png), and stick a pin on art that includes living artists in their prompts pending guidance from Wikimedia Foundation and their lawyers. Nominator has failed to elucidate a deletion rationale; re Ricky81682, I would argue that using something as a reference is not the same as violating their copyright. This is perhaps most clear in analogies of human-created images for, say, map data - scanning in a novel map from a copyrighted book isn't allowed, but a human using that copyrighted map as a reference to draw their own map is fine. On the other hand, drawing fan art of Mickey Mouse or whatever isn't fine because the result is still under copyright. As long as basic factual generic prompts are given like "woman" (rather than stuff like "Marisa Kirisame"), then we're closer to the "human redraws a map using copyrighted map as reference" rather than "human draws Mickey Mouse fan art using copyrighted official Disney art as reference." SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the excursus on living artists - I do not think it is particularly viable to enforce such a restriction. The uploader has been helpful in uploading very descriptive prompts used to generate the art, but that won't stop less scrupulous uploaders from "forgetting" to mention any living artists used as prompts, or even claiming AI art as their own work outright - basically we'd need a requirement that only trackable, online art origins that show the prompt could be used, and even then those websites could go down in the future. And that still wouldn't be perfect once we start adding retouches on top of an initial AI-art layer when the retouching could actually be pasting in stuff generated with "forbidden" prompts. However, my suspicion is that if any restriction on AI art is ever made, it will be on using prompts that ask for the style of certain artists directly, or models largely trained on one artist's work, without there being some sort of opt-in / opt-out list. Quite a few of the prompts here reference specific artists, so if the WMF ever does make a judgment on this and also makes it retroactive, then those images may need to be revisited. (Also, insert obligatory disclaimer here that this should not serve as an endorsement of uploader's rather obvious fetishes, but this will be cured best by encouraging more people to upload descriptive AI Art on a wide range of topics, not just prompts of "large breasts" and the like.) SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Keep because someone less scrupulous will lie instead"? At that point, you may as well argue to keep everything that is "I found it on the internet" because so many people lie when they claim their uploads are "their own work." Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I specifically called out those images for suspicion and for potentially revisiting in the future - but given our current (lack of) guidance from the WMF, it would be premature to make up a policy that doesn't exist yet. If you'd like to create such a policy, you are welcome to lobby for it. (I will say that acknowledging the real world is not a flaw, and Commons both now and pre-AI art already hosted images with false copyright claims by uploaders. Discussing the feasibility of detecting such issues is absolutely a relevant thing to do.) SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for only aforementioned fan art; the lack of consensus on AI copyright policy means it'll need to be sorted out at a higher level. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically keep for now. Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep this discussion on-topic! We already have a separate discussion for the uploader’s conduct and the admins’s response to it. Brianjd (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dronebogus. This is a trainwreck nomination with far too many images to evaluate individually and the nominator hasn't provided a real argument for why they are bad. JPxG (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of it is pretty amazing stuff (such as the blurry step images) but I can't help but think these are all out of SCOPE, I also agree with Ricky's sentiments regarding the protentional copyright issues such as with this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 2022-12-30T01:57:45 (UTC)
    pretty amazing stuff detailing how to use a cutting edge technology is out of scope? Brianjd (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, Davey2010’s vote is nonsensical on top of repeating the same vague copyright paranoia that has dogged these discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry what ? ..... Something being "pretty amazing" doesn't automatically mean it's in scope. But hey we'll debunk my out-of-scope and potential copyright concerns as "nonsensical".
    But to answer Brian's comment - My assumption at that time was that none of the files were being used, none of the files would be used and that there were no categories for these images.... (even the most basic of categories here tend to be missing so it's fair to assume ai-related categories didn't exist here. –Davey2010Talk 12:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, if art is of “pretty amazing” quality we generally keep it. Dronebogus (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't. Else this place would be full of artists keeping their artwork here because it looks "pretty amazing" (at least to them). Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I asked for a statement on the page of WMF legal: m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department#Statement on copyright of AI generated images needed. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off topic but i find the tone in this deletion request to be disheartening. --Trade (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s partially my fault, and I apologize. Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologise for my comments in this DR too. I wish you all a Happy and Healthy 2023. –Davey2010Talk 22:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all files where the prompt either specifies a copyrighted character or the art style of an artist whose work is still in copyright, but  Keep the rest. Two files where copyrighted characters are involved (Sakuya Izayoi, Kirisame Marisa) have already been deleted by Yann and I agree with that, as I would have copyright concerns in these cases, too, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Algorithmically-generated art of a French maid teasing the viewer.png has also been deleted in a separate deletion request with reasonable arguments. But for the other files discussed here, the argument for deletion seems to unspecific, too broad. Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare was a different case, as these images were based on the styles of specific artists, one of them living (Greg Rutkowski), and also involved a copyrighted character. However, AI-generated files based on generic prompts should be fine as long as it can't be shown that a specific (still copyrighted) source file has been slavishly copied (or important elements from that file have been directly used). Current AI algorithms such es the ones used for generating these images do much more than creating "derivative works", and so I would argue that for each individual case, it would be necessary to show which copyright is supposed to be violated. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition: Generating images in the style of artists which are long out of copyright, such as en:Sophie Gengembre Anderson who died in 1903, Michelangelo, or Van Gogh, should always be fine, no copyright concerns at all. In the previous request, living artist Rutkowski was included in the prompt, that might be an issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t copyright a style. Dronebogus (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but if you expressly request the style of a still-copyrighted artist, a higher chance that copyrighted elements from their works crop up in the results is there, IMO, and so this might go against COM:PCP. On the other hand, if no particular artist is specified, of course there might still be copyrighted elements in the results, but the likelihood will not be as high as to trigger the precautionary principle. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very weird assertion. What constitutes a “copyrighted element”? Dronebogus (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, if you prompt an AI to generate an "exciting fantasy image in the style of Greg Rutkowski" and the resulting image contains a figure that looks much like the undead sorcerer in this one, among other things... then it might be a derivative work. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’ll need to link to a specific image that was used by the AI here, then. My original point stands. Dronebogus (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Loss, in first-person view.png. This is a famous exploitable comic and within scope. --Trade (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Whose copyright is violated? --Synotia (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Apart from the three images that go against COM:FAN, there is no specific copyright being violated. —holly {chat} 18:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Medved h.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be uploaders own work [13] Boylarva99 (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; ordered a universal replace with File:European Brown Bear.jpg. —holly {chat} 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Lionel Messi con la Copa del Mundo 2022.png

[edit]

Although the illustration appears to be the work of the uploader, it's a derivative work based on a copyrighted photograph. The picture is a stylized version of a Getty Images photo (see bottom of https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/64020038). Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on Commons policy here. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Kraft Josef.jpg

[edit]

--> also File:Dr. Josef Kraft.jpg --> also File:Kraft Josef s.jpg

The person depicted, Josef Kraft, died 77 years ago. It is implausible that the uploader took this photo himself. It's probably just a reproduction. There is no indication of the photographer and the clarification of the copyright and license rights of the original photographer. Quedel (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer is: FIRSTLY: The foto was taking in 1943. According to § 74 sect. (6) Austrian "Urheberrechtsgesetz" the copyright on fotos ("Lichtbilder") terminates after 50 years.
    Here is a copy of the full legal text:
    § 50.
    (6) Das Schutzrecht an Lichtbildern erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach der Aufnahme''
    The consequence is, that there does not exist any longer any copyright. Unfortunately WIKIPEDIA offers only two possibilities to declare the copyright:
    1. "ist mein eigenes Werk"=is my own work
    2. "the copyright was authorized by..."
    The possibility, that an old foto is free of copyright is not mentioned, it was evidently forgotten. So I had to help myself an declared it as "my" work to make the upload technically possible.
    SECONDLY:
    I am the grandson of Josef Kraft. My mother was his daughter Elisabeth Kraft, married to Herbert Klötzl. So I am enabled by § 55 Austrian "Urheberrechtsgesetz" as follows:
    § 55.
    (1) Von einem auf Bestellung geschaffenen Bildnis einer Person dürfen, wenn nichts anderes vereinbart ist, der Besteller und seine Erben sowie der Abgebildete und nach seinem Tode die mit ihm in gerader Linie Verwandten und sein überlebender Ehegatte oder Lebensgefährte einzelne Lichtbilder herstellen oder durch einen anderen, auch gegen Entgelt, herstellen lassen.
    Please let Google translator help you to understand this legal text. If you require so, I can send you Scans of two documents proving that I am a direct descendant of Josef Kraft. Therefore it is my right to use this foto. The original picture is in possession of our family.
    I expect that this explanation is sufficient. It would be very unfair to delete the foto of Josef Kraft.
    Sincerely
    Gebhard Klötzl m.p. Gebhard Klötzl (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gebhard Klötzl: The uploader gave three different reasons, he should choose which will be prioritare.
  1. PD-EU-no author disclosure (anonymous work): It is questionable whether a passport photo was ever "published". A publication where this photograph was used is not proven by the uploader. In addition, the publication would have to be deliberately anonymous. This is unusual in a private context. The uploader did not deny whether a photographer was named, for example, on the back or on an old cover of a photo copy. Thus, the conditions for an anonymous work are not proven.
  2. Difference between Lichtbild and Lichtbildwerk. Its correct, that a Lichtbild is only protected for 50 years after creation or if it is published within this time, 50 years after the publication (§74.6 UrhG austria: „Das Schutzrecht an Lichtbildern erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach der Aufnahme, wenn aber das Lichtbild vor dem Ablauf dieser Frist veröffentlicht wird, fünfzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung. Die Fristen sind nach § 64 zu berechnen.“). But this work is not a Lichtbild, its instead a Lichtbildwerk. To qualify for a Lichtbildwerk, there will be a very low threshold of originality, compare to OGH 2001/09/12 4 Ob 179/01d, so that amateur daily-photography of persons, scenes and others are copyrighted as Lichtbildwerk. For long reasons, compare to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Austria#Photographs or de:w:Lichtbildwerk#Österreich. A Lichtbildwerk is protected within 70 years after death of photographer. The ptohographer and his lifetime isn't mentioned by the uploader. Without this we cannot keep this photo.
  3. In §55 it is written that spouses and direct relatives may have copies of the photo made. However, this is only on the condition that the photo was expressly ordered and it is not possible to obtain further copies from the rights holder. Whether the photo studio could have made more copies is unknown. However, paragraph 3 is more important: these copies may only be distributed free of charge. However, this non-commercial restriction is incompatible with the requirements for free works on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, this picture should also be deleted from this point of view.
On all three possibilites, the photo cannot be kept. Its a normal copyrighted picture, under 80 years old. Without copyright owners name and lifetime, I see no chance of a free work.  Delete
Afterwards, for further edits here (in german for easier help to the uploader): Wenn ein Feld nicht korrekt ausgefüllt werden kann (wie dies mit dem Hochlader), dann ggfs. freilassen oder eines auswählen und im Nachhinein das Feld entsprechend korrigieren. Dies als Tipp fürs nächste Mal.
Happy New Year! --Quedel (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Da sich hier ohnedies nur Deutsche beteiligen, setze ich die Diskussion in deutscher Sprache fort.

Symbol keep vote.svg Behalten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebhard Klötzl (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quedel Deiner Stellungnahme ist mehrfach zu entgegnen:
1. Es handelt sich sehr wohl um ein "Lichtbild", und nicht um ein Lichtbildwerk. Ein Gesichtsfoto vor einfärbigem Hintergrund hat nämlich keinerlei künstlerische Höhe. Ein Lichtbildwerk läge zum Beispiel vor, wenn das Motiv arrangiert oder dekoriert ist, oder eine besondere Stimmung eingefangen wird, oder durch Accessoires eine bestimmte künstlerische Aussage getätigt wird, sei sie ernster oder heiterer Natur. Ein primitives Gesichtsfoto ist eine rein handwerkliche Sache. Die von Dir - mM nach überspitzten - Formalkriterien anwenden, so wäre jedes Lichtbild, bei dem eine menschliche Hand auf den Auslöser gedrückt hat, ein Lichtbildwerk, und für den urherberrechtlichen Tatbestand "Lichtbild" bliebe als einziger Anwendungsbereich nur noch ein Foto vom Passbildautomaten. Da es ein Lichtbild ist, ist die 50-jährige Schutzfrist abgelaufen und das Bild frei.
2. Angenommen, was ich bestreite, es wäre ein Lichtbildwerk. In diesem Falle ist beim Urheberrecht zu unterscheiden zwischen dem (unveräußerbaren und unverzichtbaren) Recht, als Urheber genannt zu werden, und dem Werknutzungsrecht bzw. Werknutzungsbewilligung. Wie Dir der User stenonik = Rupert Paul (mein Bruder) schon mitgeteilt hat, ist es ein einfaches Papierfoto von einem unbekannten Fotografen, der auf der Rückseite keinen Namensstempel o.ä. angebracht hat, sodass wir gar nicht wissen, wer der Fotograf war - mutmaßlich irgendein Fotogeschäft. Beim entgeltlichen Bezug eines Fotos gehen die Werknutzungsrechte bzw. die Werknutzungsbewilligung auf den Käufer über. Bestes Beispiel dafür sind Baupläne, die man bei einem Architekten zeichnen lässt und bezahlt: nach Deiner Theorie wäre dann bei jedem späteren Umbau des Hauses das Urheberrecht des Architekten verletzt, wenn man einen auf dem ursprünglichen Plan beruhenden Umbauplan machen lässt. Das ist natürlich nicht der Fall, denn der Besteller hat das Werknutzungsrecht am Plan erworben. Werknutzungsrechte bzw. Werknutzungsbewilligungen können auch schlüssig übertragen werden, es braucht dazu keinen schriftlichen Vertrag, siehe den OGH-Rechtssatz [14]https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizEntscheidungsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=False&GZ=&VonDatum=&BisDatum=04.01.2023&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=RS0106668&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=bcc27728-d98f-44b9-865e-676dbb31eee9&Dokumentnummer=JJR_19960812_OGH0002_0040OB02161_96I0000_002. Wenn nun ein Fotograf ein angefertigtes Lichtbild, und sei es auch ein Lichtbildwerk, einem Kunden verkauft und hinten nicht einmal seinen Namen draufschreibt, so ist das jedenfalls eine schlüssige Übertragung des Werknutzungsrechts/der Werknutzungsbewilligung, welches somit in unserer Familie als direkte Nachfahren und Erben nach Josef Kraft liegt. In Ausübung dieses Werknutzungsrechtes dürfen wird das Foto auch veröffentlichen,
3. Überleg doch mal den Sinn und Zweck der restriktiven Urheberrechtsregelungen von Wikipedia: diese sind grundsätzlich natürlich sinnvoll und haben den Zweck, Wikipedia davor zu bewahren, dass nach der Veröffentlichung von Fotos/Bildern plötzlich irgendwelche Abmahnschreiben bzw. Geldforderungen "verletzter" Urheber eintrudeln, mit denen sich Wikipedia dann herumschlagen muss. Deshalb ist hier Vorsicht geboten, soweit das irgendwie sinnvoll ist. Bei einem Foto einer überlokal völlig unbedeutenden Person aus ca. 1943 aber, dessen Fotograf unbekannt ist, weil er sich gar nicht erst deklariert hat, ist es mit 100%-iger Sicherheit auszuschließen, dass dessen Erben (es müssten mindestens die Enkel, eher die Urenkel sein) nach 80 Jahren daherkommen, das Foto ihres Urahnen als sein "Lichtbildwerk" erkennen und Urheberrechte geltend machen. Ganz abgesehen davon, dass sie das wegen des abgetretenen Werknutzungsrechtes ohnedies nicht könnten. Eine so extrem formalistisch-strenge Linie zu fahren, wie Du es in Deinem Löschantrag tust, ist hier vom Ergebnis her nur noch "l'art pour l'art" und hat für Wikipedia keinerlei Nutzen.
Ich bin seit vielen Jahren nicht nur gelegentlicher Wikipedia-Autor, sondern auch ein begeisterter Benutzer von Wikipedia gewesen, habe anlässlich der Spendenaufrufe immer wieder gespendet. Ich hätte niemals gedacht, dass ich einmal derart puristisch in die Bredouille genommen werden würde. Gebhard Klötzl (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo @Gebhard Klötzl: :
zu 1. Du hast die Sache erkannt, siehe auch w:de:Lichtbildwerk#Österreich: Abzustellen sei seitdem darauf, ob die Fotografie „das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers ist, ohne dass es eines besonderen Maßes an Originalität bedürfte“. [...] was auch bei der „Masse der Amateurfotografen, die alltägliche Szenen in Form von Landschafts-, Personen- oder Urlaubsfotos festhalten“, der Fall sei. [...] nunmehr seien auch „alltägliche, ‚übliche‘ Landschafts-, Porträt- oder Werbeaufnahmen“ Lichtbildwerke [geschützt] [...] Vor diesem Hintergrund verbleiben für bloßen einfachen Lichtbildschutz nach Auffassung des Schrifttums wohl hauptsächlich Automatenaufnahmen, computergesteuerte Lichtbilder und Satellitenfotos, die gerade kein unmittelbares menschliches und daher schöpferisches Mitwirken verlangen. Das somit "alltägliche" Portraitfoto ist kein Automatenfoto, somit ein Lichtbildwerk. Die Österreicher sind da einiges freizügiger als z. B. die deutsche Schutzschwelle. Wäre es ein in Deutschland entstandenes Bild, wäre es ggfs. schutzfrei. In Österreich aber somit ziemlich eindeutig nicht.
zu 2. Worauf willst du dich berufen, auf das Werknutzungsrecht oder die Werknutzungsbewilligung? Das sind zwei erheblich unterschiedliche Dinge. Im Allgemeinen werden bei Fotografien aus einem Fotostudio lediglich die Verwendung der Abzüge (nicht des Werkes an sich) durch die Person bzw. den Auftraggeber für seine Zwecke, wobei i.d.R. eine Zweckbestimmung nicht gegeben ist. Es ist jedoch eben nicht so, dass damit auch das Werk an sich an den Auftraggeber automatisch übertragen wird - im Gegenteil, es ist vielmehr übliche Praxis, dass z. B. für weitere Abzüge ebenfalls nochmals die Kosten bezahlt werden (= Abgeltung der Rechteeinräumung) und man nicht in ein anderes Fotostudio gehen darf. Selbst für die Nutzung auf Social-Media muss man explizite Rechteeinräumungen vereinbaren. Es gibt viele Seiten mit Vorschlägen, wie Werknutzungsbewilligungen und Werknutzungsrechte formuliert werden können - eben dies ist ein Beweis dafür, dass diese nicht automatisch gewährt werden. Das kein Name auf dem konkreten Abzug steht, ist kein Beweis dafür, dass er auch auf keinem anderen Abzug oder zum Beispiel einer Umverpackung steht. Du kannst natürlich beweisen, dass das Werknutzungsrecht übergegangen ist. (Das ein Haus was anderes als ein Foto ist, ist aber klar. Zudem der Abwägungsgrundsatz zwischen der Benutzung des Hauses und des Urheberrechts ja weitaus mehr Bedeutung ansteht als bei einer Fotografie deren Werkveränderung in der Regel kaum dem Urheberschutz überwiegen kann. Nicht zuletzt gab es auch immer wieder Rechtsstreitigkeiten, wo Erben von Architekten gegen Umbaupläne vorgingen - was bei deiner Ausführung ja gar nicht ginge, weil der Nutzer ja die vollständigen Rechte angeblich erworben hätte).
zu 3: Die Begründung, es wird schon keiner kommen ... damit hast du bewiesen, das das Bild gelöscht werden muss. Denn es gilt das Projektumfang/Vorbeugendes Prinzip (COM:PCP). Das Commons-Prinzip ist eine strenge Auslegung, auch wenn durch die schiere Masse der Daten leider es nicht so durchsetzbar ist. Und gerade diese Sicherheit die eigentlich gelten soll (hinsichtlich der geklärten Rechte) ist das, was Wikipedia und Commons erst ausmacht. Wenn alles so vage wäre wie wer soll schon nach 80 Jahren ankommen?, dann können wir hier dicht machen und gleich Google-Bildersuche bemühen.
Nebenbei, wenn Josef Kraft überlokal unbedeutend ist, dann wäre diese Person auch keinen Wikipediaartikel wert. --Quedel (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schau, ich kann hier schreiben was ich will, Du bist nicht bereit, auch nur einen Millimeter von Deinem deutschen Superpurismus abzuweichen. Einen Weg, wie man das Foto eines unbekannten Fotografen nach ca. 80 Jahren veröffentlichen könnte bzw. wie man da die Freigabe der "Urheberrechte" in Deinem Sinne ordentlich auf den Weg bringt, kannst Du mir nicht weisen, weil es keinen Weg gibt. In Deiner superpuristischen Sicht sind solche Fotos vollständig und auf ewige Zeiten unveröffentlichbar - das Prinzip hat gesiegt, koste es, was es wolle. Ich warte jetzt einfach drauf, wie über Deinen Löschungsantrag entschieden wird. Gebhard Klötzl (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erneut beweist du @Gebhard Klötzl: , dass dein Bild eindeutig gegen die Regeln verstößt: Projektumfang/Vorbeugendes Prinzip sagt unmissverständlich, dass Bilder mit solcher Formulierung "ach, da passiert schon nichts" gegen die Regeln hier verstoßen. Als Anwalt solch eine Sichtweise zu haben ist schon ziemlich ungewöhnlich. Ich habe dir Wege aufgezeigt, kann sie dir gerne hier nochmal schreiben: Versuche zu recherchieren, wer der Fotograf war. Gibt es weitere Abzüge, welcher Fotograf war zu der Zeit vermutlich genutzt, etc.? Und nein, solche Fotos sind nicht auf "ewige Zeiten unveröffentlichbar", es gibt hier die sogenannte pragmatische Regelung, dass solche Fotos nach 120 Jahren hier hochgeladen werden können (siehe zu den Bedingungen Template:PD-old-assumed). Mit ein paar Rechercheergebnissen auf der de.wp sogar schon nach 100 Jahren (siehe de:w:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Pragmatische_Regelung_für_Bilder,_die_älter_als_120_bzw._100_Jahre_sind bzw. de:w:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100). Und es ist nicht [m]eine superpuristische Sicht", sondern es sind die Regeln der Wikimedia Foundation und der Community hier. UK We have COM:PCP and the uploader arguments, that "there will be no one charging for an 80 year old photo" - this is against our rules. The picture can be undeleted after 120 years-rules {{PD-old-assumed}}, but this will be on year 2063. The uploader didn't gave additional information about possible photographers, he neither tried to research other photos in his family to find anything. So there's no chance to keep with this information until 2063.  Delete. --Quedel (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also this opinion of User Krd to a derivate of this picture. --Quedel (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understood this correctly. A physical copy of the image is in the possession of the uploader. It was a passport photo taken in 1943, so that means the creator was probably the employee or owner of some studio in Austria (pma 70), whose name has been lost to time. Since we do not know who it is and we cannot discover this information anymore, it's effectively anonymous. However, as a passport photo, it was probably never actually published. That means the only possible license tag we can use is {{PD-old-assumed}}. On the other hand, according to de:Josef Kraft, the subject wrote many articles in newspapers. If it could be shown that this photo was published in one of those at some point (without a creator credit), then we could use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. @Quedel: Does that seem accurate? —holly {chat} 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Howcheng: /holly. Not correct fully: we only know, that on this repro of the photo is no photographer named. There could be some name on package or other photos in surrounding of this photo - several times asked to the uploader but no answer to this detail. The same for a publication: i asked the uploader if there is any publication for the photo, but for this there is no answer from the uploader, too (so "no author disclosure" cant be used in lack of publication). By the side: for EU-right a photo is official only anonymous if the creator wishes not to be named - if a name isn't known anymore, its an orphan work but not anonymous! --Quedel (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; it seems clear that we need more information on this photo, which the uploader so far has not provided, to accept that it's PD. —holly {chat} 22:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Bear in a River.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Boylarva99 as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Bear in a River.jpg. Not an exact duplicate due to file type, but still inferior/scaled-down vs File:Bear in a River.jpg.  Delete and redirect to File:Bear in a River.jpg. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; I ordered a universal replace instead of making a redirect. —holly {chat} 18:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:20110528043623!Rajendra map new.svg

[edit]

A bad edit of 28 May 2011 version of this https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rajendra_map_new.svg&offset=20210128143853 , including incorrect names, wrong capitalization. That page has been updated several times since 2011-05-28. See discussion on territorial area in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chola_dynasty#Maps Surijeal (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:12.10 總統參拜雲林虎尾「福德宮」 (49198460206).jpg

[edit]

random uncategorized shot from flickr stream, out of scope Pibwl (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, without prejudice. If someone wants to reupload this and can find a good use for it, all the better. —holly {chat} 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Salamanca - Plaza Mayor (13347610863) edited.jpg

[edit]

Initially deleted by me as a duplicate at the uploader's request but was not an exact duplicate. Slightly too old for G7. Converting to DR per request by Tm on my talk. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: @Lojwe and Tm: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not duplicate. Tm (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: I deleted this picture because it wasn’t properly edited. The perspective is bad. The good version is Salamanca - Plaza Mayor (13347610863) modified.jpg. Please, detele it and redirect it to the good version. Why does Tm want it to be kept? It’s my edition. I’m sure he doesn’t have technical reasons. I know him, he always likes messing arround, he doesn’t provide this project with useful interactions with other users. He can upload this version under his name and that’s it, but delete mine. He also wants to keep this version of mine, which is worse edited. What are the technical reasones to keep all this? It just doesn’t make sense. —Lojwe (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is your editions as you know full well that you have an habit of nominating, as duplicates, other peoples original images and\or uploads of your versions\uploads that are posterior to said "duplicates" as, per your own words, you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar". And so it seems that you continue to make the same edits, so nothing new here. Tm (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can say the exactly same thing for that case as for this one. --Lojwe (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without irony, you only nominate your uploads (with other accounts) as duplicates of your posterior uploads and it can be perfectly demonstrated.
Just for an example, File:Beja - Portugal (130839539).jpg was uploaded by me on or before May 24 2019, but it was nominated by you as as duplicate of File:Beja - Portugal (130839539) edited.jpg uploaded by you on May 11 2022, i.e. you upload a new version and then nominated the original as duplicate, after you replaced all of its uses.
So this, as you not only nominate your uploads to speedy deletion but also have the habit of uploading an version of other peoples original photos\uploads and then delete said original photos\uploads as duplicates of your versions. Tm (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Not sure why Tm would object to Lojwe requesting a deletion of their own upload. —holly {chat} 19:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Plaza Mayor de Salamanca, Castilla y León, España.jpg

[edit]

Initially deleted by me as a duplicate at the uploader's request but was not an exact duplicate. Converting to DR per request by Tm on my talk. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: @TouchName, Lojwe, and Tm: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Not an duplicate and uploader of file was not the same account of the speedy deletion requester. Tm (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: as I explained it to the user @Mdaniels5757: I uploaded this image when I first started in Wikipedia with the username TouchName. I want it to be properly edited. The perspective is distorted, it has noise, there’s a green border over the outline of the main building. The good version is Salamanca - Plaza Mayor (13347610863) modified.jpg. If someone wants to keep this version, it can be kept under his/her username, not mine. Why does Tm want it to be kept? I’m sure he doesn’t have technical reasons. I know him, he always likes messing arround, he doesn’t provide this project with useful interactions with other users. It’s my edition. He can upload this version under his name and that’s it, but delete mine. He also wants to keep this another failed version of mine. What are the technical reasones to keep all this? It just doesn’t make sense. —Lojwe (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is your editions as you know full well that you have an habit of nominating, as duplicates, other peoples original images and\or uploads of your versions\uploads that are posterior to said "duplicates" as, per your own words, you "didn't see necessary to have all those editions, which are pretty similar". And so it seems that you continue to make the same edits, so nothing new here. Tm (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can say the exactly same thing for that case as for this one. --Lojwe (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without irony, you only nominate your uploads (with other accounts) as duplicates of your posterior uploads and it can be perfectly demonstrated.
Just for an example, File:Beja - Portugal (130839539).jpg was uploaded by me on or before May 24 2019, but it was nominated by you as as duplicate of File:Beja - Portugal (130839539) edited.jpg uploaded by you on May 11 2022, i.e. you upload a new version and then nominated the original as duplicate, after you replaced all of its uses.
So this, as you not only nominate your uploads to speedy deletion but also have the habit of uploading an version of other peoples original photos\uploads and then delete said original photos\uploads as duplicates of your versions. Tm (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Ordered a universal replace with the requested file. —holly {chat} 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Sucursal Casa del Audio.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Thooompson as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Casa del audio - Ituzaingó - Parque Leloir - Megastore.png |2=Smaller size, re-uploaded in a larger size in another account by the same user. |3=Thooompson . Different file type, but no objection to deletion/redirection. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per no objection to deletion/redirection. I mistakenly tagged it as a duplicate because I didn't realize they were two different file types; my apologies to both the uploader and to Mdaniels5757. nicolas talkpage★★★ 20:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The PNG version was deleted. —holly {chat} 20:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:First Women Wrestler.jpg

[edit]

I doubt that this image is the uploaders own work or that it was published under a free lisense Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does also apply to:
- File:Shabanam Shaikh.jpg
- File:PhD in Wrestling.jpg
- File:ShabanamShaikh.jpg

Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:ABC-Abwehrschule (Bundesheer).jpg

[edit]

The coat of arms is may not copyrighted, but the image as such for sure is. Hangman'sDeath (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry in German: Wenn es ein offizielles Wappen ist, dann ist doch auch die Herstellung gemeinfrei. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 08:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Source seems to be https://www.bundesheer.at/abzeichen/truppen_abzeichen/galerie.php?id=102
@Karl Gruber: Es sieht so aus als wäre das Bild an sich geklaut. Wenn das Wappen alleine irgendwo zu finden ist, wäre es sich kein Problem.
--D-Kuru (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wann das Wappen ein amtliches ist - ist es doch egal, wer es gemacht hat und es kann dann nicht geklaut sein. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: UNd wenn es von der Bundesheerseite ist, dann ist es ja auch von der offiziellen Seite - das ist ähnlich den Gemeindewappen. ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 17:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht nicht um das Wappen sondern um das Foto. Wappen: OK, Foto von Wappen: Nicht OK. Wenn es nur das Layout wäre (genau so wie es für viele Malereien gemacht wird) und man die 3D Form nicht sehen würde, wäre es ja kein Problem. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Karl Gruber: Sieh dir mal den Permission text von File:Wappen Jaegerbataillon 25.jpg an: "Ein Weiterverkauf ist nicht zulässig" = {{Copyvio}} --D-Kuru (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wappen Jaegerbataillon 25.jpg is basically the same: Just taken from the website --D-Kuru (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; the photos are copyrighted even if the coats of arms are not. Someone could make the images as vector art and that would be OK. —holly {chat} 20:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Files uploaded by User:Xanegang

[edit]

These files were used as vandalism on Finnish Wikipedia. Probably not all of them are even licensed for free use.--Puppe100 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2022/12/27&oldid=771642686"