Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/01/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(51572331887).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
缺少許可 -Dannyliu09 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20220906_fw_marc_cain_1415-copyright-ONAT-PHOTO.jpg ONAT PHOTO (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupeof File:20220906 fw marc cain 1415-copyright-ONAT-PHOTO-1.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Escritor Antonio Antolini (talk · contribs)
[edit]Blatant advertising/self-promotion. See also Special:DeletedContributions/Escritor Antonio Antolini about 200 deletions.
- File:Academia Internacional de Literatura Brasileira Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:Galeria dos Imortais Antonio Carlos Antolini Junior.jpg
- File:Literarte Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:Diploma Academia Maceioense de Letras Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:História do sobrenome Antolini.jpg
- File:Certificado Premio Innovare Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:Certificado de Registro Advogado E De Louco, Todos Temos Um Pouco de Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:Certificado de Registro Divina Ciência de Antonio Antolini.jpg
- File:De Advogado e de Louco Todos Temos um Pouco.jpg
- File:Mauricio de Sousa.png
- File:Maju Coutinho.png
- File:Isabele Benito Rios.png
- File:Apresentador Dudu Camargo.png
- File:Cid Moreira.png
- File:Cássia Kis Magro.png
- File:Dan Filip Stulbach.jpg
- File:Thalita Rebouças Teixeira.jpg
- File:Monja Zen Budista Coen Roshi.jpg
- File:Lúcia Maria Werner Viana Lins.jpg
- File:Antônio Moreira Borges.jpg
- File:Frei Católico Apostólico Romano Carlos Silva.jpg
- File:Eduardo Matarazzo Suplicy.jpg
- File:Marco Lucchesi.jpg
- File:Maria da Conceição Evaristo de Brito.jpg
- File:Pastor Silas Malafaia.jpg
- File:José Laurentino Gomes.jpg
- File:Fátima Pimentel.jpg
- File:Padre Juarez de Castro.jpg
- File:Eriberto de Castro Leão Monteiro.jpg
- File:Rafael de Faria Cortez na Bienal Internacional do livro em São Paulo.jpg
- File:Padre Católico Apostólico Romano Marcos Roberto Pires.jpg
- File:Daniela Albuquerque Dallevo.jpg
- File:Lázaro Ramos na Bienal Internacional do Livro em São Paulo.jpg
- File:Faa Morena.jpg
- File:Eliana Toscano.jpg
- File:Marília Gabriela.jpg
- File:Saulo Pinto Muniz.jpg
- File:Luislinda Dias de Valois Santos.jpg
- File:Caco Ciocler na Bienal do livro 2018 em São Paulo.jpg
- File:Mário Sergio Cortella na Bienal do livro em São Paulo 2018.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
File:Tribes from Ermanaric's Itinerary ca 5th c. AD As per Getica analysis by V. Napolskikh.jpg
[edit]
Copyvio F1 F3 and/or F6. It is copied from merjamaa.ru, which used Napolskikh 2018 page 4 as its source. The journal copyright and license statement is clear: "The journal Voprosy onomastiki is published on an open access basis under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs license 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This means that users may read, copy and distribute the work in any medium or format for non-commercial purposes, provided the authors and the journal are appropriately credited. The users are not allowed to remix, transform or build upon the published material." The map at merjamaa.ru does exactly that: it remixes/transforms/builds upon the map published by the journal in 2018, therefore merjamaa.ru violates onomastics.ru's copyright. The licence under which this map was uploaded to Commons on 2 May 2022, CC-BY-2.5, is completely made up by the uploader. It is not found on merjamaa.ru, and differs from CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 explicitly stated on onomastics.ru's website. Commons doesn't even have the right to upload the original map, because it is non-commercial. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- PS: This may even be a COM:SPEEDY per F1, F3 and/or F6. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- PPS: I added a speedydelete template. Not sure if I did it right. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
it was a test Victor de gouville (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, G7-speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
File in copyviol; screenshot from a videogame. GC85 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. Ruthven (msg) 12:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
File in copyviol; screenshot from a videogame. GC85 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The intermediate version uploaded by user:Moxisd132 is in copyviol. GC85 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Speedy deleted as F1. Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this KEPT? 186.172.202.107 03:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean version 1 and 3. Why? Just keep the original 2011 upload. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.202.107 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The current version does not seem to be problematic. There was a past version of this file which was different and was deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
...A picture on Commons that purports to be the w:en:holotype of xenochromus. However, specimen BMNH 1911.11.29.10 is actually the holotype of Phascogale venusta rubrata (=w:en:Neophascogale lorentzii), a different New Guinea dasyurid (BMNH catalog). If you zoom in on the picture, you can indeed see a handwritten label Phascogale venusta rubrata
Whether this is a hoax or not depends to an extent upon the enwiki discussion, but also on the expertise of those on Commons. It is clear that some doubt exists, which is why I have started this DR. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note that the file is an altered copy of File:Speckled dasyure (Neophascogale lorentzii) .jpg. Ucucha (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's valuable finding, making the discussed image more likely a hoax. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I know nothing of the taxonomy here, but that image is an obvious reworking of another. As it's the same creator for both image and article, both should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Question Does this cast doubt on the uploader's other work here, or is this the sole potential problem area? See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Big_baboon_272 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Copying my reply on WP: I wouldn't be confident identifying these, as many of these dasyurids look quite similar and I don't have experience with the animals themselves, only their names, but based on the pictures in Flannery (1995) the identifications look solid. For example, w:Murexia rothschildi indeed has a broad black stripe, and w:Murexia melanurus has a yellow rump and black tail.
- I'm a bit skeptical about the sourcing for these images though, given what we now know about the author. They claim the pictures were own work, but these are hard-to-find tiny mammals living in a remote place (New Guinea); there aren't a lot of people who really would be able to have pictures of them in the wild. So we should seriously investigate the possibility that the pictures were taken from somewhere else. Notice that File:Murexia_habbema.jpg has an "(a)", suggestive it was part of a multi-part figure in some source. The most likely candidate would probably be the marsupial volume of Handbook of Mammals of the World, but I don't own a copy so can't check. Ucucha (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, found them. All these images are from figure 1 in: Woolley, P.A., Krajewski, C. and Westerman, M. 2019. The endemic New Guinean genus _Murexia_ (Dasyuromorphia: Dasyuridae). How many species? An analysis based on morphological, distributional and molecular data. Australian Journal of Zoology 67(3):134-144. doi:10.1071/ZO20013 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342637564_The_endemic_New_Guinean_genus_Murexia_DasyuromorphiaDasyuridae_How_many_species_An_analysis_based_on_morphological_distributional_and_molecular_data
- Timtrent would you be able to start the deletion process for those images? Ucucha (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ucucha See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Big baboon 272 created as a precaution. COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Murexia rothschildi.jpg (include all). --Túrelio (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Fake image anyway. --Yann (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Potentially a derivative work Explodingcreepsr (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The use of AI is a complicated subject, but based off the fan art guidelines and the derivative works guidelines I think this should be removed. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is described as Mario, it looks similar enough to Mario that it might as well be. This is a derivative work of a character owned by the Nintendo corporation, not much else to say. Whether drawn by a computer or not, it is irrelevant. The computer was clearly programmed to draw something very similar to Mario, therefore, this is a derivative of a copyrighted work. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Used at wikidata:Q12379, which also uses Mario Fan-art (Pixel art graphic style) 640x640.png. Apparently the latter file is acceptable {{Fan art}}. I don’t really understand the rules for ‘fan art’. Brianjd (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Explodingcreepsr and Mako001: As Commons tries to figure out how to deal with AI, it is particularly important to categorize AI-related deletion requests correctly. I have categorized this one.
- It is described as Mario, it looks similar enough to Mario that it might as well be. This is a derivative work of a character owned by the Nintendo corporation, not much else to say. Whether drawn by a computer or not, it is irrelevant. The computer was clearly programmed to draw something very similar to Mario, therefore, this is a derivative of a copyrighted work. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
_640x640.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Mahagaja. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation; the picture seems to come from the VoA article, where it clearly shows an Associated Press watermark. Just because it was used in a CC YouTube video doesn't invalidate the copyright. DFlhb (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: this was a mistake: I tried to use the UI for once, thinking it would give me options on the kind of deletion, but it didn't. I meant to report this as a speedy under F1; I've now updated the template. Best, DFlhb (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work Explodingcreepsr (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Mahagaja. --Rosenzweig τ 18:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded for vandalism purposes, no use in the encyclopedia. discospinster (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Slander! This was not used for vandalism I was only trying to add perspective to the article, sorry if it was weird I have Asperger's Syndrome. I did not intend to mess up the article I was just trying to make it better. StarWarz1298 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously no permission given "i got this photo from his linkedin feel free to use!" description. Belbury (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person (F10) Mateus2019 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Mdaniels5757. --Rosenzweig τ 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo was scanned from book from 1991. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Publication.The editor massively provides photographs from the books. It come from the private collection of the author of the book. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. Probably the photo comes from a private collection. You cannot scan a photo from any book and assume it was published immediately after it was created. It can be assumed that the photo was published many years later. There is no evidence that there is a promotional photo. This isn't factory image. It is possible that it was made by an ordinary person. Imagine you are sharing a photo from your grandfather's collection with someone who is writing a book. Then someone scans it, and puts it on a website .This is unfair to the person who published the book and collected information for it. It is dishonest to scan photographs when there is a suspicion that they come from someone's private collection and make them available on the Internet. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. © Bufe-Fachbuch-Verlag. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Siegfried Bufe, Heribert Schröpfer: Eisenbahnen im Sudetenland. Bufe-Fachbuch-Verlag, Egglham 1991 ISBN 9783922138426. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep Foto stammt aus dem Jahr 1938, ist somit gemeinfrei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainerhaufe (talk • contribs)
- Äh, nein. Maßgeblich ist zunächst einmal das Sterbejahr des Fotografen. D.h., die Werke bis 1952 verstorbener Fotografen sind jetzt gemeinfrei. --Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep We don't know who the photographer was, we have no plausible chance of finding out, so we have to fall back on the rules for "anonymous". These can vary by country, but we have a solid 1938 date which puts it into the "event + 80" region. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Problem is, :de-Wikipedia prefers not to use "anonymous" photographies due to the risk they might be still copyrighted, when the author is identified lately. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Description says historic image by Werner Hubert. Would anyone mind taking a look at Category:Werner_Hubert - especially our man on a mission? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, you added this information exactly today. It was not available when the nomination was started. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment Actually the name was in the description field from the very first version. Probably the nominator was just not able to do his research first. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, you added this information exactly today. It was not available when the nomination was started. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as the author was finally identified, resulting in PD-status. --Túrelio (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
File already exists PancoPinco (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: this one, deleted and redirected the duplicate. --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
apparent joke; no description, no attribution provided Eric talk 04:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic trash. --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung 24.134.250.193 10:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung Oeffiarch (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Britne123900 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW of non-free photographs (File:Thanh pahm 1.jpg is w:Afghan Girl; File:Thanh pahm.jpg is this; and File:Thanh pahm 12.jpg is this). Painting an existing work does not dissolve the underlying copyright. Permission from the actual photographers is needed.
Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Britne123900 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW - screenshots of videos from this YouTube channel (e.g., File:Thanh pahm 7.jpg is thumbnail for this; File:Thanh pahm 11.jpg is thumbnail for this; etc.) with no free licenses. Even if uploader were the YouTuber, the videos themselves are DWs of random internet images - e.g., the background of File:Thanh pahm 7.jpg is this; the background of File:Thanh pahm 8.jpg is this; the tools in File:Thanh pahm 11.jpg are Minecraft assets, etc.) and videos themselves are plagiarisms of OverSimplified.
Эlcobbola talk 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20220906_fw_marc_cain_1415-copyright-ONAT-PHOTO-1.jpg ONAT PHOTO (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- doppelter Eintrag ONAT PHOTO (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Not evidence of a creative commons license 147.78.2.221 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 07:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in France. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 00:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope. Faisal talk 00:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused, no educational or other value. Just a picture of the lower legs and shoes of someone riding in an unknown vehicle. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 01:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not education, no other likely use either. Picture of a generic floor and someone's shoes. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 01:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No educational or other value. Generic display of generic sunglasses with photographer's jeans and shoes in the field of view. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 01:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurry picture at night that's not useful in in any educational or other way. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious COPYVIO Parzeus (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope. Faisal talk 01:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Gallery page of singular photo without context -- can't find any significant reference to the individual on the web, doesn't serve any user benefit beyond category page and existing image Sadads (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album —MdsShakil (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jahidulhasanorpy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Project scope: Commons is not private photo album
- File:This is orpy.png
- File:Itz orpy bro.jpg
- File:Itz jahidul Hasan Orpy.jpg
- File:Orpy orpy.jpg
- File:Itz orpy.jpg
- File:This Orpy.jpg
- File:Jahidul Hasan Orpy' picture.jpg
- File:Jahidul Hasan Orpy pic.jpg
- File:Jahidul Hasan Orpy's.jpg
- File:Jahidul Hasan Orpy pictures.jpg
- File:Jahidul Hasan Orpy.jpg
—MdsShakil (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal files of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Sca1een essay samples
[edit]- File:Descriptive essay sample.png
- File:Expository essay sample 1.1.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample 1.2.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample 2.1.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample 2.2.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample 2.3.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample 2.4.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample, page 1.jpg
- File:Expository essay sample, page 2.jpg
- File:Narrative essay sample.jpg
- File:Persuasive essay sample.jpg
None of the essays in these screenshots are the uploader's own original work. Most of the file descriptions mention that they are screen captures from web sites, and some of the images contain embedded copyright notices which prohibit reuse. --Omphalographer (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Beyond the scope of the project. It seems that he is just a selfie of the uploader himself and has no educational significance. Q28 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Probably not a selfie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete per COM:CSD G11. Belbury (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Q28 as no permission (No permission since). Subject lived 1918-1942, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Serbia and USA --RAN (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Serbia. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Upload from Unsplash from after 2017. Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
-20230127094200-File:Quinton-coetzee-HKOQOj0iIww-unsplash.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Upload from Unsplash from after 2017. Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
-20230127094200-File:Mitchell-griest-psDzkLlifxQ-unsplash.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mahmoudsamir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots from a tv show - needs OTRS
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program NAS.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - riseup2.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - mai.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - riseup.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - instabug.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - arika.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - uturn.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - Cloudera.jpg
- File:Entrepreneurs TV Program - POYNT.jpg
- File:Fetchr - Entrepreneurs TV Program.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Needs OTRS from glen studios (watermark bottom right) Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Found here in 2013 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/08/06/why-does-gps-use-more-battery-than-any-other-antenna-or-sensor-in-a-smartphone/?sh=334a94607bf9, uploader claims to be the person in the photo, needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
same as https://nofoodwaste.org/team - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Tiny, the user's only upload, and not notable enough (32 subscribers on YouTube, 9,174 followers on Instagram, 9,082 on Twitter) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cookie030307 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No proper source, so no evidence of a free license. I also wonder how these files are in scope.
- File:Countryhuman Baltics Sleepwears.png
- File:Countryhuman Lithuania Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Latvia Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Haiti Sleepwear (Earthquake Damage).png
- File:Countryhuman Saint Lucia Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Haiti Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Greece Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Hungary Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Belarus and Belarusian Opposition Sleepwears.png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine and Belarusian Opposition Sleepwears.png
- File:Countryhuman Belarus Sleepwear (Opposition).png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Original, Battle Damaged And Heavy Battle Damaged).png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Heavy Battle Damaged).png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine and Belarus Sleepwears.png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Original and Battle Damaged).png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear (Battle Damaged).png
- File:Countryhuman Ukraine Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Palau Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Belarus Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Bulgaria Sleepwear.png
- File:Countryhuman Estonia Sleepwear.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all. It is going to very hard to prove that these are freely licensed without basically an assumption that the uploader is the person who actually created the first instance of each image (I question most of the licensing for the images at Polandball as well) but the greater issue is that there is no educational purpose. As evidenced as en:Draft:Countryhumans this is basically a meme or artwork and thus the only educational use would be to display on the article pages which is problematic because of the first point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom & Ricky - I don't really see how any of these are educationally useful, These are more like fandom stuff which ironically only belongs on the website they were transferred from (DevianArt). The draft over at EN doesn't stand a chance of ever being accepted either, All in all out in scope and not educationally useful. –Davey2010Talk 12:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
because I think this file is not good enough, I am waiting for a better file Xiaotunshuqiqi (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement of a not evidently notable company. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
because I think the file is not good enough Xiaotunshuqiqi (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In use. When files are in use, they can't be deleted as "not good enough." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Some kind of joke. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Claimed to be "own work," but the name in the watermarks is different from the uploader's name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Useless, and the "Description" is just "bb". Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Help:Design#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art! Q28 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is Pikachu in this picture so his copyright belongs to Nintendo. Q28 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(51572331887).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(51572331887).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Help:Design#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art! Q28 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
_(51572331887).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
_(51572331887).jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Davidmelis95 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artworks by Giorgio Laveri, living Italian artist. VRT permission needed.
- File:Fiori Chiari.jpg
- File:Giorgio Laveri - Via Fiori Chiari - 1973 - Acrilici e calce su tela.jpg
- File:Giorgio laveri - Una tira l'altra.jpg
- File:Giorgio Laveri Truka.jpg
Ruthven (msg) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Federicomartinelli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artist Ebe Poli died in 1993. Not uploaders own work.
- File:"Concerto".jpg
- File:Riflessi sulla marina.jpg
- File:"Notturno".jpg
- File:Paesaggio, 1950, 72x100.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Federicomartinelli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artworks by Ernesto Lamagna. Living Italian artist. We need a written VRT permission in order to keep these photographs.
- File:Vecchio acrobata pazzo.jpg
- File:Minor Taurus.jpg
- File:HERAT ORA NONA-9362565.jpg
- File:Ecce Mater Dulcissima.jpg
Ruthven (msg) 15:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
not PD-textlogo A2093064 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not the same to this file? File:Tokyo Ghoul √A Logo.png? If I am wrong, please delete my file and sorry for the mistake. --Bradipo Lento (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think this image doesn't only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. The color of the text is specially designed. It should meet the threshold of originality. --A2093064 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- same as vi:Tập_tin:TG_logo.png, fr:Fichier:Logo_Tokyo_Ghoul.png, zh:File:Tokyo_Ghoul_Logo.png. --A2093064 (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
not PD-textlogo Trade (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Personal photos collage without educational use Drakosh (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
not PD-textlogo Trade (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope, not for WMF purposes. Taichi (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
no such license in the source "© 2023 est living | exceptional living" Mateus2019 (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the output of a photo-changing app. Was also apparently uploaded to vandalise a military officer's article on ru.wikipedia.org. Belbury (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lionel Messi in art
[edit]Per COM:FOP Argentina, photographs of murals are considered copyrighted
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Published here allready in 2018, was on a magazin cover same year (see same page below), not uploaded by the original author. No permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hallo. Das Haus wurde jahrelang saniert und der Autor hat das Foto mit den Gegenstände fotografiert. Das Haus ist jetzt entkernt und wird total renoviert. Wir möchten als Eigentümer des Hauses kein Müll am Haus auf dem Foto sehen! Fotografieren ja, aber ohne Müll! MfG 2A02:810A:8340:5A95:C18C:7DE6:9FA1:7501 23:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Not really a deletion reason. The photographer had the right to take a photo from a public location. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Halllo anonymer Schreiber. Ich habe die Coswiger 17 bei einer Tour im April 20 fotografiert, als ich alle Kulturdenkmale auf der Coswiger Straße fotografiert habe. Wie schon mein Vorredner schrieb gibt das Bild eben den Zustand aus dieser Zeit wieder. Daher halte ich das Foto für enzyklopädisch relevant. Mein Vorschlag: Wir treffen uns, wenn das Haus saniert ist (und mal die Sonne scheint) und ich mache schöne neue Fotos. Die kann ich dann auch in den Kulturdenkmal-Artikel einbauen. Natürlich können Sie auch jederzeit bessere Fotos machen und selbst hochladen. --Derbrauni (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Nachtrag: Ich habe neue Fotos gemacht. Allerdings ist die Sanierung bei weitem nicht abgeschlossen. Zumindest schmückt die Liste der Pieschner Kulturdenkmale jetzt ein fröhlicheres Foto. --Derbrauni (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hallo. Das Haus wurde jahrelang saniert und der Autor hat das Foto mit den Gegenstände fotografiert. Das Haus ist jetzt entkernt und wird total renoviert. Wir möchten als Eigentümer des Hauses kein Müll am Haus auf dem Foto sehen! Fotografieren ja, aber ohne Müll! MfG 2A02:810A:8340:5A95:C18C:7DE6:9FA1:7501 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Flickrwashing. Flickr acc only has this photo Gbawden (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Credited to DataXtype here - https://tn.com.ar/tecno/2020/09/12/cuidalos-la-app-creada-por-un-desarrollador-de-17-anos-para-proteger-a-los-adultos-mayores/ - think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent artwork (1998 sculpture) by Robert Graham who is apparently still living (work's entry on his website). There is no freedom of panorama for non-architecture in the United States. Commercial license permit from him is required, via COM:VRTS correspondence.
Furthermore, the author's website states that the U.S. government commissioned him to author this 3D public artwork. But per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Works by the US Government, PD-US "does not include works commissioned by the US Government, but produced by contractors; in this case, the copyright may have been assigned to the US Government." This makes the U.S. government (like National Parks Service) the effective copyright holder, and copyright is not necessarily revoked magically by this transfer.
None of the photos show the monument in a non-trivial manner: American de minimis tends to be narrow, defined by courts, and usually limited so as to increase artists' and authors' rights.
- File:FD Roosevelt Memorial at night - Washington DC - USA - panoramio.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial 2017.jpg
- File:FDR Memorial.jpg
- File:FDRMemorialStatue.JPG
- File:Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial (23c74787-b95e-479d-9597-3034afff79a0).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (10674bd5-be5c-414c-812d-edf29f470071).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (48ac118b-c997-4f5a-b1e1-daf42ac10b2e).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (5c019e7b-7d9d-48a3-abf6-773428b1354a).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (bb0d953d-85f0-448f-9c05-4c453cb1b892).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (beb077ae-8774-4934-b543-3897f33ac4de).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial (f289f0f5-f11e-45b0-b654-9dae93970c2f).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial - March 2018 - Sarah Stierch 01.jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial 9 (Washington) (31367719708).jpg
- File:Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial IMG 2228.JPG
- File:Roosevelt Memorial.jpg
- File:Southwest Washington, Washington, DC, USA - panoramio (11).jpg
- File:The man in the wheelchair.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(31367719708).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Great case presented by the nom. My apologies for uploading an image that contributed to this. I should know better! Missvain (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is not my entire work, another participant make it Nehaoua (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is not my entire work, another participant make it Nehaoua (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is not my entire work, another participant make it Nehaoua (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
is not my entire work, another participant make it Nehaoua (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Per Facebook/Instagram-code in metadata probably copied from social media. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Bild gibt es doppelt Berlinschneid (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Berlinschneid Das Bild hat den MessageDigest 5e594fe739b911a88e31143f4cd1af9fd35cefe2. Ein anderes Bild mit demselben MessageDigest habe ich nicht gefunden. Welches Bild soll das Duplikat sein? C.Suthorn (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hatte nicht richtig geschaut. dieses Bild ist sehr ähnlich, aber nicht identisch. Sorry. Ist eine solche Dopplung nahezu gleicher Bilder nicht aber auch ein Löschgrund? --Berlinschneid (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nein, es sind verschiedene Bilder. Als Antragsteller kannst Du den DR zumachen. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hatte nicht richtig geschaut. dieses Bild ist sehr ähnlich, aber nicht identisch. Sorry. Ist eine solche Dopplung nahezu gleicher Bilder nicht aber auch ein Löschgrund? --Berlinschneid (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 03:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The depicted advertisement is clearly above COM:TOO. As it is installed only temporarily, freedom-of-panorama exception is not applicable. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW of stuffed animal; see COM:TOYS and COM:PLUSHIES. Эlcobbola talk 20:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Derivative file: File:Pete Ricketts Senate portrait (cropped).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation. Dmartin969 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wait: Only evidence of copyvio is the photo metadata, which only lists a photographer's name. Photo is posted on an official website, which is in the public domain. More evidence needed for a decision either way. Dmartin969 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion Image should be in public domain since it's posted on a government website like the other Senate/Rep portraits. --38.106.246.203 21:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The argument that it should be PD merely because it's hosted by a U.S. Government website I don't think is true, since if it's not taken by an official for their duties it's not PD. I don't think the photographer is part of the government. The company seems to have this website (states they're from Omaha, Nebraska) and seems to be one of their business portraits/headshots, which they do. Seems like it's just a placeholder until he gets a full website + an official Senate photo. reppoptalk 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Metadata clearly shows this photo was generated on 21 June 2017 with Joseph G Johnston Photography as the copyright holder. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Woko Sapien: Does the metadata specifically say copyright? Surely if anyone own the copyright it would be Ricketts or his office. Dmartin969 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Dmartin969: It clearly says "Copyright holder ©Joseph G Johnston Photography" in the metadata. It's on the 9th line between, after "Lens focal length" and before "Width". It also lists Joseph G. Johnston as the author (3rd line in the metadata). Woko Sapien (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Woko Sapien: Does the metadata specifically say copyright? Surely if anyone own the copyright it would be Ricketts or his office. Dmartin969 (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion The official Senate website lists this as his portrait. Zeddawg (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is the image has to originate from the U.S. federal government to be public domain; it can't be adopted into it. We had a similar issue a few years back when Senator Luther Strange was using a copyrighted photo of himself as his Senate portrait, before his official one was taken. The consensus then was to delete it, which it should still be now. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs OTRS from Johnston or proof that Johnston was a govt employee at the time. --Gbawden (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Author's permission missing 188.123.231.22 03:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Is this not sufficient? Vandermast (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs OTRS from the painter or a link to the book showing the CC license. --Gbawden (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No EXIF, likely a copyvio. Engr. Smitty (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No EXIF, likely a copyvio. Uploader has history of uploading photos, that they don't own, without proper licenses Engr. Smitty (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Flyer for a show CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Not own work 181.203.19.34 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Photo from Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.2.158 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.2.158 23:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; looks like a low quality screenshot. --Gbawden (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Extremely inappropriate image, also likely a screenshot of copyright-protected material. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:95A3:1F:6467:B788 23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- One line of simple raw text is not copyrightable. --Achim55 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The title of the image references a movie, which in turn makes it non-free material because the end of the film's credits states that the film itself is protected by copyright, if you were to take a look at it yourself. As such, it violates Commons:Fair use. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:95A3:1F:6467:B788 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see how a line of text can be copyrightable. --Gbawden (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The picture is on this article and published sooner the day https://www.borsakredi.net/sanatci-berkay-oren-ilgi-odagi-sarki-yapmaya-hazirlaniyor/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The picture is on the internet since 2010 according to TinEye CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Materialscientist as no permission (No permission since). 2006 upload, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment See previous DR: File talk:Friedwardt Winterberg.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Been on commons since 2006, and kept previously. Need a compelling argument to delete. --Gbawden (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Frodo389292HS (talk · contribs)
[edit]All "maps" of fictional results, one of them hasn't even happened yet, the others are spinoffs of the actual results, see user's edits in English Wikipedia, thus no educational purpose
- File:2023 Kentucky gubernatorial election results map by county.svg
- File:2016 United States Senate election in Missouri(1) results map by county.svg
- File:2022 United States Senate election in Missouri results map by county (2)拷貝.svg
- File:2022 United States Senate election in Missouri results map by county (2).svg
- File:2022 United States Senate election in Missouri results map by county(imagine).svg
_results_map_by_county.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%E6%8B%B7%E8%B2%9D.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Twotwofourtysix (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded a duplicate and this file has the accidentally the wrong filename. Lexinexi (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Lexinexi, you can use {{speedy|original uploader's request}} for recently created unused content. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation of app screenshot and use of branding/trademark Hwi.padam (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Ingeborg Friebel
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Ingeborg Friebel, died in 1978. So images of the stamps are copyrighted until at least 2048.
File:FDC 1958 GDR Zille pm B002a.jpgFile:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 624.JPGFile:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 625.JPG- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 761.JPG
File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0624.jpgFile:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0625.jpgFile:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0626.jpg- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0665.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0666.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0757.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0758.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0759.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0760.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0761.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0827.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0828.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0829.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 827.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 828.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 829.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0952.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0953.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0954.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0955.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 1000.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 1001.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 1002.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 1003.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1045-1047.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1045.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1045.png
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1046.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1046.png
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1047.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1047.png
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1074.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1075.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1076.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1077.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1078.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1079.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr Zusammendruck 1075, 1074.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr Zusammendruck 1077, 1076.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr Zusammendruck 1079, 1078.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1214.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1215.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1216.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1217.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1218.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1219.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr Zusammendruck 1214, 1215.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr Zusammendruck 1216, 1217.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr Zusammendruck 1218, 1219.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1968, MiNr 1353.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1968, MiNr 1354.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1968, MiNr 1355.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1968, MiNr 1356.jpg
_1958_MiNr_624.JPG){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_625.JPG){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_761.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0624.jpg){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0625.jpg){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0626.jpg){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0665.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0666.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0757.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0758.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0759.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0760.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0761.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0827.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0828.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0829.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_827.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_828.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_829.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0952.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0953.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0954.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0955.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_1000.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_1001.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_1002.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_1003.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1045-1047.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1045.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1045.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1046.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1046.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1047.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1047.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1074.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1075.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1076.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1077.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1078.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1079.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1075,_1074.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1077,_1076.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1079,_1078.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1214.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1215.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1216.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1217.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1218.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1219.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1214,_1215.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1216,_1217.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1218,_1219.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1968,_MiNr_1353.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1968,_MiNr_1354.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1968,_MiNr_1355.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1968,_MiNr_1356.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Kept six files that I had just kept a few days ago because they mainly feature PD artwork by Heinrich Zille and not much else. I struck those files above. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: the rest, per nomination. The files can be restored when their URAA-restored US copyrights will have expired, 95 + 1 years after publication, starting in 2054. --Rosenzweig τ 22:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Ewald Manz
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Ewald Manz, died in 1960. So images of the stamps are copyrighted until 2030.
- File:DE-SBZ-ProvSA 1945 MiNr0076X pm B002.jpg
- File:DE-SBZ-ProvSA 1945 MiNr0083X pm B002b.jpg
- File:DE-SBZ-ProvSa 1945 MiNr069X pm B002c1.jpg
- File:DR 1942 819 Peter Henlein.jpg
- File:Henlein.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 66 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 67 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 68 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 69 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 70 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 71 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 72 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 73 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 74 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 75 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 76 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 77 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 78 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 79 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 80 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 81 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 82 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 83 Wappen.jpg
- File:SBZ Provinz Sachsen 1945 84 Wappen.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all of these. They have been published more than 70 years ago without indication Manz's name, so they are out of copyright: {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pasting this from another discussion where Robert Weemeyer made the same claim. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany he's and this is why according to the law that he's citing three conditions have to be met for it to apply. One of which is "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work." I assume their real name was specified in a communication to the public. Otherwise we wouldn't know what their name was would we? Even if the three conditions where met, there's this "then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless: "the author has become known in some other way within that period of time." Again, I assume the author has become known within the period of the 70 years or we wouldn't know what their name was. So it does seem it does depend on whether we know who the author is despite Robert Weemeyer's claim to the contrary. Anyway, in this case we know who the author is. So the images are clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing? I haven't found the words "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work" anywhere. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years." I think what I cited originally is on the same page to the left of that. Either way, your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. So the term is clearly life + 70 years. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. Magic crystals? Ouija board? Scrying? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing now ("if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years")? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years." I think what I cited originally is on the same page to the left of that. Either way, your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. So the term is clearly life + 70 years. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. Magic crystals? Ouija board? Scrying? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing? I haven't found the words "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work" anywhere. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pasting this from another discussion where Robert Weemeyer made the same claim. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany he's and this is why according to the law that he's citing three conditions have to be met for it to apply. One of which is "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work." I assume their real name was specified in a communication to the public. Otherwise we wouldn't know what their name was would we? Even if the three conditions where met, there's this "then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless: "the author has become known in some other way within that period of time." Again, I assume the author has become known within the period of the 70 years or we wouldn't know what their name was. So it does seem it does depend on whether we know who the author is despite Robert Weemeyer's claim to the contrary. Anyway, in this case we know who the author is. So the images are clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: since these are all still protected in the US because the URAA restored their copyrights there. And yes, they are out of copyright in Germany because of {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, a somewhat obscure provision in an older German copyright law that is still relevant for some pre-1966 works and takes precedence over the general rules for anonymous works Adamant1 is citing. The two "Henlein" files from 1942 can be restored in 2038, the rest in 2041. --Rosenzweig τ 23:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Serie Theodor Heuss, 1954
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Max Bittrof, died in 1972. So images of the stamps are copyrighted until at least 2042.
- File:DBP 1954 Heuss I komplett.jpg
- File:Theodor Heuss BM1954 sig.jpg
- File:Theodor Heuss Briefmarken.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 177 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 178 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 179 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:Theodor Heuss BM1954.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 180 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 181 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 182 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 183 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:Deutsche Bundespost - Theodor Heuss 1954.jpg
- File:Theodor Heuss Briefmarke.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 184 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 185 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 186 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 187 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 188 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 189 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 190 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 191 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 192 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 193 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 194 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:Uetersen Poststempel 1955.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 195 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:DBP 1954 196 Theodor Heuss I.jpg
- File:D-NW-LIP-Bad Salzuflen - Wüsten - Poststempel 'Wüsten über Herford'.jpg
- File:Poststempel Landwehr (Overath).jpg
- File:Theodor Heuss 2 DM 1954.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- These copyright will expire 70 years after publication, in 2024, because Bittrof's name is not mentioned on the stamps. In 2025 these files can be tagged {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a legal requirement that the name of the designer be on the stamp for it to be copyrightable? Like doesn't us knowing who created it make it non-anonymous? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- If the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication. If doesn't depend on whether we know who the author is or not. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, you can say that. According to the law that your citing though three conditions have to be met for it to apply. One of which is "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work." I assume their real name was specified in a communication to the public. Otherwise we wouldn't know what their name was would we? Even if the three conditions where met, there's this "then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless: "the author has become known in some other way within that period of time." Again, I assume the author has become known within the period of the 70 years or we wouldn't know what their name was. So, sadly, it seems your wrong and it 100% does depend on whether we know who the author is. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing? I haven't found the words "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work" anywhere. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years." I think what I cited originally is on the same page to the left of that. Either way, your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. In the meantime I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. Magic crystals maybe? Tea leaf reading? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing now ("if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years")? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "if the author reveals their identity within that period of time then term of copyright is life + 70 years." I think what I cited originally is on the same page to the left of that. Either way, your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. In the meantime I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. Magic crystals maybe? Tea leaf reading? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- If the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication. If doesn't depend on whether we know who the author is or not. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a legal requirement that the name of the designer be on the stamp for it to be copyrightable? Like doesn't us knowing who created it make it non-anonymous? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. While the stamps will enter the PD in Germany in 2025 because of {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, they are still protected in the US until the end of 2049. So the files can be restored in 2050. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Max Bittrof
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Max Bittrof, died in 1972. So images of the stamps are copyrighted until at least 2042.
- File:Bauten Munchner.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 100Iwg Bauten Lübecker Holstentor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 101 Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 102 Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 73wg Bauten Frankfurter Römer.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 74wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 75wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 76wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 77wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 78wg Bauten Frankfurter Römer.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 79wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 80wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 81wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 82wg Bauten Frankfurter Römer.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 83wg Bauten Frankfurter Römer.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 84wg Bauten Frankfurter Römer.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 85wg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 86wg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 87wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 88wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 89wg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 90wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 91wg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 93wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 94eg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 94wg Bauten Brandenburger Tor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 95wg Bauten Münchner Frauenkirche.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 96wg Bauten Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 97IIeg Bauten Lübecker Holstentor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 97Iwg Bauten Lübecker Holstentor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 98Iwg Bauten Lübecker Holstentor.jpg
- File:Bi Zone 1948 99Iwg Bauten Lübecker Holstentor.jpg
- File:DBP 1949 111 Bundestag.jpg
- File:DBP 1949 112 Bundestag.jpg
- File:DBP 1949 116 Weltpostverein.jpg
- File:DBP 1951 139 Marienkirche.jpg
- File:DBP 1951 140 Marienkirche.jpg
- File:DBP 1952 153 Bundesjugendplan.jpg
- File:DBP 1952 154 Bundesjugendplan.jpg
- File:DBP 1953 167 Verkehrsausstellung.jpg
- File:DBP 1953 168 Verkehrsausstellung.jpg
- File:DBP 1953 169 Verkehrsausstellung.jpg
- File:DBP 1953 170 Verkehrsausstellung.jpg
- File:Deutsche Post - Eroeffnung erster Bundestag 1949 - MiNr 112.jpg
- File:Deutsche post 5 - Kölner Dom.jpg
- File:Mi73eg.jpg
- File:Mi74eg.jpg
- File:Mi75eg.jpg
- File:Mi77eg.jpg
- File:Mi80eg.jpg
- File:Mi82eg.jpg
- File:Mi85eg.jpg
- File:Mi87eg.jpg
- File:Mi89eg.jpg
- File:Mi90eg.jpg
- File:Mi92eg.jpg
- File:Mi93eg.jpg
- File:Mi96eg.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep most of these, as they are published more than 70 years ago without indicating the author: {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} Delete the 1951 Marienkirche stamps, as Bittrof is named on them. Undelete these in 2043. Delete the 1953 Verkehrsausstellung stamps, as the copyright will expire only on December 31st, 2023. Undelete these in 2024. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a legal requirement that the name of the designer be on the stamp for it to be copyrightable? Like doesn't us knowing who created it make it non-anonymous? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- If the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication. If doesn't depend on whether we know who the author is or not. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pasting this from another discussion where Robert Weemeyer made the same claim. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany he's and this is why according to the law that he's citing three conditions have to be met for it to apply. One of which is "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work." I assume their real name was specified in a communication to the public. Otherwise we wouldn't know what their name was would we? Even if the three conditions where met, there's this "then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless: "the author has become known in some other way within that period of time." Again, I assume the author has become known within the period of the 70 years or we wouldn't know what their name was. So it does seem it does depend on whether we know who the author is despite Robert Weemeyer's claim to the contrary. Anyway, in this case we know who the author is. So the images are clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing? I haven't found the words "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work" anywhere. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "the author reveals their identity within that period of time." I think what I cited the first time is on the same page to the left of that. So your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. In the meantime I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. Otherwise I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing now ("the author reveals their identity within that period of time")? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany under the "Anonymous and pseudonymous works" section in the "The current method" box, point A. I know it's not "the law", but it's summary of the law and the bar for deletion isn't that we have to cite the exact legal code verbatim anyway. As I'm sure your aware now due to the recent of deletion of stamps by the same person where you made the same arguments. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing now ("the author reveals their identity within that period of time")? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hell if I can remember. I think I might have cited the wrong sentence by accident. What I meant to cite was "the author reveals their identity within that period of time." I think what I cited the first time is on the same page to the left of that. So your whole "if the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication" Thing is wrong regardless. In the meantime I assume the author reveled their name at some point since we know who it is. Otherwise I'd be interested to know how you think we know that they designed the stamps. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which law are you citing? I haven't found the words "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work" anywhere. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pasting this from another discussion where Robert Weemeyer made the same claim. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany he's and this is why according to the law that he's citing three conditions have to be met for it to apply. One of which is "neither the real name of the author nor a known pseudonym of his were specified within the context of a communication to the public of the work." I assume their real name was specified in a communication to the public. Otherwise we wouldn't know what their name was would we? Even if the three conditions where met, there's this "then the copyright term for the work was 70 years after publication unless: "the author has become known in some other way within that period of time." Again, I assume the author has become known within the period of the 70 years or we wouldn't know what their name was. So it does seem it does depend on whether we know who the author is despite Robert Weemeyer's claim to the contrary. Anyway, in this case we know who the author is. So the images are clearly copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- If the name of the designer isn't mentioned on a pre-1966 German stamp, then the copyright runs only 70 years from publication. If doesn't depend on whether we know who the author is or not. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: since these are all still protected in the US because the URAA restored their copyrights there. And yes, most are out of copyright in Germany because of {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}, a somewhat obscure provision in an older German copyright law that is still relevant for some pre-1966 works and takes precedence over the general rules for anonymous works Adamant1 is citing. The files can be restored when their URAA-restored US copyrights will have expired, 95 + 1 years after publication, starting in 2044. --Rosenzweig τ 01:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Grit Fiedler
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Grit Fiedler, seems to either be alive or have died recently. So images of the stamps are clearly copyrighted.
- File:Max Planck Briefmarke 2008.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3315.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3364.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3365.jpg
_1990,_MiNr_3315.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3364.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3365.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored 70 years after the death of the artist. --Rosenzweig τ 01:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gerhard Bläser
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Gerhard Bläser, died in 2009. So images of the stamps are copyrighted until at least 2079.
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1236.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1237.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1238.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1239.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1240.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr 1241.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1966, MiNr Kleinbogen 1236-1241.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1450.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1451.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1452.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1453.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1454.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1455.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1545.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1546.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1547.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1548.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1549.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1550.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr Kleinbogen 1545-1550.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1717.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1718.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1719.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1720.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1721.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr 1722.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1971, MiNr Kleinbogen 1717-1722.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 1995.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 1996.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 1997.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 1998.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 1999.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr 2000.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1974, MiNr Kleinbogen 1995-2000.jpg
_1966,_MiNr_1236.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1237.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1238.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1239.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1240.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_1241.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1966,_MiNr_Kleinbogen_1236-1241.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1450.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1451.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1452.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1453.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1454.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1455.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1545.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1546.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1547.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1548.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1549.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1550.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_Kleinbogen_1545-1550.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1717.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1718.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1719.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1720.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1721.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_1722.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1971,_MiNr_Kleinbogen_1717-1722.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1995.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1996.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1997.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1998.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_1999.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_2000.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1974,_MiNr_Kleinbogen_1995-2000.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The 1966 stamps have de:Klaus Hennig (Grafiker) as co-artist, who died in 2017, so those files can be restored in 2088. The 1969 stamps are apparently by Gerhard Bläser without a co-artist, so those files can be restored in 2080. The stamps from the 1970s were created in collaboration with his wife Erika Bläser, born in 1934 and apparently alive, so these files can be restored 70 years after her death. --Rosenzweig τ 13:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Ralf-Jürgen Lehmann
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Ralf-Jürgen Lehmann, seems to have either deceased fairly recently or is still alive. So images of the stamps are clearly copyrighted.
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1988, MiNr Block 091.jpg
- File:HfVBriefm81 ws.jpg
- File:DBP 1991 1559-1560-R.JPG
- File:DBP 1991 1559-R.JPG
- File:DBP 1991 1560-R.JPG
- File:Se-tenant 1989 GDR-MiNrWZd795 pm B002.jpg
- File:SouvBf 1983 GDR TuSFestLeipzig pm B002.jpg
- File:SouvBf 1988 GDR XXVIOlympDay pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3111 pm B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3112 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3113 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3114 pm B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3115 pm B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1987 GDR MiNr3116 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1989 GDR MiNr3275 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1990 GDR MiNr3340 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1990 GDR MiNr3341 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1990 GDR MiNr3342 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1990 GDR MiNr3343 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2241.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2242.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2243.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2244.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2245.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1977, MiNr 2246.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2400.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2401.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2424.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1979, MiNr 2425.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2507.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2583.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2584.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2585.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2586.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2587.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2648.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2673.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2674.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2675.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2676.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2724.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1982, MiNr 2725.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1984, MiNr 2878.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1984, MiNr 2879.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2959.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2960.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2983.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2984.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2985.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr 2986.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr Zusammendruck 2959, 2960.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1985, MiNr Zusammendruck 2983-2986.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3111.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3112.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3113.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3114.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3115.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1987, MiNr 3116.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1989, MiNr 3248.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1989, MiNr 3249.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1989, MiNr 3275.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1989, MiNr Zusammendruck 3248, 3249.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3340.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3341.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3342.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3343.jpg
- File:Startingtabletenniss.jpg
_1988,_MiNr_Block_091.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2241.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2242.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2243.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2244.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2245.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1977,_MiNr_2246.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1979,_MiNr_2400.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1979,_MiNr_2401.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1979,_MiNr_2424.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1979,_MiNr_2425.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2507.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2583.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2584.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2585.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2586.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2587.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2648.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2673.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2674.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2675.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2676.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2724.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1982,_MiNr_2725.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1984,_MiNr_2878.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1984,_MiNr_2879.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2959.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2960.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2983.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2984.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2985.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_2986.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_2959,_2960.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1985,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_2983-2986.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3111.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3112.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3113.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3114.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3115.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1987,_MiNr_3116.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1989,_MiNr_3248.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1989,_MiNr_3249.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1989,_MiNr_3275.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1989,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_3248,_3249.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3340.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3341.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3342.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3343.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Lehmann, born in 1933, is apparently alive, so the files can be restored 70 years after his death. --Rosenzweig τ 14:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
unclear license status, taken from https://www.instagram.com/yossihalfon/?hl=de Mateus2019 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 14:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Rembrandt70 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sofort Löschen Rembrandt70 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ankry (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Images on Fandom sites do not necessarily have Creative Commons licenses. No legitimate source or evidence of permission. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:LL by non-WMF wiki site: 1) this is merely a hortizonal flip of this uploaded 22 February 2022, well before fandom upload 18 June 2022 and 2) neither the deviantart nor fandom uploaders are the copyright holders if this actually appears in W:Jurassic World Dominion as purported. The production studio would hold a copyright to the "character" even if this specific depiction is not directly taken from promotional material. Alternatively, if this is not a genuine "character" from the film, it would be fan art that belongs on fandom, not here. Эlcobbola talk 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Although this Fandom wiki releases all content under CC-BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted, Delete per Elcobbola's investigation. Heavy Water (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 17:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ymblanter. --Rosenzweig τ 09:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Copie de https://www.bienpublic.com/grand-dijon/2011/09/10/entre-art-et-sciences-avec-luc-rochette Habertix (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
copie d'écran d'une émission non libre Habertix (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Falsified source/authorship info, and largely redundant with File:YouTube logo 2013.svg Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Anna E. Munch died in 1960 so the painting is copyrighted until the end of 2030. The painting was previously incorrectly described as made by Anna Ancher (1859-1935) and therefore it was assumed that the copyright had expired. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, FOP only for buildings in Denmark. The file can be restored in 2031 (no URAA problems for a 1909 work like this one). --Rosenzweig τ 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Anna E. Munch died in 1960 so the painting is copyrighted until the end of 2030. The painting was previously incorrectly described as made by Anna Ancher (1859-1935) and therefore it was assumed that the copyright had expired. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, FOP only for buildings in Denmark. The file can be restored in 2031 (no URAA problems for a 1909 work like this one). --Rosenzweig τ 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Obscure, no real description, doesn't seem useful or in scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Obscure, no real description, doesn't seem useful or in scope. I guess this was a catalog of some conservatory? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete You could probably argue it's probably in scope, but it looks like it came from a professionally designed document. So I'm going with COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a poster and is protected in Iran until 2036 HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
YouTube cover photo, does not appear to be original work: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuppWENGq7Xkp2I2Bczr428nplrv_1OJalI9HFygJKypujB9GFzw9K3V4HNaSm1xdF99Q8PWeQvd044fDec_1yebnNW-eWFlz6yYycB1Iv6oSzRinmH6wW6XLft2KojnA_1xbV_1unVZ2V2BdcfEqLqU-ducxYaIQ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
possibly not not PD-textlogo Trade (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PRP. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Two photos with two very different watermarks (eye-dex.com and some kind of P/zigzag logo), suggesting that the uploader may represent neither. No EXIF, uploader's history shows some copyright issues.
Belbury (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Vin24c/n/m/ 203.144.67.116 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- What is the reason for the deletion request? --Hameryko (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No metadata, possible screenshot from video Zafer (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- include
- File:Beyhamam 1.png
- File:Beyhamam2.png
- File:Bogaz koyy.jpg
- File:Resim 2023-01-03 142324704.png
- File:Resim 2023-01-03 184358290.png
- File:Fotiii.png
- File:BoğazkeseN KALESİ.png
- File:Boğazkesen.png
- File:Boğazkesen1.png
- File:Boğazkesen2.png
- File:Boğalı Yaylası.jpg
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio, like other photo same user. Zafer (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Sabine Starmayr) M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Die Fotografin Sabine Starmayr hat der Veröffentlichung des Fotos "Starmayr Foto of Marie Ruprecht.jpg" auf WIKIMEDIA COMMONS ausdrücklich zugestimmt. ReisingerMM (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ReisingerMM: Solche Genehmigungen müssen per E-Mail direkt vom Urheber kommen und dokumentiert werden. Zum Verfahren siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 07:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Am 23. August 2021 um 13.18 Uhr wurde von Frau Sabine Starmayr die schriftliche Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos: File:Starmayr Foto of Marie Ruprecht.jpg auf Wikimedia Commons erteilt. Anfrage und Genehmigung sind schriftlich dokumentiert. ReisingerMM (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ReisingerMM: Aber anscheinend nicht hier mit dem Verfahren nach COM:VRT dokumentiert und festgehalten, sonst gäbe es einen entsprechenden Hinweis auf der Dateiseite. Ohne diese Dokumentation wird die Datei gelöscht werden. --Rosenzweig τ 17:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Am 23. August 2021 um 13.18 Uhr wurde von Frau Sabine Starmayr die schriftliche Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos: File:Starmayr Foto of Marie Ruprecht.jpg auf Wikimedia Commons erteilt. Anfrage und Genehmigung sind schriftlich dokumentiert. ReisingerMM (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ReisingerMM: Solche Genehmigungen müssen per E-Mail direkt vom Urheber kommen und dokumentiert werden. Zum Verfahren siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 07:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Profile picture of this YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@theblmd CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The image is not in the public domain, nor is it the user's own work. Stalin990 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
No Meta, unlikely uploader owned Pierre cb (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Files by SirenWorksUK
[edit]- File:Lee Matthews Kickboxer.jpg
- File:Lee matthews training.jpg
- File:Lee Matthews receiving a Business Growth Award.jpg
Very different quality, one looks scanned from a newspaper, the other amateur quality and the last professional quality. Always {{Own work}}. Unlikely to be correct author information and therefore license. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
No indication that the file was released under Creative Commons. Per https://www.arianespace.com/terms-and-conditions-of-use/: " Any total or partial reproduction, performance or modification of all or part of the Site, without the express authorization of Arianespace is forbidden and would constitute a forgery punishable under the French Intellectual Property Code." Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oops, meant to make this a speedy deletion. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SashaRearick as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: private image
Converted to regular DR, as file does not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Image is mine and I wish to delete it due to privacy concerns. SashaRearick (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: image doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I posted this media and would like it removed, as I do not own the actual content SashaRearick (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 16:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
As the original file poster, I am formally requesting this file to be removed from Wikimedia Commons. Reason for deletion is private and cannot be shared on a public forum. My ask is for this request to be honored to avoid escalation. Thank you. SashaRearick (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- SashaRearick, are you insinuating a legal threat? If so, first, you have no leg to stand on because you uploaded this under an irrevocable license, and second, you should be banned forthwith. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted material (https://www.mms.com/en-us/ma-and-yas); invalid licence attribution Dorsetonian (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Mint eggy93 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, this can go, looks like you weren't quite done yet. (Keep working on it though. It looks like something that could be quite interesting if finished) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional studio photos claimed as own work but with no exif. PCP, think we need OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Gbadwen,
- Please can you elaborate more on why you think these photos should be deleted. Going through OTRS is no problem for me. The figure in this image is open for communication and available to provide any further proof for these images.
- Hope to read from you soon. Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; @Joris Darlington Quarshie: Please follow Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT?. --Wdwd (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious self claims--generally low res, no EXIF, professional shots of purportedly notable persons, elsewhere before upload (File:Kezia.jpg is here (note very awkward crop to remove photographer's watermark), File:Jeremie Van-Garshong (Radio and Tv Presenter).jpg is here credited to Awuku Asiedu Mante (File:Jeremie Van-Garshong (Media Personality).jpg is clearly same set); File:Jeremie Van-Garshong.jpg is here; File:Caroline sampson.jpg variant here; File:Willie roi.jpg is here, etc), user history of copyvios, etc. Duck/PRP issues.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Caroline Sampson 225.jpg
- File:Caro Sampson.jpg
- File:Caroline Sampson.jpg
- File:Nana Yaa Serwaa Sarpong.jpg
- File:Elroy.jpg
- File:Kezia.jpg
- File:Jeremie Van-Garshong.jpg
- File:Jeremie Van-Garshong (Media Personality).jpg
- File:Jeremie Van-Garshong (Radio and Tv Presenter).jpg
- File:Caroline sampson.jpg
- File:Willie roi.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SirPatrickBijou12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader claims to be the subject, most appear to come from https://sirpatrickbijou.com/, no exif, unlikely to be own work as claimed. Needs OTRS
- File:SIR PATRICK BIJOU IN UN OFFICE.jpg
- File:Patrick Bijou.jpg
- File:Sir patrick bijou.jpg
- File:Sir Patrick bijou.jpg
- File:Sir patrick Bijou.jpg
- File:Sir Patrick Bijou.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.2.158 10:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Unused, seems like inappropriate preaching or self-publicizing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributor, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Marcel Koch) M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Das Bild stammt von Marcel Koch, der mir erlaubt hat, das Bild zu verwenden. Eine Einverständniserklärung befindet sich in der Mache und wird bald nachgereicht.
- Herzliche Grüße! Literaturkosmos (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: received permission via RTS. --Wdwd (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Equation text, not in use. Isn't it better for equations to be saved in text on other wikis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Wdwd (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Equation text, not in use. Commons normally doesn't host text files. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of en:Guernica (painting), a work that is still in copyright Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is a photo in the public space. It's the ceramics mural work in Gernika city street what's a derivative work from Picasso's paint. Not the photo. Isn't it? --Dvdgmz (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as this is covered by {{FoP-Spain}}, see COM:FOP#Spain. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Copy of Guernica, a work by Pablo Picasso that is still under copyright. Freedom of panorama cannot be invoked because no proof has been provided that the copy was put in a public place (or indeed even made) with the permission of Picasso or his estate.
Freedom of panorama doesn't mean that copying someone else's work in a public place without their consent magically makes the copyright go away.--Leptictidium (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- This has been already decided (see above), Keep and speedy close. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would have agreed. But I checked the alleged location specified on the file (Location: Guernica (Allendesalazar street, 11).)
- Go there with Google Street View: it is not in the street.
- If I search "parque de la paz Guernica" in google, I can find the painting, and it seems to be in a public space, but it more likely belongs to the Museo de la Paz:
- So it is NOT in the public space. Daehan (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. This photo appears to have been taken from a public place, namely the T-junction of Pedro de Elejalde Kalea, San Juan Kalea, and Allende Salazar Kalea in Guernica. Please have a look at the mural using Google Streetview or look at this photo from the same category. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Au contraire - it is in the public space. Try Google Earth or click through the images at Tripadvisor (image 18 of 89). Public street and parking spaces are clearly visible with the object placed on an outside wall pointing towards the street. --Denniss (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
_julesvernex2.jpg){kind=link}
- For this file, whether it is in a public place or not is completely irrelevant because FoP does not apply to works (or copies of works) put in public places without the consent of the rights-holder. The previous Deletion request failed to take into account this important nuance and is therefore not a precedent for keeping this file.--Leptictidium (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- And why do you believe that this work has been erected without consent? We have photos of that mural ranging from 2004 to 2018. This is a clear-cut case of COM:FOP Spain. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this file, whether it is in a public place or not is completely irrelevant because FoP does not apply to works (or copies of works) put in public places without the consent of the rights-holder. The previous Deletion request failed to take into account this important nuance and is therefore not a precedent for keeping this file.--Leptictidium (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
_julesvernex2.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep per COM:CRT/Spain#Freedom of panorama which says Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes. AFBorchert has shared some proofs which indicate that this work is located publicly and thus falls under COM:FOP Spain. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion (FoP-Spain); Missing additional information, hints or evidence that this work was erected without permission. --Wdwd (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
2.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copy of Guernica, a work by Pablo Picasso that is still under copyright. Freedom of panorama cannot be invoked because no proof has been provided that the copy was put in a public place (or indeed even made) with the permission of Picasso or his estate.
Freedom of panorama doesn't mean that copying someone else's work in a public place without their consent magically makes the copyright go away. Leptictidium (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Chile has FoP and the place seems public. --Denniss (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this file, that is neither here nor there because FoP does not apply to works (or copies of works) put in public places without the consent of the rights-holder.--Leptictidium (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's okay —that would only be the second thing you get wrong in this discussion. Peace, out.--Leptictidium (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. --Denniss (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- For this file, that is neither here nor there because FoP does not apply to works (or copies of works) put in public places without the consent of the rights-holder.--Leptictidium (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per FoP-Chile; as above: missing additional information, hints or evidence that this work was erected without permission. --Wdwd (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Old logo, replaced by newer logo Bible society (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as historical. It's odd for a society dedicated to an ancient text to want to delete history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep of course. It is a historical logo. --Markverona (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Old logo, replaced by newer one. Bible society (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as historical. It's odd for a society dedicated to an ancient text to want to delete history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Help:Design#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art! Q28 (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:DM. Not the key part. --SCP-2000 14:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per user:SCP-2000. --Wdwd (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
The six characters on the wall are all Nintendo characters and are protected, Obviously this picture only shows the on these walls so it must be deleted Q28 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hrm, I would claim de minimis, but the right-most creature is indeed quite prominent. Maybe a trim would be appropriate? This is the only picture we have of the Pokémon World Championship series and what really matters in the representation is the current central part of the picture and the crowds. Cropping out the right-hand side should remove the issue here. ~Mable (chat) 09:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - most certainly de minimis. Copyrighted work is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject. – Pbrks (t • c) 18:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per user:Pbrks. --Wdwd (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Works by Emilio Anselmi, living Italian artist. Permission needed.
Ruthven (msg) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement/G10. --Wdwd (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributor/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I misstook for filename. Bcxfu75k (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Unclear exactly what we're looking at here, but as a Christmas advert it's not "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building" that COM:FOP Canada would require. Belbury (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury: It is the interior of a movie theatre showing the screen. If it is against FOP or any other copyright issue, then should be deleted, no problem. // sikander { talk } 🦖 18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Photographs are taken from the internet with wrong licenses.
- File:شفیعی کدکنی در کنار امیرهوشنگ ابتهاج.jpg
- File:آرامگاه امیرهوشنگ ابتهاج.jpg
- File:عروس بران در روستای توریستی لرد خلخال.jpg
- File:Boroomand2.jpg
- File:Behrooz boroomand.jpg
- File:جشنواره فرهنگی، بومی و محلی روستای بزرگ لرد.jpg
- File:بانوان روستا با لباس محلی.jpg
- File:موزه گنجینه رشت واقع در خیابان طالقانی(بیستون).jpg
- File:حسین مهری و سعید نعمت الله.jpg
- File:Saeed Nematollah.jpg
- File:Hj4Sy164465192349105692.jpg
- File:LordNativecloths.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Web quality photo with no metadata. The uploader has a history of uploading incorrectly licensed images. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not sure what should be done with this image. The painting certainly doesn’t meet the de minimis criterium in this photography, but, according to the description, it’s generally located in a public space and therefore its pictures should be under the freedom of panorama in Brazil. The fact is that in this particular image it doesn’t seem to be in a public space and therefore not covered by freedom or panorama, I guess. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Missing permission for shown artwork, no COM:DM. --Wdwd (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Seemingly not a personal work, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2001:16B8:6662:4800:8C82:28EB:DA0B:FBEA as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Abgebildete Personen wünschen Löschung im Sinne des Rechtes am eigenen Bild. --2001:16B8:6662:4800:8C82:28EB:DA0B:FBEA 21:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is online since 2017. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Same request for this crop: File:Liza Ohm im Uebel und Gefährlich im Januar 2016.jpg.
Kept: Photos are taken on a public stage performance. In addition, this form of deletion request should be handled by the VRTS team to avoid misuse. --Wdwd (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Photos are not created by the uploader. No evidence of permission. COM:VRT permission is required.
Wcam (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
copie de https://actu.fr/ile-de-france/mitry-mory_77294/departementales-a-mitry-mory-marianne-margate-candidate-a-sa-reelection-avec-anthony-gratacos_41429843.html Habertix (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person (F10) Mateus2019 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- also crop file:Generalsuperintendent Gerhard Schmitt (1964).jpg
Here is no exact source link and license seems to me incorrect. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
nonsense text, who is this person in the image? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22Fakhir+Hussain+Gondal%22 Is this a selfie as stated? Mateus2019 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted, see log. --Wdwd (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader has uploaded a copy of this image: File:Productora_musical_cara.jpg -- Aimarekin (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributors/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Copy of File:Productora_musical_cara.jpg, which is pending deletion. Aimarekin (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributors/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
http://nouermgmt.com/AgathaFerreira.html - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
wrong date, probably wrong author/ source. he died 1975... Xocolatl (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Pure advertising for zeedijk.be. Especially the description. Wouter (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement/G10. --Wdwd (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Pure advertising for zeedijk.be. Especially the description. Wouter (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement/G10. --Wdwd (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). I see no indication that the source licenses photographs under Creative Commons. The object in the photograph is definitely public domain in the United States and possibly as an anonymous work in Honduras. I think this needs VRT verification from the Wainwright family. Abzeronow (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. Also no evidence of being in public domain HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Here it is tagged as copyrighted. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
{{delete|G10}} 28daniel (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Which probably means the nominator (who is also the uploader who uploaded this file in July 2022) thinks this file was created as an advertisement. Not obvious I think, so 7 days for discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The problem is the the FBMD in the Metadata. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Self nomination - I did not seek the proper permissions https://www.hoopshots.com.au/sbl-2017-perry-lakes-hawks-vs-geraldton-buccaneers/ DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination, copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
From a website of unknown copyright status. Pierre cb (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
https://anglicanprovince.org/ shows an all rights reserved license and no evidence of a release for the crest. Does this fall within the realm of simple shapes and letters that cannot be copyrighted? C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but how old is the crest? Might it have no copyright itself? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Highly unlikely this photo of the former Vietnamese emperor's wife is the work of the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Bookish Worm (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Есть изменения Arhimed2050 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request granted. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Есть новая версия Arhimed2050 (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request granted. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Fake license, a mixture of logos, historical and promo photos can't be own. Part of spammer's activities (blocked in ru.wiki, promo content is wiped out).
- File:Спк1.png
- File:Сургутский политехнический колледж.jpg
- File:Мастерская по компетенции Мехатроника.png
- File:Шутов Вадим Николаевич.png
- File:МНОГОФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ЦЕНТР ПРИКЛАДНЫХ КВАЛИФИКАЦИЙ СПК.png
- File:Профессиональный лицей № 56.png
- File:Награда ТОП-100 лучших ссузов России.png
- File:Открытие профессионально-технического училища.png
- File:СПК.png
Bilderling (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sideswipe9th as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moheen as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Vector file available here File:Prime Bank logo.svg. ~Moheen (keep talking) 14:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Q28 as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see how it reaches COM:TOO. Simply citing the source should be enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused and poorly categorized, seems out of scope as per COM:EDUSE. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Q28 as no permission (No permission since). Subject lived 1902-1944, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Q28 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: When filling in the source he claims that he is from the Internet and that the author is himself I suspect that he is probably infringing. Old-looking photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
not even a photo of indonesian marine officer, probably just an ordinary vanity claimed by user:penk00ps1 to create a non-notable article on wikipedia:id: ustad abu gosok 10:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems to be a photomontage lacking source(s). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality. Hard to imagine a use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears to stand for Federación de Estudiantes de la Universidad Alberto Hurtado. The university is notable, so we could keep this image, but does it need permission per COM:TOO? COM:TOO Chile seems very strict. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- No. Tengo un amigo en esta universidad. Not deleting. 186.172.121.196 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- My IP user friend, you don't get to delete or not delete. That decision will be made by the closing administrator. Did you read COM:TOO Chile? If you did, please tell us why you think Commons can host this logo? I hope we can, but I'm doubtful about that, which is why I started this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Fake template. There is a watermark on the photo. There is a clause on the website - "The content of the website is protected by copyright.The reproduction or use of graphics or images for any purpose requires the prior written consent of the company". [1]|source= https://carocar.com/html/service_-_download.html. 1934 work, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Keep Within the EU a copy of a public domain work is as public domain as the original work! A watermark and some copyfraud disclaimer don't change this. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that the scheme was published 70 years ago. Probably the scheme was stored in the company archive. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. There is no evidence that it is a promotional photo. It doesn't mean someone can scan schema and assume it was published soon after it was created. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. It is unlikely that each schematic was published immediately by the manufacturer in the press. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Drawn and signed in 1934 by someone, so not anonymous even if we can't read the signature. Also, drawings created prior to 1 July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works). The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if the author had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. Also, the drawing was still protected by copyright in Germany in 1996, so the URAA most likely restored its copyright in the US as well if it had been published by then. Because we don't know when this drawing was first published (1934? After 2003?), we don't know for how long it is still protected in the US, might be the end of 2029 (1934 + 95), or it might be the end of 2054 (1934 + 120 per PD-US-unpublished). Because all these things are not known, I've deleted the file. It can be restored in 2055 with PD-old-assumed. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. Photo scanned from book published in 2008. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. Löttgers Rolf Horst Dreyer und Pero Schmidt, Kleinbahn Verden-Walsrode - Die Geschichte der Verden-Walsroder Eisenbahn, 2008, ISBN 9783000251269 Uoijm77 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall vor 1945 entstanden, ist also gemeinfrei. Außerdem: Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Do you even take a closer look before you nominate something for deletion? There's a date of creation on the drawing: 10. 5. 38! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Drawn in 1938 by someone named Frank, so not anonymous. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. Also, the drawing was still protected by copyright in Germany in 1996, so the URAA most likely restored its copyright in the US as well if it had been published by then. Because we don't know when this drawing was first published (1938? 2008?), we don't know for how long it is still protected in the US, might be the end of 2033 (1938 + 95), or it might be the end of 2058 (1938 + 120 per PD-US-unpublished). Because all these things are not known, I've deleted the file. It can be restored in 2059 with PD-old-assumed. --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Source and author are "Anonymous". Not to mention the strange white censorship at the bottom-right, which I suspect is the site of a watermark. Is this photo taken by Cra41g (talk · contribs)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Source and author are "Anonymous" - yes, and that's relevant to what exactly? It's a photo I took in Mary King's Close.
- Not to mention the strange white censorship at the bottom-right, which I suspect is the site of a watermark - strange in what sense? Your own opinion? Again, why is this relevant? The photo is genuine, and I have several more of them. Cra41g (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Cra41g: if this is your own photo, please do not use "Anonymous". Instead, use {{Own work}} in source field and in author field, your user name. "Anonymous" is vague and unacceptable (unless the photo is 120+ years old and comes from anonymous authors, which means {{PD-old-assumed}}). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Author is notified and write here but not solved the issues in the file,he had two months to do it. --Ezarateesteban 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Reproduction of a work by Ernest Howard Shepard (1879-1976) with EXIF data claiming file is released under a Creative Commons Licence. As Shepard died less than 70 years ago, his work (and any derivative) published first in the UK is normally protected with 70 pma until 2046. The source website at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/acqyn9rc now states the image is in copyright. This would appear to have been an initial mistake in the licensing by the source website that has since been corrected. The initial Creative Commons licence seens to be invalid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A optician gives an old lady an eye test, she asks him to re Wellcome V0011531.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Reproduction of a work by Ernest Howard Shepard (1879-1976) with EXIF data claiming file is released under a Creative Commons Licence. As Shepard died less than 70 years ago, his work (and any derivative) published first in the UK is normally protected with 70 pma until 2046. The source website at https://wellcomecollection.org/works/qteubtdh now states the image is in copyright. This would appear to have been an initial mistake in the licensing by the source website that has since been corrected. The initial Creative Commons licence seens to be invalid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A dentist trying to persuade a little boy that he is not goi Wellcome V0011520.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Book illustration, the author's permission missing 188.123.231.22 03:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- This file is licensed by the author under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Vandermast (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See COM:EVID, COM:VRT. Not your opinion is required, but author’s permission. --188.123.231.32 18:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I posted this media and would like it removed, as I do not own the actual content SashaRearick (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- By "do not own the actual content," are you stating that all of your uploads were in violation of copyright laws? If so, why was your previous argument that these were private images that should be deleted for some kind of reasons of privacy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 16:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I, the uploader of this media, have received request from the subject of the photo to remove this image due to privacy concerns. As the uploader of this media, I request that the subjects privacy concerns are honored. SashaRearick (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- SashaRearick, your previous deletion request was just closed as kept. First of all, who shot this photo? Actually, that's the only question. Any claim of a loss of privacy from the sharing of a promotional image is absurd. If they didn't want their image publicized, they shouldn't have modeled. I suggest you answer questions you're asked; otherwise, this is likely to be closed as a speedy keep and you could be blocked if you keep requesting deletion every time your requests are denied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ezarateesteban 18:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 93.148.96.185 as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided and no external hits were found. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: not evidence (no source provided) of copyvio. --Ezarateesteban 18:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Not in the public domain in the U.S. per the Music Modernization Act. Sound recordings that were first published between 1947 and 1956 are protected for a period of 110 years after first publication. See COM:HIRTLE for sound recordings. Hekerui (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Help:Design#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art! Q28 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, copyrighted characters that don’t seem to be de minimis. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not in the public domain in the U.S. per the Music Modernization Act. Sound recordings that were first published between 1923 and 1946 are protected for a period of 100 years after first publication. See COM:HIRTLE for sound recordings. Undelete in 2025. Hekerui (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
File:14 Kate Beck, Morandi I, 2022. Pigment Print on Hahnemuhle German printmaking paper. 16 inches x 16 inches.jpg
[edit]
Blurry, low quality Lotje (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 04:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Description says: Author David Bedell, metadata say: Author David McIntyre/mcintyre@sinauer.com , no indication that the uploader has anything common with any of them two. 188.123.231.22 03:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Artist is David Bedell, photographer is David McIntyre. I have communicated with both. Vandermast (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See COM:EVID, COM:VRT. --188.123.231.32 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- According to Template:Artwork, "Faithful reproductions (without specific creative contribution from the photograph) of 2D art only require a license for the artwork, like {{PD-art}}." Vandermast (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Likewise, according to Commons:2D copying, "2D copying does not generate any new copyright because the resulting work is defined entirely by the original work; there is no creative input. Therefore, authors who create 2D copies are not entitled to copyright for these works, and the copyright of the original work applies." Vandermast (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Vandermast, eventually at the time when you uploaded this file we didn't have an elaborated permission-process as today. You could try to heal it by forwarding the mentioned communication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS) and mention the affected file/image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Vandermast (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- See COM:EVID, COM:VRT. --188.123.231.32 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023041310001094 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 03:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Now We Are Six
[edit]Contested speedy deletion (see related case at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard). Ernest Howard Shepard (Q382031) died in 1976 and his works are normally protected by copyright in the UK for 70 pma until 2046. However, as shown in in the previous discussion about Winnie the Pooh images last year, some of Shepard's work was simultaneously published in the US, meaning that for Commons purposes, we treat first publication as being in the US. This case will need some investigation to confirm the publication dates and locations of this work, so speedy deletion does not apply here.
- File:Now We Are Six -p1.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p100.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p101.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p102.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p104.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p105.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p106.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p107.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p108.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p109a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p109b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p110a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p110b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p111.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p112a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p112b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p113.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p114a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p114b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p115.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p15.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p16.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p17.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p18.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p19.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p20.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p21a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p21b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p22a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p22b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p22c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p23a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p23b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p23c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p24a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p24b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p25.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p26.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p27.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p28.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p29.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p30.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p31.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p32.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p33a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p33b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p33c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p33d.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p33e.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p34a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p34b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p35.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p36a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p36b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p37a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p37b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p38a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p38b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p39.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p40.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p41a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p41b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p42.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p43a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p43b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p44.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p45.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p46.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p47a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p47b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p47c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p48a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p48b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p49.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p50a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p50b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p51a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p51b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p52a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p52b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p53a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p53b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p54a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p54b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p55a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p55b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p56a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p56b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p56c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p56d.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p57a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p57b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p57c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p58.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p59.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p6.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p60.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p61.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p62a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p62b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p62c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p63a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p63b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p64a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p64b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p65a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p65b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p65c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p65d.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p66a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p66b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p67a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p67b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p68a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p68b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p69.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p7.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p71.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p72a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p72b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p72c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p73a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p73b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p73c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p74a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p74b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p75.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p76.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p77.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p78.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p79.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p80.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p81.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p82.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p83.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p85.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p86.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p87a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p87b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p89.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p90.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p92.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p93a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p93b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p94a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p94b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p95a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p95b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p95c.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p96a.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p96b.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p97.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p98.png
- File:Now We Are Six -p99.png
From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See also related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The King's Breakfast. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Languageseeker: As expressing an interest in the Now We Are Six files on the uploader's talk page. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I nomiated these for speedy deletion based on an assumption that they were first published in the UK, so life+70 &c. I'm now aware of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard. If they are kept, may I suggest that we need to post a note on each image explaining the special circumstances of dual publication in the UK and USA and the logic that the USA publication trumps the UK. Apologies, especially to From Hill To Shore, for the extra & probably unwelcome janitorial chore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The source of these images is a copy from 1955 stored at Wikisource. The copyright information of that version[2] says that the work had a 1927 copyright from the U.S. publisher in 1927 and had a copyright renewal in 1955. Worldcat has many editions recorded for this book (several of the entries are missing a publication date) but the earliest recorded publication date is a copy from Canada in 1925[3] followed by a UK copy in 1926.[4] Worldcat has a copy published in the UK with an unknown date[5] (so possibly at the same time or before the Canada copy - though there is currently no evidence to support that). Worldcat also has a copy published in the U.S. with an unknown date by a different publisher to the 1927/1955 release.[6] The first dated copies published in the U.S. are two publications from 1927 (though the similarity in publisher names may mean these were the same publication with a duplicate entry at Worldcat).[7][8] There are a couple of other sources I'd like to try before ruling out simultaneous publication in the U.S. but in the absence of further evidence, the case for deletion appears to be strong here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Catalog of Copyright Entries, 1927 Books For the Year 1927 New Series Vol 24 Part 1 p. 9788[9] says that the book was published in the U.S. in 1927 and does not mention any earlier copyright registration in the U.S. That suggests first publication was in Canada with 70 pma but even if the undated UK publication was first, the same copyright term of 70 pma would apply. That means simultaneous publication in the U.S. did not occur and this work is in copyright in the source country until 1 January 2047. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and further information by nominator. I will defer the actual deletion of the files to give en.ws a chance to transfer them. --Rosenzweig τ 18:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Scrap that, I just researched it further using the British Newspaper Archive (thanks to the Wikipedia Library). The UK edition of the book was first published in the middle of October 1927, just like the US edition. One Daily News article from October 29, 1926, one year earlier, said Mr. Milne is just now at work on “Now We Are Six”, which he hopes to have ready next Christmas in celebration of Christoper Robin's sixth birthday. So wherever those 1925 and 1926 publication dates come from, they cannot be correct if the author was still working on the book in October 1926 hoping to have it ready for Christmas 1927. --Rosenzweig τ 18:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:The King's Breakfast
[edit]Contested speedy deletion (see related case at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard). Ernest Howard Shepard (Q382031) died in 1976 and his works are normally protected by copyright in the UK for 70 pma until 2046. However, as shown in in the previous discussion about Winnie the Pooh images last year, some of Shepard's work was simultaneously published in the US, meaning that for Commons purposes, we treat first publication as being in the US. This case will need some investigation to confirm the publication dates and locations of this work, so speedy deletion does not apply here.
- File:The Kings Breakfast - cover illustration.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - feed my cow.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - introduction.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the alderney cow and the dairymaid.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the alderney cow.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the cock crows - waking the king and queen.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the court musician.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the dairymaid curtsied again.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the dairymaid curtsied.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the dairymaid with marmalade.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the dairymaid with pail.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king and queen at breakfast table.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king and queen danced.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king and queen.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king bounced out of bed.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king cannot find his dressing gown.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king found his dressing gown.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king slid down the bannister.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the king went back to bed.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the queen and king.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the queen went to the king.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - the queen.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - title page - king and queen at breakfast table.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - title.png
- File:The Kings Breakfast - versa page illustration - king and queen dancing.png
From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- See also related discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Now We Are Six. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I nomiated these for speedy deletion based on an assumption that they were first published in the UK, so life+70 &c. I'm now aware of the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Ernest Howard Shepard. If they are kept, may I suggest that we need to post a note on each image explaining the special circumstances of dual publication in the UK and USA and the logic that the USA publication trumps the UK. Apologies, especially to From Hill To Shore, for the extra & probably unwelcome janitorial chore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- These images are from (https://archive.org/details/the-kings-breakfast) and the copyright on the versa page says "copyright 1924, 1925 ... Printed in the United States of America" (see page 5 of the Internet Archive copy https://archive.org/details/the-kings-breakfast/page/n5/mode/1up) St. Andrews Drive (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- These images are from (https://archive.org/details/the-kings-breakfast) and the copyright on the versa page says "copyright 1924, 1925 ... Printed in the United States of America" (see page 5 of the Internet Archive copy https://archive.org/details/the-kings-breakfast/page/n5/mode/1up) St. Andrews Drive (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Looking on Worldcat there was a version of the book from 1924 but no place of publication is recorded.[10] Then in 1925 there appears to have been simultaneous (or near simultaneous) publication in London,[11] New York[12] and Toronto.[13] While we can see that the 1925 edition included images from Shepard, there is no evidence to confirm if the same was true of the 1924 edition (as noted by one user in the Winnie the Pooh discussion, Milne had previously released the first chapter of that work with a different illustrator). Barring any more details of the 1924 work coming to light, I think we can declare this as a simultaneous publication in multiple source countries, including the US. According to Commons rules, we should therefore treat this as a US work and retain the images as PD. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 217.66.157.142 as no permission (No permission since). 1926 photo, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good afternoon. The administrator and author of articles on the site http://barbotkin.ru/sample-page is I, Mikhail Dmitrievich Barbotkin. This photo is from my personal archive. I am the grandson of Dementy Ivanovich Barbotkin. Михаил Барботкин (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work by the uploader, the original photograph has unclear license staus. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
2020 image from Pixabay, which can't be used at Commons per {{Pixabay}}. https://pixabay.com/photos/monkey-mirror-thinking-reflection-4788334/
As discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Images from MaxPixel.FreeGreatPicture.com, the maxpixel.com site credited here appears to be a simple mirror of the Pixabay site, using the same filenames. The 2016 date on the file here is perhaps when the photo was originally taken, rather than when it was uploaded to Pixabay (and released under the non-free Pixabay licence). Belbury (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
very unlikely to be "own work", appears to have been converted to black and white from colour photos elsewhere on the web. NO proof of authorship submitted to OTRS, uploaded by a red-linked user. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1994. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Siegfried Bufe, Heribert Schröpfer, Eduard Bündgen: Die Köln-Bonner Eisenbahnen 1891–1992. EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1994. ISBN 3-88255-502-5. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Aufnahme stammt aus den 1930er Jahren, ist also gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Delete The date the photo was taken in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above photo is not in the public domain. --Uoijm77 (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: URAA would apply to a 1930 photograph from Germany. Additionally, we don't know when this was published in the 1930s so Undelete in 2051. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rainerhaufe as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: besserer Scan verwendet --Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: @Rainerhaufe: I did not find the better scan. Can you please nominate the image again with a link to the better scan. It should be exactly the same image. --Ellywa (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. It is not known when it was published. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license. Please refer to Commons:Publication. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. Probably the photo comes from a private collection. It doesn't mean someone can scan a photo from any book and assume it was published immediately after it was created. It can be assumed that the photo was published many years later. There is no evidence that there is a promotional photo. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. © Eisenbahn Kurier. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz: "Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten". EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2 Uoijm77 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Aufnahme stammt aus der Zeit vor 1930, ist also gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The DRG 852 entered service in 1926. We don't know the exact circumstances of publication in this case, but it could be reasonable to surmise this photograph was created in 1926. Undelete in 2047. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It is not known when it was published. Photo scanned from book published in 2013. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license. Please refer to Commons:Publication. In addition, the entire content of the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. Probably the photo comes from a private collection. It doesn't mean someone can scan a photo from any book and assume it was published immediately after it was created. It can be assumed that the photo was published many years later. There is no evidence that there is a promotional photo. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. © Eisenbahn Kurier. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz Kurz: Triebwagen der Deutschen Reichsbahn, EK-Verlag, Freiburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-88255-162-4, Uoijm77 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Aufnahme stammt aus der Zeit um 1935, ist also gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ČKD works photograph from year of production. There's even their logo printed in the bottom left corner. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per Herbert Ortner. This was published circa 1935, and the copyright would have expired in 1986. It is public domain in the US because it was public domain in its country of origin in 1996. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1985. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das Fahrzeug stammt aus der Zeit um 1935, Aufnahme ist also gemeinfrei. Außerdem Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The vehicle production date in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above schema is not in the public domain. There is no evidence that the schema was created and published more than 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep That's an original drawing. There's a header with a (albeit unreadable) original date and a company's logo on it. Such is not recreated in new drawings made for a book! And concerning In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. That's simply not true, no matter what disclaimers they print. Each illustration stands for itself with its own copyright. Once public domain it remains that way – printing in a new publication doesn't re-copyright it! That's a clear statement by the new EU copyright directive. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that the schema was published more than 70 years ago. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: URAA would apply to a 1936 German drawing. Soonest this could be undeleted is in 2032. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. © VGB Verlagsgruppe Bahn GmbH. Photo scanned from book published in 1987. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Aufnahme stammt aus der Zeit um 1910, ist also gemeinfrei. Außerdem Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The vehicle production date in this case is irrelevant. The date of publication is more important. The above schema is not in the public domain. There is no evidence that the schema was created and published more than 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP While these railcars entered service in 1912 and 1913, there's no indication that they were published at that time. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz Kurz, "Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall vor 1945 entstanden, ist also gemeinfrei. Außerdem: Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Only photographs published 70 years ago are in the public domain. There is no evidence that the photo was published earlier than this book. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The railcars were in service between 1926 and 1946, and this could have been published any time in that period. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz Kurz, "Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1935 entstanden, ist also gemeinfrei. Außerdem: Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A photo is only in the public domain if it can be proven that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: This was in service between 1937 and 1967. URAA would apply, and we don't know when in that period this was published. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Comme vous n'êtes pas le seul et unique détenteur des droits, une autorisation via email est nécessaire.
As you are not the sole copyright holder, a permission via email est nécessaire.
- File:Professeur Béatrice Galinon-Mélénec. universitaire français du XXIème siècle.jpg
- File:Yves Jeanneret. Colloque L'Homme-trace, Le Havre, 2011 - 1.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. VRT permission required from other rights holders. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
.webp&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.webp&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 81.41.172.147 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not a government work, not appears in the Royal Collection with a clearly claim that this specific photograph was commissioned by the Royal Family (which would made it eligible to be PD-UK-Gov), but instead, a copy of the same photo appears in the National Portrait Gallery with a copyright notice to V&A Images, the Victoria & Albert Museum). Also there is no evidence in the original source that corroborates that this specific photo is PD-UK-Gov. Unless evidence is provided, this file may be considered a copyvio and deleted according with the precautionary principle. However, this file could be undeleted in 2051, when 70 years from Beaton's death had been passed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
- Comment See previous comments at Special:Permalink/728355356#File:Elizabeth II & Philip after coronation (Elizabeth II sitting).webp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Keep The image is clearly an official portrait, with the National Portait Gallery page describing it as a "coronation sitting". Beaton was an official photographer for the coronation, as noted here. Therefore, it was commissioned by the royal family (i.e. the Crown), so the copyright belonged to them. As per COM:CROWN, Crown copyright photographs created prior to 1957 became public domain after 50 years, which was in 2003 for this image. The Canadian Government identifies an almost identical image as copyright expired. Please see this discussion on a similar coronation portrait by the same photographer.--Madfly2 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
Delete I see no reason why this image is PD. As it says in the file description, it was taken by Cecil Beaton, who was a private citizen -- never an employee of the UK government. Beaton died in 1980, so it will be under UK copyright until 1/1/2051.
It is asserted above that since the image was "commissioned" by the Royal Family, they (the Crown) own the copyright. In order to rely on that, it must be proven that the contract between Beaton and the Crown licensed the Crown to freely license the image to others. Such a license would be unusual. If they license the image at all, photographers almost always license the subject to use images for their own purposes -- publicity and so forth -- but very rarely allow the subject to freely license the image to anybody for any use.
However that question is moot, since even if the image is Crown Copyright, that would have expired at 1/1/2004, well after the URAA date, so it has a US copyright until 1/1/2049. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
Info: URAA cannot be eligible to {{PD-UK-Gov}} works because, as the tag itself explains: "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)". 81.41.172.147 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)- Delete: Although we currently have the precedent of this file in which, per Community discussion, was kept after providing evidences confirming that photograph as a commission by the Royal Family, however this doesn't appear to be the same case for this photograph in question. The reason is because the original source of this file, the Telegraph publication, doesn't give any proof that this specific photo was commissioned by either the Royal Family or the Government, but only a claim that the creator was Beaton and that the image comes from Alamy: "Credit:Cecil Beaton / Alamy". Also, seraching in the Royal Collection Trust website –where File:Queen Elizabeth II on her Coronation Day (cropped).jpg, the file kept after conclussion to be PD, comes from– to find a copy of this file there, but I didn't found it. The only (serious) collection in which I found a copy of it was the National Portrait Gallery, with a copyright notice to the Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A Images), who is the owner of Beaton's state. In the NPG there is no evidence that this photograph in question was commissioned. Only says: Given by Mr Ford Hill and the American Friends of the National Portrait Gallery (London) Foundation, Inc., 2015 and the Coronation sitting took place in the Green Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace. Beaton's friend Patrick Matthews, managing director of Vogue Studios had helped manage technical and practical preparations. Two painted backdrops were used for the sitting. The backdrop shown here depicts a view of Westminster Abbey from the river, and is based upon the engraving View of the Debarkation on Lord Mayor's Day (1844) by Edward Goodall. The backdrop and red canopy also reference George Hayter's compositions for his Coronation portrait of Queen Victoria (1840). Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is shown wearing the uniform of Admiral of the Fleet. In contrast, if we refer to the Royal Collection's photo that has been decided to keep, we can see in its DR that the Royal Collection's website (ref included in DR) lists provenance of the photo as From the Collection of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. In other words, was in the Royal Family's collection after the Coronation. Unless we can verify that this photograph in question was part of that collection too at some point, it should be assumed that this image's rights belonged to Beaton from the beginning and, for that, would be copyrighted currently in the UK and the US –in the first case, because the protection period did not expired yet, and in the US, because the URAA restored the copyright due to being copyrighted in the home country in 1996–. 81.41.172.147 18:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- What we know is that Beaton was the Royal Family's court photographer at the time. [14] We also know that he took official photographs at Buckingham Palace on the day of the coronation. [15] I think it can be safely assumed that this photo (taken by him at Buckhingham Palace on the same day) is one of these official photographs, taken in his capacity as court photograher, even if it isn't stated specifically. The Canadian Government thinks so, which is why they say this photo is copyright expried. Madfly2 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- From UK Government: "Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator." So there is no requirement for Beaton to have licenced the image to the Royal Family- they automatically held the copyright. Madfly2 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No evidence presented that Beaton wasn't the copyright holder( there was no evidence presented that the photograph was a commission) Undelete in 2051. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
.webp){kind=link}
No EXIF, likely a copyvio. Engr. Smitty (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Another photo was uploaded by the user which is highly similar from this image being requested to be deleted (i.e same shirt, shorts, shoes, etc.) Engr. Smitty (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This is because I transferred this photo from my other phone using viber app. Hence, EXIF was removed.
I am the owner of this photo. Definitely not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aileen.n.dc (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Please upload this again because this is the latest one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aileen.n.dc (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete not because of copyvio, but because it's a low-res duplicate of File:Alex Cabagnot 2023 2nd Photo.jpg. JPEGs work better for photos on Wiki than PNGs. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Wrong date, and this looks like a way to false license. Needs to be discussed. PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Russia and USA, the old date was the date of the scan/upload. Every noob uses the date of the upload. --RAN (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I see your point. This may be really true, if the image was PUBLISHED anonymously many years ago. So the question is, when and where was this image published? Thanks! --
- PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It is unclear who is the photographer. Is it anonymous work – unclear (the fact that I and you do not know the photographer does not mean anonymous). When and where the photo was made – unclear. When and where the photo was first published – unclear.
- FlorianH76 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Missing evidence of the first publication 70 or more years ago to meet requirements of COM:Russia. --Komarof (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.2.158 11:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC) ːNo source stated; Tin eyes finds me this images. Same uploader has mutliple similarly styled maps. --̴̃Enyavar (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a png file that had previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. Discussions about the veracity of the image need to happen on the projects where the file is used. As long as it's still in use on the local projects, it's in scope here. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a png file that had previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- delete per nom and rationales in the mentioned deletion request.Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. Discussions about the veracity of the image need to happen on the projects where the file is used. As long as it's still in use on the local projects, it's in scope here. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a png file that had previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. Discussions about the veracity of the image need to happen on the projects where the file is used. As long as it's still in use on the local projects, it's in scope here. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a png file that had previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. Discussions about the veracity of the image need to happen on the projects where the file is used. As long as it's still in use on the local projects, it's in scope here. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a png file that had previously been deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png), see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. Discussions about the veracity of the image need to happen on the projects where the file is used. As long as it's still in use on the local projects, it's in scope here. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
copyviol., recent artwork, artist not stated Mateus2019 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation: This is a copyright-protected flag/logo. Invalid PD reason, logos from a terrorist organization are still subject to copyright (In addition, the group is not listed as terrorist organization in the United States as far as available sources are concerned). Uploader removes speedy deletion tag, thus the usage of deletion request. The flag can be found on various sites, including here, never with a note about it having been released under Creative Commons. Applodion (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I created the vector image, and that's saying the Islamic State can have copyright, it makes no sense, and unless I use that specific image and other images that may be available, I might be subject to copyright violations, but I created this specific vector image, and I released this specific vector image to C.C 4.0, so I'm not under any copyright violations nor am I committing any. RowanJ LP (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- You have also uploaded many other files with the same rationale that "terrorists can't own copyright". Your answer here also shows that you do not understand how copyright works. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Derivatives of a copyright protected work are violations of copyright. Whether the person who owns copyright is a terrorist isn't relevant. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I changed the PD reason, so please reconsider the delete request, I'm just now really understanding copyright, sorry. RowanJ LP (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Your new reasoning ignores a) the sword, and b) the fact that the written text is calligraphy, i.e. art, not just a bunch of words. Applodion (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies, I meant textlogo, not just text. RowanJ LP (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Your new reasoning ignores a) the sword, and b) the fact that the written text is calligraphy, i.e. art, not just a bunch of words. Applodion (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
How is Rowan supposed to contact the group let alone contact the person behind this flag? "Subject to copyright" is an oxymoron. It's not like jihadists will do a copyright strike. Even if they don't (believe me they won't), guys like you do it on their behalf as if the entirety of Wikimedia will come down collapsing if it isn't done so. Throwaway865432 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Felix Kästle) M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am an employee of ZF Friedrichshafen AG and am responsible for updating the pages and also for creating the page of Dr. Holger Klein. The picture was taken by Felix Kästle on behalf of ZF, which is why we hold the picture rights.
- Account verification has already been requested. Zfkonzern (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. @Zfkonzern: , please closely follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the copyright holder/photographer to publish the image or media file on Commons with a free license. If successful, the image or media file can be undeleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). 1960 photograph by Studio Harcourt. Won't be public domain in France until 2031. Bogus Creative Commons license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning to keep as public domain per the statement by Studio Harcourt in VRT ticket #2020112910005534 from Studio Harcourt : "This photographic fonds is not under copyright, so anyone who owns a portrait from 1934-1991 may use it freely." (translated). However, the claim by the uploader Simonbnb22 to own a copyright may be possible if rights were specially acquired by the client in 1960 and if the uploader inherited them. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per [{COM:PRP]]. Unclear if this photo falls within the permission ticket. --Ellywa (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). 1943 Honduras photograph. May be public domain in country of origin. Photographer could have lived past 1947 though. (Honduras is 75 years PMA) Abzeronow (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). 1924 photograph from Honduras. Could be public domain. Source indicates it was used in a 2010 book. Photographer could have lived past 1947 though. Abzeronow (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per community voting of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template and {{PD-old-assumed}} a photo which is older than 120 years can be maintained. Therefore this photo must be deleted now but it can be undeleted 121 years after 1924 (when photo was made) - in 2055.. --Ellywa (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Marchjuly as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Yann (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I tagged this with {{Dw no source since}} because it's appears to be photograph of the inner title page of the book Times Means Tucker by H.P. ("Duke") Triton published by the Bulletin Newspaper Co. in 1959, but in hindsight it was probably to being it up for discussion here from the start. The country of first publication appears to be Australia and I wasn't able to find anything in COM:Australia which might indicate this book is now within the public domain. Triton died in 1965 and Australia seems to follow a 70-year p.m.a for literary works; so, this didn't seem to PD simply due to its age and would not be PD for that reason until 2036. Since this is a signed copy, perhaps the signatures were intended to be the main point of the photo; however, the signatures aren't that of the author but of his daughter and nephew. It's also not clear whether the inner cover imagery itself would be considered a case of COM:DM in this case since showing the signatures without the rest of photo seems pointless. The signatures themselves have very little educational value in my opinion and don't add any encyclopedic value to the Wikipedia article about Triton; if the book itself, however, is now within the PD, then perhaps a image of its front cover could be uploaded instead or this image cropped to remove the signatures. If the book's not PD, then I can't see any value to keeping this image per COM:NOTUSED and COM:SPAM. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The book is not PD, but there is typically nothing copyrightable on the title page. Short phrases like titles are not copyrightable, usually. The book text and images are the copyrightable content, so correct those would still be under copyright. The UK and Australia both have a 25-year copyright on copying printed editions (i.e. the particular typographical layout of a printed edition), but that expired long ago. (Typographical arrangement is not protected by U.S. copyright at all.). The text of the added inscriptions is likewise not copyrightable. The graphic in the middle of the page would be copyrightable; that was likely not the book author though so was probably anonymous. That anonymous copyright would last until 2030 in Australia, and 2055 in the U.S. (provided the book with that graphic was not also published there in 1959). However, you could argue it is Commons:De minimis here (criteria 3); it's pretty unavoidable. At worst, a slight blurring of it would be enough. There is some value in a title page, and probably also some in the inscriptions from the daughter and grandson, since they apparently visited a site honoring the person. I'd probably say there is enough educational value.
- The biggest issue is that it was previously published at https://blog.bushmusic.org.au/2018/05/visit-to-tritton-hall-by-duke-trittons.html . The named author there sure looks like the uploader here, so it's almost certainly valid, but if we strictly apply policy there should be some COM:VRT communication to confirm that (since there is no CC license mentioned on the source page). I would Keep on the actual content and scope issues, calling the graphic figure incidental, but could understand someone wanting it slightly blurred. The licensing of the photo itself is the only thing, for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Imho the figure in the middle is not de minimis and is copyrighted. Nobody took the trouble to upload a blurred version. If you like to perform that @Clindberg and Marchjuly: , please get into toch so I can temporary undelete this version so you can blur it. --Ellywa (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
