Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/02/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
![15 File:The original "Company".gif](#File:The_original_"Company".gif){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Elsa.jpg){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Santa_Claus.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Privacypolicy. Büderich (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: If you want privacy, then do not upload an image like this; the file itself is a useless personal picture of a rather boring subject that we've all seen too often here already. --Wutsje 12:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Fplanas24 doesn't own the rights of this file (it has a copyright notice). Sété40 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
While NBC is currently undergoing a rebranding (refreshing the peacock and changing the "NBC" typeface), I'm not sure this is a genuine logo NBC News logo — the only off-wiki evidence of anything resembling this that I've found is a mockup on DeviantArt, and official NBC sites still use pre-2022–23 logos. Uploader is a sock of an LTA. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, from long time logo troll who keeps creating new accounts. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
I uploaded it by mistake M4tinbeigi (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Iorisrandombses5001 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Non free, copyviol from http://www.cisv.it/rosso/bandiere1.html GJo (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Not free, copyviol from http://www.cisv.it/rosso/bandiere16.html GJo (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Image is found in various places on social media discospinster (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence of a free license. --Achim55 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It is a copyright violation of my work.
http://claycritters.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/prepuce-development-2009-scaled.jpg Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Polarlys: Could you please close this deletion request. TilmannR (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Video indicated from Telegram account @kenzoprank, there is no proof that the uploader is the same as the copyright holder of the video A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as it is doubtful whether this is the {{Own}} work by the uploader as claimed (it appears to be taken from a Telegram posting) and serious concerns regarding the age of the depicted person. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Video indicated from Twitter account @onlyfangodz, there is no proof that the uploader is the same as the copyright holder of the video A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Leave teenagers in peace. DELETE. 181.43.3.236 15:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as it is doubtful whether this is the {{Own}} work by the uploader as claimed (it appears to be taken from a Twitter posting) and serious concerns regarding the age of the depicted person. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I accidentally made a duplicate by using UploadWizard instead of uploading a better version Snowladen (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung Haster2 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hardly above COM:TOO; the part with part of the logo on the right could be cut away. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Hmm. The parts that potentially rise above TOO I'm easy calling de minimis. Whether it has an real educational purpose is a different matter. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Not deleted. 181.43.3.236 14:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Krd: Is this a case of Category:Deletion error/T244567? TilmannR (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: technical: deleted the file page that was not deleted earlier. --Rosenzweig τ 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Out-of-scope logo of unknown company. Pierre cb (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
![00:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/03#c-Pierre_cb-20230203001500-File:The_original_"Company".gif){kind=link}
Delete out of scope. looks like a joke upload — Rhododendrites talk | 03:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 08:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
![08:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/03#c-Rosenzweig-20230206085400-File:The_original_"Company".gif){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out-of-scope Pierre cb (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 08:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept JRennocks (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Photograph of a copyrighted 2D artwork. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stained glass windows are considered "works of artistic craftsmanship" which fall under FOP in the UK, see COM:FOP UK Oxyman (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies. I must've missed that 2D exception. I withdraw this nomination. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal "art". Out of scope.
- File:Kask astronauty fotowoltaiczny Tesla eco Panele fotowoltaiczne przestrzenne w silnikach spalinowych z ekologicznym pochłaniaczem oparów dla ochrony środowiska.png
- File:Tesla eco kod kosmosu zapisany w gwiazdach odbicia światła i cienia.png
- File:Tesla eco transporter kosmos maschine.png
Yann (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete See uploads too.
- Delete everything. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all. Pierre cb (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal "art". Out of scope. And derivative works without source, author, or proper license.
- File:Dym zamieniac na olej regeneracja energii.jpg
- File:Terraforming Planet Before-after-from-red-to-green-1024x576.jpg
- File:Space project eco Air way to cosmos.jpg
- File:Eco Engine PV cosmos 808 Silnik odrzutowy PV Fotowoltaiczno ekologiczny.png
- File:2014 l 2015 jeszcze rysować dobrze nie potrafiłem ale już wtedy myślałem o ogniwach m3.jpg
- File:8 Silnik odrzutowy PV Fotowoltaiczno ekologiczny.png
- File:Engine photovoltaic Tlen pod cisnieniem odrzutowym bez Co2 EKo odrzutowy silnik z myjką solarów.png
- File:Fotowoltaiczny silnik odrzutowy ekologiczny.png
- File:Chamowanie wiatru oporem z gór odnawialnej energii po przez formowanie terenu jego ukształtowania.png
- File:Australia Terraforming planet earth help 2.png
- File:Regenerator paliwa i oraz maszyna zartrzymująca co2 opary zdrowy tlen eko auto fotowoltaiczne.png
- File:Motor fotowoltaiczny silnik pv jedno tłokowy pv power.png
- File:Motor fotowoltaiczny silnik pv jedno tłokowy.png
- File:Motor PV Photovoltaic Tesla eco Sebastian Laskowski śilnik fotowoltaiczny v4 pv kwp.png
- File:Super planet 1.png
- File:Logo tesla eco mp.png
- File:Pv 1,2 MW motor 120v logo tesla eco mp.png
- File:Art. Vision Australia Terraforming planet earth help.png
- File:Do silnika fotowoltaicznego neutralizator spalin oraz generator prądu odnawialnego.png
- File:Samolotów dodatkowe bezpieczeństwo spadochron plus awaryjne silniki dla poprawy ochrony ludzi informacja dla producentów samolotów.png
- File:Airplane safety parachute plus emergency engines for improved human protection information for airplane manufacturers.png
- File:Lotnictwa samolotów bezpieczeństwo spadochron plus awaryjne silniki.wizja artystyczna Tesla Eco bezpieczne loty.png
- File:Rozumienie kosmosu Superek efekt.png
- File:Wow code.png
- File:Kod kosmosu 1 code cosmos.png
- File:Kod kosmosu 2 code cosmos.png
- File:Super cod dużego wozu.png
- File:Planet Earth Terraforming Art. vision.png
- File:Silnik fotowoltaiczny.png
- File:Testy.jpg
- File:Testy pomiarów geometrycznych ogniw fotowoltaicznych.jpg
- File:Przekrój głowicy cylindra i tłoka fotowoltaicznego oraz kolektora.png
- File:Prototyp tesla Eco.pdf
- File:Powietrze najlepszej jakości rzeki na pustyniach zdrowe lepsze powietrze dobra Planeta Tesla eco.png
- File:Planet wf 6.png
- File:Planet wf 5.png
- File:Planet wf 4.png
- File:Planet wf 3.png
- File:Planet wf 2.png
- File:Planet w f 8.png
- File:OPIS I rysunki patentowe piramidki solarnej lustra soczewki.png
- File:DNA SOL.png
- File:Nasza planeta po naprawie tesla eco.png
- File:Tesla Autobiorografia wspólne marzenia o zrobieniu rzek i jezior na pustyniach jak Sebastian Laskowski Tesla eco.jpg
- File:Pojazd kopanie rzeki Tesla Eco.png
- File:TESLA ECO RYSUNKI DO OPISÓW.png
- File:Pojazd wiertniczy wiertło do robienia rzek tesla eco zrobienie na pustyniach rzek i jezior.png
- File:Transporter tesla eco model auto.png
- File:Planet Work Force Terraforming game.png
Yann (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Delete all. Pierre cb (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
dobro planety na miejscu pierwszym Zadbajmy o dobro i ekologie na planecie o zdrowie. Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contribs)
[edit]Again, unused personal "art". Out of scope. And derivative works without source, author, or proper license. There needs to be a block on further uploads too.
No objection to deleting their older stuff too, see Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- File:Code cosmos schemat kod kosmosu.png
- File:Skala słońca odległości od ziemi wyrażony planetami ziemia.png
- File:Odległość Planety ziemi od Słońca to odległość 365 wymiarów Planety Ziemia.png
- File:TerraformingplanetcratorFile.png
- File:Planet doing Dark and light Adobe Express & GIMP art. Vision.png
- File:Naczynie ciśnieniowe balony do projektu ekologicznego auta 1.jpg
- File:Naczynie ciśnieniowe balony do projektu ekologicznego auta 2.jpg
- File:Silnik tesli eco.png
- File:Eco car tesla eco.png
- File:Czyste powietrze ekologiczny samochód Tesla Eco Sebastian Laskowski.png
Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contribs)
[edit]User is established as a serial W:WP:NOTWEBHOST violator; as I don’t speak Polish I can’t infer any obvious use to these images.
- File:Astronomiczne wzory z układów gwiazd łączenie układów konstelacji gwiazd w tym przypadku duży wóz.png
- File:Duży wóz code cosmos game.png
- File:Ładowanie pojazdów elektrycznych odnawialnymi źródłami energii.png
- File:Zestaw do budowy pochłaniacza dymu generatora.jpg
- File:Schemat pochłaniacza dymu generatora.png
- File:Zatrzymam spaliny z tłumika i stworze prąd z powietrza.jpg
- File:Generator prądu turbina z wiatrakami warstwowymi na powietrze przeznaczona do pracy w wodzie do pochłaniacza dymu 1.jpg
- File:Super dodatek do neutralizowania spalin.jpg
- File:Wyposażenie ekologicznego silnika.jpg
- File:Paeteantu ważne do rysunku.jpg
- File:Simulator terraforming planet.png
- File:Przekrój GŁowicy fotowoltaicznej i tłoka fotowoltaicznego (2)~2.png
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 1 4 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 1 2 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 1 0 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 11 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 9 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 8 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 7 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 5 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 6 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 4 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 2 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 1 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Fotowoltaiczny test 3 polegający na odbiciu promieniowania.jpg
- File:Odbicie światła dobre z większą pojemnością Kartka w prostokąt do testu zatrzymania światła oświetlana przez laser do zrozumienia rozwiązania.jpg
- File:W nocy Fotowoltaiczne testy 2 powrót energii przez odbicie od płaszczyzn.jpg
- File:Pv Test laser 1 powrót energii przez odbicie.jpg
- File:Kartka w prostokąt do testu zatrzymania światła.jpg
- File:Super schemat sobie narysowałem Tesla Eco.png
- File:Cylinder fotowoltaiczny 2 tłoki motor silnik pv.png
- File:Rozładowane akumulatory.jpg
- File:Maszyna na tlen pod cisnieniem latająca produkująca prąd fotowoltaicznie oraz wiatrowo z grawitacji przy lądowaniu łapacz piorunów Tesla Eco Sebastian Laskowski Prototyp Polska Poland.png
- File:Podciśnieniowa tlenowa Rakieta do lotów kosmos i robienia że gór i rzek fotowoltaiczny pojemnościowy magazyn energii Tesla Eco.png
- File:Wysoko prężne ciśnienie badania.jpg
- File:Generatory prądnice do silnika fotowoltaicznego neutralizator spalin oraz generator prądu odnawialnego.png
- File:Odnawialne źródła energii turbina do tłumika.jpg
- File:Kod kosmosu gra game.png
- File:Układ do gry kod kosmosu.png
- File:Testy cięcia płytek solarnych.jpg
- File:Testy cięcia pod ciśnieniem wody ogniw.jpg
- File:Wycinanie ogniw fotowoltaicznych 1.jpg
- File:Wycinanie ogniw fotowoltaicznych 3.jpg
- File:Wycięte ogniwo fotowoltaiczne.jpg
- File:Model warstw fotowoltaicznych TESLA ECO.png
- File:Schemat przekroje.png
- File:Sebastian Laskowski TESLA ECO RYSUNKI DO OPISÓW.png
- File:Postaraj sie wwoo.png
- File:Konstrukcja Prototyp 18 ścian sześciennych inspiracja piramidy w sześcianie do solara fotowoltaicznego.jpg
- File:Przekrój 6 na 6 konstrukcji.jpg
- File:Swieża wersja.png
- File:9 18 ścian.png
- File:8 18 ścian.png
- File:7 18 ścian.png
- File:5 18 ścian.png
- File:6 18 ścian.png
- File:4 18 ścian.png
- File:1 18 ścian.png
- File:2 18 ścian.png
- File:318 ścian.png
- File:Paten maszyna zamieniająca dym zamieniac w inną postać energii ochraniając przy tym srodowisko przed szkodliwymi oparami.png
- File:Wycinanie cell ogniw fotowoltaicznych w trójląty.jpg
- File:Testy piramidki solarnej tesla eco.jpg
- File:Testy fotowoltaicznych piramid.jpg
- File:Tesla Eco budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 5.jpg
- File:Tesla Eco budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 1.jpg
- File:Prototyp geometryczny solarny osiemnasciescian dwustronnych ogniw fotowoltaicznych plus sześć ścian do skupiania światła tworząc razem osiemnaścieścian fotowoltaicznych tworząc moduł fotowoltaiczny.jpg
- File:Elektryczne Pomiary 10x wieksze natężenie prądu dzieki soczewce wniosek im wiecej światła skupimy tym wiecej mocy utworzymy tesla eco Sebastian Laskowski.jpg
- File:Piramida z luster.jpg
- File:Piramid fotowoltaiczne geometryczne solar.jpg
- File:Neutralizator dymu.jpg
- File:Neutralizator co2 wodą ochrona środowiska dzieki zmiejszaniu zanieczyszczeń poprzez zraszanie zimną wodą pod ciśnieniem.jpg
- File:Lustro geometryczne do doświetlanie i skupiania wiekszej ilości światła do fotowoltaicznych modułów Tesla Eco.jpg
- File:Dwudziestoczterościan tesla eco.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego.jpg
- File:Cztery trójkąty solarne do piramidki.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 3.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego Tesla eco.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 6.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 4.jpg
- File:Budowa modułu geometrycznego modułu fotowoltaicznego 2.jpg
- File:Badania energii.jpg
- File:Kiedy wierzysz że się uda.jpg
- File:Budowa ogniwa sześcian z piramid z śietymi wierzchołkami Tesla Eco.jpg
- File:Sobie powycinałem celki solarne w trójkąty.jpg
- File:Piec fotowoltaiczny prąd ze światła od ognia tesla eco.jpg
~2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Again, these range from random incomprehensible (and blurry) images that might at best make a club flier, through to technical illustrations of random bits of "green technology", but so short on context that they're of no SCOPE value. Delete the lot. If anyone can make a case to preserve any of these, then make it and I'm prepared to listen – but there's nothing here so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pierre cb (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All blurry files, ones that look decent should stay. A09 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Should we keep a file like this File:Prototyp geometryczny solarny osiemnasciescian dwustronnych ogniw fotowoltaicznych plus sześć ścian do skupiania światła tworząc razem osiemnaścieścian fotowoltaicznych tworząc moduł fotowoltaiczny.jpg?
- "Water CO2 neutralizer environmental protection by reducing pollution by spraying with pressurized cold water" – it appears (unexplained) to be a device to reduce environmental CO2 by "washing" the air with water. It's not clear how this is meant to work. Spraying water won't absorb any useful amount of CO2. Nor is it clear how this pressurized water is obtained (by burning more fossil fuels to pump it, thus generating much more CO2 than anything removed?)
- This stuff, even the non-blurry stuff, is free-energy snake-oil. It's directly against our educational goals to give credibility to such nonsense. That's why they should be deleted, not just the quality reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It’s presumably powered by one of the poorly constructed photovoltaic cells depicted in the files, which would likely provide even less energy than your average solar cell. Dronebogus (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those aren't butchered solar cells, they're Tesla Eco butchered solar cells. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I’m also at a loss about what this contraption could possibly be. Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a hohlraum. Which is an interesting idea, but the cells would work so much better if left unbutchered, and just placed perpendicular to the light direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- This diff might explain a LITTLE bit of what was going through this user’s head: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ittiz&diff=prev&oldid=1144677617 Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's a hohlraum. Which is an interesting idea, but the cells would work so much better if left unbutchered, and just placed perpendicular to the light direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- It’s presumably powered by one of the poorly constructed photovoltaic cells depicted in the files, which would likely provide even less energy than your average solar cell. Dronebogus (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Planet Work Force Terraforming (talk · contribs)
[edit]Fantasy AI artwork about uploader's theory of the terraformation of Earth. Out of scope.
- File:Tworzenie gór na innych planetach tworzenie cienia kondensowane doliny wody tworzenie chmur opis mój grafika wykonana przez Ai DALLE.webp
- File:DALLE Darw Graphic Ai School global Planet education ai.png
- File:Góry utworzone na pustyniach wizja Ai.jpg
—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Bidgee (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Velma (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Kadı. --Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the author's official website picture https://www.horanesmith.com/about-me/ AngusWOOF (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Uneven mix of fonts (and unusual character-perspective regardless). Have File:Ammonium laurate.svg DMacks (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Same low quality image as always from this uploader. It's unused and there is a high quality replacement. Marbletan (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 20:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Text is too small to be readable. Own work is unlikely, probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This image had been speedy-tagged by uploader <30 minutes after upload. But as an invalid template was used "Suppression Immédiate|Erruer de fichier lorsque je l'ai téléchargée, désolé...", it was never noticed or processed since 2014! -- Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I cannot identify the channel. A lot of countris have en:Sky Television and a lot of countries have en:TV5, but there is no Sky TV5. Also the logo has very small size, maybe it is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Educational value is not shown. Nonsense description, no good categories. In addition, this is white text on transparent background. Maybe the logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Álvaro Jesús Bonilla is not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in es.wiki. The photo is out of project scope. In addition, this is small photo without metadata and the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Visual characteristics suggest screenshot of broadcast, user's only other upload a blatant NETCOPYVIO of this subject. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
For three reasons: First, it is likely to be out of COM:SCOPE as it is the logo of a non-notable company and is not in use. Given that the uploader's username includes the name of this company ("Ronofel1401"), it is likely to be an advertisement. Aside from that, the logo itself is likely to be above COM:TOO Iran, and therefore require VRT permission. In addition, the background may be a derivative work of non-free content, as it is likely to be a "mockup" taken from the Internet (similar to this one). Ahmadtalk 20:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: this is a PDF file containing the comprehensive personal resume of a university professor whose article in Persian Wikipedia (w:fa:صفا کاظمیان, created by the uploader) was twice speedy deleted. Ahmadtalk 21:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
File:Irma Carranza, Embraer's representative in Mexico with Brazil's military attaché, 1981.jpg
[edit]
Photo apparently from 1981 is not also by the uploader in 2023. Lacking needed actual source & license info Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
De foto is een duplicaat. 186.174.84.245 03:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete per COM:CSD#F8: Scaled-down duplicate of KP KHALID.png. TilmannR (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
DELETE even if erected some day. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.43.3.236 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Iorisrandombses5001 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no problem with selfies. The issue is that this individual doesn't appear to be notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
unused self advertisement Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright. See here where is mentioned "Maker: FRANK BELLINO | Bronvermelding: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER". The same applies for the same photo File:AddText 12-20-02.29.33.png. Wouter (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
a copy of a page from a printed book released in 1980, it does not meet the criteria for free use (PD-Russia) since the book was released less than 70 years ago Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a Renault advertisement, not an own work HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Moinolitto (talk · contribs)
[edit]Oeuvres non libres puisque fr:Jacques Loiseau nous apprend que son auteur est mort en 2010 et non depuis plus de 70 ans
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaChorale.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauHélèneB.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaPoissonière.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaRoulotte.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauPassionDeJeunesse.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauHommageAChapelainMidy.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaCoupeRouge.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLeVaseBleu.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauMinuitDevantSénéquier.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLeMarchéAuxHerbes.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauMarchéEnProvence.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauPêcheursASt-Trop.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauMartigues2.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaJarre.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLesGenêts.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauMoissonAvantLOrage.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauVillagePerché.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauComposition4.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLeVinaigrier.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauPichetEtPoires.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaVieille.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauIrisEtLupins.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauCharmeDeLaProvence.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLeJardinDHiver.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauVacances.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauToutDroitVersELLE.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLesCoquelicots.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauSteVictoire2.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauLaBrêcheAuxMoines.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauGolfeJuan.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauOrchestre.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauTipaza.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauStTropez.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauPortDeGolfeJuan.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauClaudie.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauSteVictoire.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauCamargueSauvage.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauBleusACassis.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauBenjamin.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauBarquesACollioure.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauAutoportrait.jpg
- File:JacquesLoiseauArlequinSaluant.jpg
Habertix (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo depicts a modern sculpture, and VP discussion confirmed that FoP in Taiwan cannot apply on artistic works A1Cafel (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Elsa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Elsa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
VP discussion confirmed that FoP in Taiwan cannot apply on artistic works A1Cafel (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
_Exhibition_-_Elsa.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, this file should be deleted even before the VP discussion because Taiwan FOP provision always requires "outdoor works" and the work looks inside the Lego Store. And, this is a COM:DW of a Disney character. Teetrition (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
_Exhibition_-_Elsa.jpg){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Santa_Claus.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Exhibition_-_Santa_Claus.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
VP discussion confirmed that FoP in Taiwan cannot apply on artistic works A1Cafel (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
_Exhibition_-_Santa_Claus.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, this file should be deleted even before the VP discussion because Taiwan FOP provision always requires "outdoor works" and we can easily know from the photo that the work was inside the Lego Store. Teetrition (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
_Exhibition_-_Santa_Claus.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio, no permission by photographer 87.150.5.123 13:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Promotional text for a radio program. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cláudio Andre O Poeta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal vacation photo, out of scope.
- File:Lajeiro do Riacho da Luiza, Venturosa, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:Pedra Cara de Peixe, Paranatama, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:Pedra do Navio, Paranatama, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:Pedra Pintada, Iati, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:Pedra Cabeça de Serpente, Iati, Pernambuco.jpg
- File:Pedra da Concha, Venturosa, Pernambuco.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Official logos, not own works, far above COM:TOO.
- File:Whitecap Dakota First Nation Logo.png
- File:Mistawasis Nêhiyawak Logo.png
- File:Saskatoon Tribal Council Logo.png
- File:Shoal Lake Cree Nation Flag.gif
- File:Prince Albert Grand Council Logo.png
- File:Emblem of Montreal Lake Cree Nation.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Logos should be uploaded locally HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Obviously over COM:TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
DELETE It. 181.43.3.236 15:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy delete. Derivative of a deleted file. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walid Cheddira.jpg. TilmannR (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per TilmannR. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of project scope, minor portraying himself to get exposure in an advertising article on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Per metadata, copyright belongs to Peter Kaletsch Eching am Ammersee Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE DmitTrix (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Iranian Space Agency was founded in 2004 and its logo is protected in Iran until 2034. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, COM:TOO Iran says "The level of originality required for copyright protection in Iran seems very low." Arlo James Barnes 01:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Straightforward derivative work — Rhododendrites talk | 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The large [copyrighted] painting does not seem like it would be de minimis. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Delete Per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyrigh protected art by artist Bettina Müller (* 1957) in the altar area, no FOP inside buildings in Germany. Paulae (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored 70 years after the artist's death. --Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Pixelated, replaced by File:SIMes.png. Leyo 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; replaced by a much better version. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Mozambique.svg. Fry1989 eh? 22:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Somalia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Questionable own work claims. All lack metadata and have low resolution. Two pictures have carpn.com watermark.
- File:Pkt7.jpg
- File:Pkt8.jpg
- File:Pkt4.jpg
- File:Pkt6.jpg
- File:Pkt5.jpg
- File:Pkt2.jpg
- File:Pkt3.jpg
- File:Pkt1.jpg
- File:Newpk3.jpg
- File:Newpk1.jpg
- File:Newpk2.jpg
- File:Pkm2.jpg
- File:Pkm3.jpg
- File:Pkm1.jpg
- File:R2.jpg
- File:Pk1.jpg
- File:Pk3.jpg
- File:SidePk3.jpg
- File:Rear3.jpg
- File:Front-pk2.jpg
- File:Rear2pk4.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Small web quality photos with no metadata or useful source information
- File:الحضور الكرام.jpg
- File:الدعاء اثناء الصلاه.jpg
- File:لحظه الصلاه.jpg
- File:صوره لبعض الأهالي.webp
- File:لحظه الافتتاح.jpg
- File:صوره داخليه للمسجد.jpg
- File:سقف المسجد مزخرف.jpg
- File:صوره للمسجد ليلا.jpg
- File:مسجد ابو شاور.jpg
- File:مسجد أبو شاور.jpg
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Name is too generic and has been replaced by a more correct version under a better name, 2016nyssgains.svg. OutlawRun (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Seva Seva as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
200 squadron logo, better version exists Poliocretes (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
200 squadron logo, better version exists Poliocretes (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. Taken from Twitter - https://twitter.com/IN_Archives/status/1558029341291778049/photo/4 DesiBoy101 (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
it is posted by MehrNews.com but MehrNews is not the owner either. NameGame (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Official coat of arms, not free (see https://www.comune.missaglia.lc.it/hh/index.php, Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA) GJo (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Official coat of arms, not free (see https://www.comune.refrontolo.tv.it, Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA) GJo (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright of the photo. This photo is widely used. See here. The used has added text. Wouter (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Image had been speedy-tagged by uploader 2 years ago, though using an invalid template "Suppression Immédiate|L'image est en jpeg, remplacée depuis par 2 svg plus precis". -- Túrelio (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation. Not own work but comes from website https://rensenjuridisch.nl/juridische-begeleiding/ DirkVE (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Derogatory watermark, image added by recurrent vandal, ticket:2023020310002294 Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
no permission - copyvio see metadata - Copyright status Copyrighted Contact information Info@pkphoto.nl https://www.pkphoto.nl Heerhugowaard, Noord Holland, Nederlands' Hoyanova (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
No metadata, possible copyvio Zafer (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- include
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Unused file. No educational value. Zafer (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- include
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted band logo per https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2019/11/27/nirvanas-happy-face-logo-who-owns-it-the-bands-marc-jacobs-lawsuit-raises-questions/ Belbury (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- also file:Izumi scratch thing.png
Unused art of non-notable artist, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FarazSalmani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images from the internet
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cyuhyyffdrujggyuj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images from the internet
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MBisanz talk 00:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
source www.deepai.org M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe Speedy delete - AI generated image used for a hoax in German Wikipedia (de:Ludwig von Strobel, deleted as fake). Out of scope, unless we want to keep it as an example for Category:AI generated images, the licensing of deepai.org seems to be Commons-compatible ("All content generated by DeepAI's tools and APIs are free of copyright - you may use them for any legal purpose you wish including commercial use."), it would need an appropriate licensing tag. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Gestumblindi, also blocked the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Sad to say that these portraits can't be hosted on Commons per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs, as they all appear to be hand-drawn copies of specific photographs. There's some creative alterations to the hair and clothing, but the poses are identical when superimposed over the original.
- File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg = https://i.pinimg.com/474x/3a/f5/e5/3af5e5bd20cda0485b2a9128895213d1.jpg
- File:Portrait Sam Bourcier pcw.jpg = https://www.canal-u.tv/sites/default/files/import/ancien_site/media/images/photo/bourcier1.jpg
- Permission asked 02/06/2023 Sam Bourcier Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Galyn Görg (1964-2020).jpg = https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/howtogetawaywithmurderabc/images/9/97/Galyn_G%C3%B6rg.png
- Ref site : https://fr.e-talenta.eu/members/profile/galyn-gorg
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 Transfered to recipient by e-talenta Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Lily Pastré.jpg = https://www.archives13.fr/cms/thumb/generate/800x600/lily_pastre_dr_1.jpg
- File:Claude Grison.jpg = https://www.industries-cosmetiques.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/inno-2014-grison.jpg
- Ref site: https://www.cnrs.fr/fr/personne/claude-grison
- Permission asked 02/06/2023 Thibaut Vergoz, answer 02/06/2023 : yes - transfered to VRTS Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I confirm: Permission given by the photographer on 2023-02-19 per Ticket:2022102810010733. --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Nicole Catala.jpg = https://gw.geneanet.org/public/img/media/deposits/40/cc/11333374/medium.jpg
- Ref site : https://www.geneanet.org/media/public/catala-nicole-1936-11256371
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 https://www.geneanet.org/profil/wikifrat Waltercolor (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ref site: https://www.linfo.re/france/politique/nicole-catala-l-ancienne-ministre-de-jacques-chirac-est-morte
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 SIPA Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Laxmi Vijay Gautam.jpg = https://indianews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Dr-Laxmi-Gautam.jpg
- File:Marguerite Perey - portrait.jpg = https://wp2.rinconeducativo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/perey_marguerite_profesora.jpg
- File:Yuki Okoda.jpg = https://apps.adm.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/WEB_info/p/pub/4037/okoda.jpg
- File:Susie Cooper.jpg = https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.brighton.ac.uk/dist/f/7326/files/2020/07/Susie-Cooper-RDI-%C2%A9Wedgwood-MuseumWWRD.jpg Permission asked mail 02/08/2023
- File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg = https://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/chem/images/media/carol-robinson2.jpg
- File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg = https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao9I9c8tFhg/maxresdefault.jpg
- File:Matilde Urrutia.png = https://cdn.en.citaliarestauro.com/q:i/r:0/wp:1/w:1/u:https://en.citaliarestauro.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/matilde-y-pablo.jpg
- File:Marthe Gautier.jpg = http://www.pcuc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marthe-gautier.jpg
_-_portrait.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Belbury (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Abusive accusation. It's inspired and there are enough alterations. In all cases, it's hard to determine a unique conclusion about ALL files, so each file should be treated separately. What's more, this one might be in the public domain. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely, these should be reviewed case by case and each one kept or deleted as appropriate.
- If the Lily Pastré portrait is based on a public domain photograph, we should keep the drawing, and also upload the original. In context on the host site, https://www.archives13.fr/n/cycle-les-provencaux-dans-l-histoire/n:178 says © Photo Lily Pastré - DR - it also appears at https://acjp.fr/uploads/articles/5ac17894a8dff76e150b359b65a20423.pdf credited to Coll. Famille Pastré, in neither case with any year for the first date of publication.
- I disagree that there are "enough alterations", for the images listed above. The Commons copyright summary I link to says that If you yourself have made a drawing based on a copyrighted photo, you need the permission of the photographer before uploading your drawing here - if the underlying depiction of a person's face is a tracing or close copy of a single specific copyrighted image, redrawing the hair or depicting different clothing doesn't change the derivative aspect of the face.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson was a similar case from 2018 where a Commons artist had apparently been given the (bad) advice that tracing and redrawing copyrighted 20th century portraits was sufficient to remove the copyright from them. Belbury (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury : Tracing is not a derivative work, it's a new work, cause there do not exist any tracings in a photography. There are no lines separating spaces. There are only values of contrast and color and it's human being who interpret some tresholds as limits of a form and synthetise the information of a human face by a lot of parameter (yes natural intelligence existed before the artificial one).
- The drawing by lines to render graphically a perceived limit of contrast or color is only a subjective decision of the person which draws. I recommend you try yourself to redraw a photography and you will see that you can get a poor result. The only derivative works that could be applied to a photography are filters or AI applied on images. These actions can be reproduced and will always give the same result. They also cannot be applied without the model.
- When I make a portrait, I first look at all the documents I have from a person to see what are the specific patterns of the face, this first analyze is somewhere the same mechanism that allows face Ident softwares to identify your face to unlock you phone.
- I generally superimpose several photographies from the same person made by different photographers at different times and places to see if the patterns of the face match. And guess what ? They generally do, because it's the same person and the features of the face remain the same, whatever light, accessories, clothes, haircut... That manual face Ident done, I reproduce it on my drawing and, in fact, these features will nearly be the same on the photography and on the drawing, because they characterize the person.
- What happens next ? I usually spend hours to draw and color the portrait, choosing carefully which kind of tool and colors I use to render the way I perceive the person. I also read carefully the text of the biography to know who is the person, why is she notable, what is or was her life. Sometimes, I do not grasp the person and I'm not able to render the portrait. Sometimes I restart completely the drawing on another day. Sometimes, I finish the drawing but do not publish it cause I'm not satisfied.
- My drawings look like the person and are based on a primary source which is a photography ? Yes, because I believe portraits on an encyclopedia should represent that precise person, not represent another person and not represent any average person. The graphical portrait should give the proof that it is somewhere based, either on my personal meeting of this person or based on an objective document produced by a witness (a photography by the photographer).
- Your main argument is : photographers express a big personal artistic value on their photographies and artist make objective copies with poor artistic value by only changing details.
- I believe the contrary. I believe in most cases, photographers make objective copies of the visible world and artists completely reinterpret what they see by drawing and painting.
- What does the photograph bring as specific features that any other photographer could not have brought by photographying the same person with the same device in the same position ? Generally few, and I usually see that specificities and do not retain these details in my drawing or change that personal part brought by the photographer to replace it by my point of view. As an illustrator, I can select which forms I will treat graphically with the suitable technique of tracing and crawing a line is a way to connect forms which simply does not exist in photography.
- That's because, how said G. K. Chesterton, art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
- My portraits are not obtained by means that are reproductible like filters, photo editing software, AI, but by a graphic mean that is personal, not reproductible and that renders the correct pattern of a face with accentuations on some parts of the face like eyes, mouth, (I believed you do not see such details but I do), so I claim that there is no "copyright" infringement for a reality that is common to all of us and not specifically produced by the photographer (I'm a daily photographer too and like photographying a lot).
- The traits of a person do not belong to the photographer but to the person itself and a photographer cannot claim he added something to the pattern of a face.
- The expression of the person on the drawing comes from the artistic arrangement of the lines (and lines do not exist in a photography) and give a personal point of view about the person which is not in the photography used as a primary source.
- Concerning your strict rules to draw a portrait for Commons that are : it should not refer to a photography, or if based on a photography it should operate enough changes (which kind of changes ? deformations ?), I do not recommend to create chimeras for an encyclopedia which is factual and based on a good sourcing.
- In fact, and given the numerous attempts to do well for drawing missing portraits for biographies on Wikipedia, should we not conclude that it's simply impossible to satisfy to such demandings (and I believe it's also written to make our projects of illustrating biographies impossible to realize) ?
- Should your severe resquests be realisable, would they render people's look in graphic design ? I believe it's only possible with AI applied to images. But changing and angle or calculating a statistical portrait can only be based on information that feeds the AI and the photographies will still be used as a basis. It's simply the sensation of infringing or not the copyright which is different if you trust in machines you feel creative and not in persons like artists you feel as servile reproductors.
- I am a natural intelligence and I bring you the best for these portraits without harming anyone.
- In fact, please quote me with at least ten examples of drawings rendering correctly a portrait by following your rules, and I will learn from them how to draw correctly for Commons and redraw all my portraits in that way.
- But I doubt you'll find them. I'm waiting for these examples.
- Waltercolor (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs sets out Commons' view on such works: a drawing based on multiple photographs requires a judgment call to be made on whether the work is derivative (File:KGerstein.jpg is given as an example of one that was considered not to infringe any copyrights), but a drawing based on a single photograph is automatically considered to be a derivative of that work.
- The only drawings of yours that I've raised for discussion here are those which (to my eye) appear to be based on a single specific and copyrighted photograph. Some more than others, though, and you are welcome to correct me if some of these in fact draw from multiple sources as their inspiration.
- It's possible that French law for such derivative works is different from the US law that Commons follows. Belbury (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep I understand the interrogation but following this way, every new piece of art can be considered as inspired by a former one. Indeed, art is matter of inspiration. In the present case, you can't consider the creation as simple copy without inspiration because the view seems similar, and of course, if the subject of the photo is the same, it's normal it has similarities. Moreover, each picture should be considered by individually, and for example, the first one you present as a proof (Barbara Martin) is too different to be considered as copy. --Lupin~fr (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- This appears to be a straightforward case of COM:DW. If you think Commons policy does not accurately reflect the law about derivative works, or that the way our rules are applied creates a slippery slope to the deletion of all artworks, a good place to make that argument would be at Commons talk:Derivative works or one of the village pumps. As it stands, an illustration that appears to reproduce another copyrighted artwork (such as a photo), is considered a DW. Remember, we're not just talking about use on Commons or Wikipedia -- these images must be licensed for any use or modification by anyone at any time, forever. These images simply don't have that license because the original artist hasn't released them. It's a huge disappointment, I know; if I put in the effort to produce these in good faith, I'd be frustrated, too (as I have been when some of my photographs were deleted before I understood things like freedom of panorama). I commend your work, but unfortunately we just can't host the ones that are clear derivatives. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- No worry. I'm a professional and bins of artists, graphic designers and especially architects are full of dead projects for any reasons.
- What I'm asking for @Rhododendrites is: do you have at least 10 examples of graphic portraits designed for illustrating WP biographies that you accepted ? I want to have a look on them and see if I can do the same.
- If it appears that nobody can create portraits with such restrictive rules, we must change the rules or abandon the participation to wikiunseen like projects. It's not only about a couple of drawings deleted, it's about how the articles look and if we can do something or not.
- For me a graphic portrait must represent the person itself, not another person, and not any person. It must be backed on the proof that the person has been seen by the artist (live drawing) or photographied by the artist (but then of course, I would rather upload my photo) or drawn from an existing photo. If the last solution is considered at 99,5% copyright infringement, it should not be proposed. It's not a solution.
- One option could be to draw police sketches, identikit pictures, but frankly, I will not loose time for this.
- Concerning the permission asked to the author of the photography, do you have somewhere tips about how to ask the permission ? Do you propose to ask permission before deletion ?
- I also desperately search the precise rules about when the drawings are considered to be not derivated. If the treshold of derivation/no derivation occurs at the level when the portrait doesn't look anymore to the person represented, don't keep the rules it would be illogical. We are not here to draw chimeras. It is not encyclopedic and people get enough information on Google about how the person looks without any copyright being infringed.
- Waltercolor (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I will add that, if I understand correctly, if there is a significant difference between French law and US law on this such that they are legal in France but cannot be hosted on Commons, you may be able to upload them locally to the French Wikipedia. I'd have to defer to frwiki regulars on that, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- What part of French law makes this legal? Non-commercial use in the U.S. is almost certainly legal due to fair use, but that is different than not being derivative at all. Not sure I've seen a strong reference for this claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- We are discussing that point on Les Sans PAges. French law is restrictive about reproduction and includes drawings in the processes to reproduce a work. This is an old law, and of course, encyclopedias and dictionaries existed far before photography was invented and they were all illustrated with drawings. One illustrator even asked for deletion of her own work because she feared about the legal problems. On the other hand, Wikipedia fr doesn't accept comic like portraits because... they don't look enough like the person. So all kinds of illustration are rejected and at the moment, we hardly find a line about how to achieve correct portraits that would look like the person but would not infringe a copyrighted photo. That's why I'm just asking myself if the solution really exists. I search proof of this, but anyway, if we find a correct way to draw the portrait I should be able to draw them. Waltercolor (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. It is definitely possible to have a drawing be derivative of a photograph. The copyrightable expression in a photograph is typically the framing, angle, timing, and elements like that under control of the photographer. If the photo is staged, such as a studio portrait, then the facial expression evoked may become part of it as well. For snapshot type photos, the actual subject of the photo is not part of the expression. If a drawing recreates the copyrightable aspects, i.e. copies that part of the expression, then it's derivative. If you can identify one particular photograph as the basis, then it may have copied the expression. On the other hand, if you use photos to just get an idea of what the subject looks like, but don't copy that expression, the drawing is fine. Photographers don't have a copyright on what a person looks like, but they might on the particular angle/expression that exists in their photo. There have been discussions on this before; one of them is at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11#Drawings_of_persons,_based_on_unfree_photos., and another DR was linked above.
- The photo there (and the DR mentioned above) were fairly blatantly drawings of a particular photograph, copying most of the expression. These are... more difficult. The few I looked at, seemed as though the angle was being copied from the photograph, but particular facial expressions and other details were not. I can understand disagreements in this area, as there aren't a ton of court cases on it (though there are a couple). I may lean Keep on these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are the facial features that allow the recognition of a person and these features allow face ident software to unlock phones, etc... The expression of a person is either a mood, or the general average way the person behaves in the life. As the features of the face must be present in the drawing or it would no be the portrait of that person, the expression is given in a drawing by the lines, which are not present at all in a photography. Tht's not something that is stolen to the photography as there is no real bridge from a continuous contrast and color plan like in a photography and a drawing obtained by lines that are selected by the artist to represent some contrasts and differentiate the form from the background (what the photo doesn't do. It's only we, as human, that deduce that from our perception which makes sopphisticated calculations to understand : this is a face, these parts are eyes, nose, mouth, hair... Of course there is no copyright on the way we interpret a planar sheet of paper or a screen as a face and not an abstract painting. Waltercolor (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I'm surprised. Let's take just one example, say: File:Yuki Okoda.jpg and this image. Let's say the big hypothetical happens: someone finds an illustration on Commons and turns it into a poster/book that makes lots of money (and putting aside personality rights). The illustration is credited to Waltercolor only, because we're not acknowledging that it's a derivative work. Are you saying you don't think the original photographer would have a good case? The expression, light -- it's all identical other than the background. Perhaps the sort of thing you're talking about is like File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg, where it's appears copied from this image, but could be argued to be "just how she looks when she's looking at the camera and smiling"? In that case, it still appears borderline to me, but I could see an argument that, because it omits the clothes, necklace, background, etc., it could be kept. Trying to understand your point, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: fixing ping — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, those two give me pause. I looked at some near the top; File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg seems far enough away from this that I think it's OK. Those two you mention look too close to me. But yes, replicating the small details of a particular photograph might be problematic. If it's just a snapshot, then any particular facial expression is not under the photographer's control and therefore not copyrightable expression, but in a studio portrait, it can be (dating back to a landmark 1882 U.S. ruling which debated the copyrightability of an Oscar Wilde studio photo, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony). There is some guidance on the U.S. side of things in the Copyright Office circular; they reference "drawing based on a photograph" as one of the main examples of a derivative work. As a U.S. project, I don't think we can ignore the U.S. side of all this. France definitely has a different threshold of originality, but I didn't think their definition of derivative work differed all that much. Maybe the threshold for photographs is higher, but in general studio portraits have usually been considered full-on "works" in Europe, whereas many of those countries used to (and a few still do) have different rules for "simple photos", i.e. more like snapshots. It's possible that France, like Switzerland, often doesn't consider snapshot photos as copyrightable at all. Studio portraits likely always have been, though. French law, article 122-4, says Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. If the photograph was copyrightable, sure seems like a drawing adaptation, if it's too close to that photograph, would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Barbara Martin photo is not very similar, and is by far the least concerning of the examples here. For what it's worth my benchmark for inclusion in this DR was whether a Google search for the subject's name turned up a photo which looked superficially similar to the drawing, and which when superimposed revealed any specific and unlikely correspondences. In the case of the Barbara Martin photo, if you line up the eyes of the photo over the drawing, the unshaded curve drawn in her hair aligns exactly with the earring in the photograph, and the lighter section under the line of her chin in the drawing matches with where the photograph's chin actually ends. But there is clearly significant additional and original work here. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The second one too, was a different facial expression and I thought was fine. Third one closer, but still didn't see enough to think it was copying enough expression. I may not have gone much further. Obviously, all of these have significant additional and original work added to them. The question is if more than a de minimis amount of expression was copied from another work. That does tend to show copying of the angle, but if that's the only aspect copied, then maybe a little bit is de minimis. What qualifies as copyrightable expression can also be very different between a snapshot and a studio portrait. For snapshots, the facial expression etc. can not be part of the photographer's work. That is the case with the other DR mentioned below -- that looks more like a snapshot. None of this is easy, for sure, as there are no bright lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Barbara Martin photo is not very similar, and is by far the least concerning of the examples here. For what it's worth my benchmark for inclusion in this DR was whether a Google search for the subject's name turned up a photo which looked superficially similar to the drawing, and which when superimposed revealed any specific and unlikely correspondences. In the case of the Barbara Martin photo, if you line up the eyes of the photo over the drawing, the unshaded curve drawn in her hair aligns exactly with the earring in the photograph, and the lighter section under the line of her chin in the drawing matches with where the photograph's chin actually ends. But there is clearly significant additional and original work here. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, those two give me pause. I looked at some near the top; File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg seems far enough away from this that I think it's OK. Those two you mention look too close to me. But yes, replicating the small details of a particular photograph might be problematic. If it's just a snapshot, then any particular facial expression is not under the photographer's control and therefore not copyrightable expression, but in a studio portrait, it can be (dating back to a landmark 1882 U.S. ruling which debated the copyrightability of an Oscar Wilde studio photo, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony). There is some guidance on the U.S. side of things in the Copyright Office circular; they reference "drawing based on a photograph" as one of the main examples of a derivative work. As a U.S. project, I don't think we can ignore the U.S. side of all this. France definitely has a different threshold of originality, but I didn't think their definition of derivative work differed all that much. Maybe the threshold for photographs is higher, but in general studio portraits have usually been considered full-on "works" in Europe, whereas many of those countries used to (and a few still do) have different rules for "simple photos", i.e. more like snapshots. It's possible that France, like Switzerland, often doesn't consider snapshot photos as copyrightable at all. Studio portraits likely always have been, though. French law, article 122-4, says Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. If the photograph was copyrightable, sure seems like a drawing adaptation, if it's too close to that photograph, would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- PS There is one other one, which I nominated before Belbury nominated this group: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Belbury and @Rhododendrites !
- For information, I'm currently asking to all the authors of the photographies that inspired me for my portraits the permission for my derivative art.
- And, ok, just #lol for your links which are not the sites I was looking for and do not give the right credit for the photographies :-).
- Especially for Claude Grison's drawing : this is the list of a part of the photographies that inspired me for this one drawing : CNRS, Pour la Science, Radio France, Bio Inspire, Dis-leur, EPO.
- As you can see, whatever the photographer and the photo, she always looked the same at this time. Same hair, same smile, same shirt. Waltercolor (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep these are original drawings representing the person, which means it necessarily will always ressemble a photograph. Have we allready deleted a photograph because it ressembled another previous photograph ? Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. ). If we follow too strictly this, we might end up having all drawn portraits and paintings deleted on our projects. Hyruspex (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @all : Here is the first answer for my series of my mail requests of permission to photographers for my graphic portraits. It concerns the portrait of Claude Grison :
- "Bonjour,
- Très joli dessin
- Pas de problème pour l'utiliser
- Bien cordialement.
- Thibaut Vergoz"
- In english : "Hello ! Very nice drawing. No problem for using it. Yours kindly. Thibaut Vergoz"
- Waltercolor (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to do this. Can you also quote the question that you asked them, so that we can be sure what usage it is that they have no problem with? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've sent all the email thread with the photographer to my VRTS correspondent Otto Ottensen who gave me once the status of author for my drawings (Happy to know it). Waltercolor (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, for the moment we have only received permission from the photographer Thibaut Vergauz for File:Claude_Grison.jpg per Ticket:2022102810010733. See my keep vote above. The other cases remain open. – We should now give Waltercolor some time to get the other approvals from the photographers and refrain from a mass deletion. It would be a pity if we lost these beautiful drawings. Mussklprozz (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've sent all the email thread with the photographer to my VRTS correspondent Otto Ottensen who gave me once the status of author for my drawings (Happy to know it). Waltercolor (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to do this. Can you also quote the question that you asked them, so that we can be sure what usage it is that they have no problem with? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. If the drawing of Bourcier is scaled to the same size as the photograph and overlaid so that the glasses line up, the rest of the face falls into place, with her ear and teeth lining up perfectly, as well as the shadows of her glasses and nose. Yes, the mouth is a little more closed, the microphone omitted and the hair has been drawn freehand, but these are not major alterations. There is a lot of skill shown here in redrawing the photograph as an effective line drawing, but the overall shape of that drawing is fundamentally a tracing of one specific photograph. Belbury (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Discussion on the French Wikipedia village pump. Thibaut (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)- Keep je soutiens Waltercolor dans sa démarche artistique originale. Ces fichiers sont ses oeuvres. - C'est moi (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Translation:
I support Waltercolor in her original artistic approach. These files are her work.
--Thibaut (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)- Commons 100% regards these uploads as being Waltercolor's work. The question being asked by Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs is whether they should, under US copyright law, also be regarded as the work of the original photographers, where a drawing has been based on one or two specific photographs. Belbury (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- This depends if the US Law can oblige one or several photographers to accept that their work gets really a part of the drawing or not. As far as I can see, in those kind of cases, photographers do not really want to claim being a part of the work of an artist. This creates a permanent link between their photography and a foreign and separate work they do not see as being really a "piece" of their own one (especially when they do not love the style of drawing).
- You know, it's heavy when you're a photographer and you get such "satellites" to your work you didn't expect or ask for.
- So they are several cases :
- - The photographer estimates his/her work has been "stollen" by the drawer -> they suit him/her and don't give the authorization.
- - The photographer is polite and answers to the request of Commons because he likes the artistic style of the drawing -> he/she answers that the drawing is "inspired from" (means it is not recognized as a derivative work and both works remain independant)
- - The photographer doesn't care and doesn't answer to the request of Commons because he simply does not get the point or does not want to loose time and energy for such difficult to define cases -> risk for having a legal issue for derivative work is low.
- So I believe none of these cases are really at high risk for Commons itself.
- Perhaps you could also explain more clearly which are exactly the legal risks for the Foundation and give me some examples.
- In my opinion, only the author can be suited for a counterfact and it's to the photographer to prove the counterfact, but I may be wrong.
- The platform must of course delete the files (do you delete them or only mask them on the server ?) but this should be enough, or is there really a high risk of getting a heavy sentence for the Foundation in such cases ? Do you have examples where the Foundation has been suited for derivative works on Commons ?
- Waltercolor (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly familiar with the legal details, I'm just raising the COM:CSM policy for discussion of how it applies. Regarding your third case, though, COM:PRP does discourage hosting a questioned image on the grounds that the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- This applies to the license problem, not the authorship.
- To determine if a drawing is true derivative work is not simple as you can see, the judgements are different from one to the other person.
- So the absolute necessity to ask permission for "using" features that are not protected by the copyright is not justified. it's an extension of the license problem to the authorship problem which is different;
- If someone would claim a copyright on a person's portrait on some features that are common to all given portraits of a person, then this copyright could also forbid to other photographers to photography the same subject with similar angles, framing, environement... Of course, this could not be applied. Authorship is general and not media related. It counts for all media, photos, drawings, etc...
- Is this very special idea of drawings as sub-products of photographies specific to US Law or is it specific to Commons ? Have these "permissions" a legal value ? 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Waltercolor (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly familiar with the legal details, I'm just raising the COM:CSM policy for discussion of how it applies. Regarding your third case, though, COM:PRP does discourage hosting a questioned image on the grounds that the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Commons 100% regards these uploads as being Waltercolor's work. The question being asked by Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs is whether they should, under US copyright law, also be regarded as the work of the original photographers, where a drawing has been based on one or two specific photographs. Belbury (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Translation:
- Keep all photos of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution (e.g. wrong assignment for Grison) : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Du même avis que Paul.schrepfer. Guil2027 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep These files are original works. Manacore (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural close in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion . I suggest renominations with a narrower scope. — Racconish 💬 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)
[edit]This was closed a few weeks ago "in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion" with a suggestion for "renominations with a narrower scope", but I couldn't get a clear explanation from the closing admin of what that scope should be, or any COM:AN advice.
While the original discussion was open, File:Claude Grison.jpg received the necessary permission from photographer Thibaut Vergoz to allow Commons to host a free derivative work without crediting them. There was no update on the other permission requests.
So this is a renomination of the 12 remaining images, with the same homogenous concern: that they all appear to have been closely based on single specific photographs, and there is not (yet) evidence that the various photographers have granted permission for derivatives version of their work to be freely licenced without crediting them. Links to apparent/confirmed source images are in the previous nomination above.
Respondents are reminded that there does seem to be a significant difference between French and American law on this issue. Wikimedia Commons does not automatically consider sketches of photographs to be completely original works, per COM:BASEDONPHOTO. I think this has to be case by case: either a photo has a freely licenced source, has permission from the photographer, is considered to be only somewhat inspired by its source, or cannot be hosted on Commons.
- File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg
- File:Portrait Sam Bourcier pcw.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Lily Pastré.jpg
- File:Nicole Catala.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Laxmi Vijay Gautam.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Marguerite Perey - portrait.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Yuki Okoda.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Susie Cooper.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Matilde Urrutia.png - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Marthe Gautier.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
Belbury (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Belbury ! Are you sure you're doing the job correctly ? I for example was redrawing completely the portrait File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg and you stil say it's derivative work ? From which photography ? Waltercolor (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks like I selected that one by mistake, there's a separate discussion still open for it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. I've removed it from the list here. --Belbury (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- While somewhat homogenous, each drawing is going to be a separate decision, based on each photo, if we think it's derivative or not. I hate to clutter someone's page with individual DRs, but really they are all individual decisions. I stated in the previous DR that I did not think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg was derivative. The methodology you used to come up with the list is reasonable, but decisions are made by comparing each photo to each drawing. So there will likely be messy mixed votes, again. Not sure how to structure it, unless maybe having a sub-heading for each photo. Might also be good to note when the photographs expire, so we have some undelete year targets as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I figured it would be preferable to have all the discussion in one place, so that someone who felt that all the images should be kept or deleted wasn't expected to repeat their reasoning in 13 different DRs.
- I think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg is derivative in the sense that it has almost certainly been drawn freehand while tracing a specific photo for reference, where a few details like the earring and eye wrinkles line up 100% when superimposed, but the neck, eyes and mouth seem entirely original. Perhaps that's enough for Commons not to consider it derivative, though, if little or none of the lighting and posing of the original portrait survives. Belbury (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury Would you accept a "first round" when you give the arguments for a derivative work and let me draw a new version that would be acceptable for an original work ? Thanks. Waltercolor (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury : I uploaded new drawings for some files. So please have a look and tell me if it would be ok for you with such sort of changes. Thx. Waltercolor (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- So long as these new drawings aren't closely based on one single pre-existing photograph, sure, that seems fine. The only one among them that I'd question is File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg, where only the subject's hair has been redrawn. The face itself is still a relatively close tracing of the linked video thumbnail at https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao9I9c8tFhg/maxresdefault.jpg, with only small changes to the angles of the eyes and mouth Belbury (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Good evening everyone. One solution could be to assign the free art license to the drawings by crediting the photographers and original works in the description of the files whose deletion is requested. Would that make them acceptable on Commons ? --Olga Rithme (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Crediting the photographer is not enough -- if these qualify as derivative works, then we also need the photographer to allow the free art license (or CC-BY or any other free license) on the drawing. That did happen for one of the ones on the first PR. If we don't have that, then it becomes a question if these are derivative works (did they copy more than de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- It depends who is qualifying the works as derivative. If Commons goes further than the photographer would do (as it was the case for one of my work), then, it's not correct. The de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph may be overrated and the originality ot the drawing underestimated, so for me it has no legal value and is not acceptable.
- And for me, personnaly, as an illustrator, I will also never accept a derivative licence. I am ok to make changes in the drawings until they are no more considered as derivative. If no agreement occurs, or if I estimate that the requested changes make the drawing too far from the facial identity of the person represented, I prefer that my work is deleted from Commons. No problem.
- Waltercolor (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- We are trying to use the same criteria judges would use (i.e. what copyright law says). You can add as much originality to the drawing as you want, but if enough expression is copied it's still derivative -- it's more about removing any protectable aspects copied from the photo. And honestly, some of yours are close enough to that borderline that different judges may go different ways on the same one. Nothing about this is easy or obvious, unfortunately. If it is derivative, and the photographer decides he cares about a future use even if he doesn't think so now, you could have problems then. Giving a free license for the drawing is essentially permanently disclaiming that interest, which is what we would be after. We of course still need the license for the additional expression in the drawing, but that has been given.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Crediting the photographer is not enough -- if these qualify as derivative works, then we also need the photographer to allow the free art license (or CC-BY or any other free license) on the drawing. That did happen for one of the ones on the first PR. If we don't have that, then it becomes a question if these are derivative works (did they copy more than de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Same remarks than Carl Lindberg. And I can't help but globally repeat what I said in the previous thread : Keep all drawings of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. In France, an exception in the intellectual property code specifies that an author cannot prohibit the reproduction of his work when this reproduction is used for informational purposes (article L122-5). Drawings nominated for removal provide information about the people in the articles that readers wouldn't have without them, such as face shape, hair color, wearing glasses, et caetera. In fact, these drawings are informative content, since they provide information. Is there such an exception in american law ? Could it be applied to this specific case and allow the conservation of the drawings ? (Message translated with Google Translate.)--Olga Rithme (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- COM:BASEDONPHOTO does not mention such an exception in US law, although it may have overlooked it.
- However, "when this reproduction is used for informational purposes" does not sound compatible with Commons. Commons:Licensing explicitly requires that images uploaded here "are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose".
- French law may allow sketches of photographs to be used for informational purposes on the French Wikipedia, in the same way that US law allows fair use photographs to be used for information purposes on the English Wikipedia? But those US fair use photographs are never uploaded to Commons. Belbury (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Aside from the DW issue, these are out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some files undeleted, where there is no copyright issue. See above and [1]. Yann (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replaced Tattchua (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In each case, explain what you mean by "replaced." On the face of it, this is a perfectly good and potentially useful image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replaced Tattchua (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replaced Tattchua (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:20180915 Parc de l'Orangerie 01.jpg. Even though I do not know the age of this bridge, judging by the looks of it, it is not that old. So because there is no no FoP in France, this needs to go probably. FlocciNivis (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no statute or case law that suggests bridges are protected works in France. They are functional, engineered objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
It has a mistake in the name Nuša Velišček (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- So request a filename change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iam babtizzy (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of these are own work as claimed. File:Becky Zheng.jpg was found on twitter before upload https://twitter.com/Rebecca62282150/status/1383117672796274697/photo/1 , File:Jonathan Clausen.jpg is the same as Clausen's linked in, File:BeckyZheng.jpg is found here before upload https://www.blackbirdnews.com/becky-zheng-at-17-years-old-became-one-of-the-youngest-millionaires-in-the-world/ , File:Stephane Alexandre.jpg is credited to Martin Plasek Photography and so on. most have no exif. PCP
- File:Jonathan Clausen.jpg
- File:Becky Zheng.jpg
- File:BeckyZheng.jpg
- File:Beckyzheng.jpg
- File:Ayomide.png
- File:Haim zlikha2.png
- File:Chalini2.jpg
- File:Chalini3.jpg
- File:Chalini.jpg
- File:Chalinaaskew.png
- File:Askew.png
- File:Askew5.png
- File:Askew1.png
- File:LoganMicke.jpg
- File:Logan Micke.jpg
- File:Yourownmusic.png
- File:Stephane Alexandre.jpg
- File:Stephané Alexandre.jpg
- File:Shawn.jpg
- File:Shawn Mendoza.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Very low quality , no one will be able to use it, out of COM:SCOPE Methos31 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, too much droplets, the waterfalls is almost no longer visible. This is for Instagram or Facebook only, not Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE – UFO pseudoscience Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley I didn't know it mattered whether or not such a claim, if true, could be made concerning material posted to Wikiversity? Is there some other route for posting like-minded imagery on Wikiversity? Because if there is, I'd like to know about it so that my wikitext does not suffer for lack of diagrams. As you probably know, an image is worth a thousand words. Take care, Andy. Thank you. -- Vinyasi (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is a failed project and no-one really cares what happens there. Thankfully it has no relevance in the real world and isn't taken seriously. If you uploaded it there, that would be a matter for Wikiversity users. But here on Commons, we require some educational usefulness. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley How do I "upload it there" without it defaulting its upload to Commons? Is there a wiki help page, located somewhere, which describes what you're saying? -- Vinyasi (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley OK, I uploaded it, but it warns me that a duplicate of this file already exists even though I gave this second upload a different name. Now, what do I do? -- Vinyasi (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Wikiversity is a failed project and no-one really cares what happens there. Thankfully it has no relevance in the real world and isn't taken seriously. If you uploaded it there, that would be a matter for Wikiversity users. But here on Commons, we require some educational usefulness. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Calling something pseudoscience is not a valid reason for deletion--Trade (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
No proper source to determine copyright status. ~Cybularny Speak? 22:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake சத்திரத்தான் (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. File is not in use in the WMF projects. --Rosenzweig τ 12:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo taken from https://twitter.com/KiggunduHamis. Trade (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Picture appears in this article from November 23, 2021 and yet the picture from the source was first uploaded in 2022. Presumed to be copyright violation unless permission is provided. :
- I'm sorry to do this to your first upload but this is a serious issue @Jtyccoonn: --Trade (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade, You should reasonably never feel sorry for doing the right thing in good faith with good intentions based on reality.
- It has come to my notice that the picture at https://twitter.com/KiggunduHamis is of lower quality with a very poor resolution compared to the original one at https://en.everybodywiki.com/images/b/b1/Mr._HamisKiggundu.jpg' ,
- I have also noticed that contrary to your presumptive submission and citations, the reality is that: the picture only appears in this article on November 23, 2021 whereas it had already been uploaded at its Everybodywiki source 12 days earlier on November 11, 2021 and not 2022 as you presumed and given the fact that a full (original size picture) was used at Everybodywiki and only a cropped version of it in this article 12 dats later implies that the story authors might have generated it from the later without any reasonable doubt.
- Never the less, this article authors release their content under CC BY 4.0. as clearly stated on this page. THIS PICTURE IS THEREFORE NOT IN ANY COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS as usage permission is fully provided at every noted source. HAPPY NEW YEAR and a blessed New month. Love and Peace Jtyccoonn (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Trade, You should reasonably never feel sorry for doing the right thing in good faith with good intentions based on reality.
I withdraw my nomination --Trade (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn, also has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The photo is of a 1993 sculpture in Stranbourg, but unfortunately France has no FoP, so I don't think we can keep this here? (I'd love to be wrong, it's a good quality photo!) Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I guess article L122-5 doesn't help here either, because licenses on commons are never non-commercial? What a pitty... FlocciNivis (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The file can be restored 70 years after the death of artist Jean Claus (born in 1939 and apparently alive). --Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Netora as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F3|2=copyrighted character's board https://web.archive.org/web/20160826104444/http://inarikonkon.jp/. However, this appears to be a "no-FOP in Japan" case. Public space works are no longer eligible for speedy deletion as per COM:CSD#F3, since files must be easily undeleted in the future if ever the work falls in public domain or the country introduces more broad commercial freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of COM:FOP Japan. --Yasu (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possible ad: The uploader is writing an article on the subject, Not enough notability : 276 subscribers on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_3qWb76iogZmOYLUsHj7UQ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Fake flag with fake coat of arms (see File:Flag of Benevento.svg, File:Benevento-Stemma.svg). GJo (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kamran nasiri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images from the internet
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Is this logo above the threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The threshold of originality in the USA is relatively high for text logos. (If the file gets deleted, we should also delete Cartoon Network Studios 3rd logo.jpeg.) TilmannR (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Trade (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 18:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Own work? 186.174.84.245 02:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to say, this appears to be a clear derivative work of the photo in this article, for which I do not see a compatible free license. — Rhododendrites talk | 03:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Pas de violation du droit d'auteur en peignant une personne à partir d'une photo. De plus, le dessin montre ta propre liberté créative. No copyright infringement by painting a person from a photo. In addition, the drawing shows own creative freedom. Mussklprozz (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The drawing is sufficiently different. Yann (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It's different. IANAL though. BrokenSegue 04:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Free interpretacion from the author, it's his style. Fma12 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites, Mussklprozz, Yann, BrokenSegue, and Fma12: The author has uploaded a new image with comment "New drawing to comply to rules of portrait drawings (original work)". I think that the first version is actually a close copy of this Twitter post and not the Times of Swaziland image. I note other images of the ceremony here, here and here all could be used to get an idea for the image. I suggest the first version be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, IMO it is too close to the Times image, but it's certainly too close to that one from Twitter. Regardless, if the current image were the one originally uploaded I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion so recommend deleting the original and closing this. — Rhododendrites talk | 14:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
In disbelief to believe that it is somebody's own work as it was already published online shortly before the Calboy Wikipedia page was created. Also in disbelief that it was free to use with Creative Common as it wasn't permitted in any opinion. DBrown SPS (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This one feels borderline to me, but the As and R in "Shahi Tandoori" might be above the TOO in the UK and COM: FOP UK doesn't cover 2D graphical works. The photographer references the restaurant in the title. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Es Vd loco?! KEEPING and closing inmediatamente. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.175.144.83 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep This looks like a pretty typical font, and while fonts can be copyrighted in the UK, that doesn't AFAIK to their application. i.e. the copyright would apply to the set of letters, machines that produce letters in that font, etc., but not to a sign. At least I hope my understanding is correct, or we'd have to delete an awful lot of photos where text is visible in the UK. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then I'll be more lenient on signs that text-only in the UK in the future. I don't have much practical experience with this aspect of British copyright law yet but I'll make adjustments as I learn. Abzeronow (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Rhododendrites, As far as I know road signs cannot be copyrighted, But then again we have the Conservative Party at the helm so anything can be changed and invented!. –Davey2010Talk 21:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by User:Original.jeremy.g
[edit]- File:Gray_Audi_Q2.jpg
- File:Gray_Audi_Q2.jpg
- File:MISBHV_Ufo361_Maximal_T-Shirt.jpg
- File:Man_wearing_a_Kilt.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_9.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_8.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_7.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_6.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_5.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_4.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_3.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black_2.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Bat_Patch_Tee,_black.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck_5.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck_4.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck_3.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck_2.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck.jpg
- File:Areal_view_of_klagshamns_port_2.jpg
- File:Areal_view_of_klagshamns_port.jpg
- File:NoHugs_Chapter_IV_Patchmoon_Crewneck_Lost_Lilith_patch_2.jpg
- File:Exponentialfunktion_x_berechnen.png
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_13.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_14.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_12.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_11.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_10.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_09.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_06.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_08.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_07.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_04.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_05.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_02.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_01.jpg
- File:Kebabhaus_Michendorf_03.jpg
- File:This_is_my_edit_that_I_would_suggest_as_the_new_version..jpg
- File:Hygieneregeln_im_Verwaltungsgebäude_Michendorf.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_low_light_2.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_9.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_6.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_8.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_7.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_low_light.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_5.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_4.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_3.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_2.jpg
- File:Simson_Duo_Christmas_1.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_6.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_5.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_4.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_3.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_2.jpg
- File:Sparkasse_Wilhelmshorst_bei_Nacht_1.jpg
These files were all uploaded by me, User:Original.jeremy.g. I am requesting that they be deleted due to privacy concerns as I have noticed a connection between my account and private information of me. --~~~~ Jeremy
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hoax flag without legal support, the coat of arms is from the city of Panama, which is the capital of the province, but the coat of arms isn't used at the provincial level. Taichi (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera de la Provincia de Panamá.png. Taichi (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It's widely in use in Wikipedia language versions. Per COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV, the approach usually required is, even if we think that a file is factually wrong, first the projects (Wikipedias) using that file need to be convinced that it shouldn't be used, and we can delete it if it is no longer in use anywhere. The line of thought being that we don't overrule other projects. I understand that this is often frustrating, as probably often those projects just use the file because they found it on Commons - without giving it any further thought. Still, I think if you think that flag is a hoax, I think you have first to remove it from these projects (or discuss removal there, if controversial), and then come back here for deletion. I will leave this deletion request open for now, but if the files are still in use after a while, I think we have to reject it. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @Gestumblindi: There is no use of the file anywhere. Yes, it is frustrating that every 3-4 years I have to make a deletion request, but it is more frustrating for me that in the 3rd time of the same file now there is space for the doubt, despite the obvious common sense and not counting that in the request of 2019 (precisely it links to 2017 DR), the user who uploaded false content massively ended up being blocked for several months. You will forgive me, but that can trump any assertion that is going to cast doubt on the obvious falsehood. Imagine that as a Panamanian user I look the hoax (without doubt), but how will it happen to someone who does not know about it? It saddens me to see how fake content is growing in Wikimedia Commons with non-sense technicisms, a discouragement for this project. Taichi (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: @Taichi: The file was widely in use when I posted my above comment on 15 April, but as this is no longer the case (only 2 usages outside of article namespace), I think COM:INUSE doesn't stand against deletion anymore, so now deleted per your arguments. --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This is tagged as PD-USCG, but the USCG source does not actually say that it was made by a Coast Guard employee, nor that it is in the public domain. Rather, it refers to the image as "Official Coast Guard Imagery", which could mean a number of things, not all of which imply public-domain status. The only source I can find on this painting's origins is the caption in this Naval History Magazine article, which identifies the artist as Robert Lavin without specifying when he painted it, when it was first published, or whether he was a U.S. government employee when he painted it. There is a good chance that this painting is in the public domain, but also a good chance that it was not. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Please refer to the photography page at the Coast Guard Historian's Office site. It states that all photographs and images that are displayed on the Historian's pages are official U.S. Coast Guard images and photography are in the public domain. http://www.uscg.mil/history/CG_Photo_Index.asp I am not familiar with the process of Deletion requests but I believe that we should take the above statement by the Historian's Office at face value. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.126.6.176 (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The above post was my work...I was not logged in at the time...sorry.
- Cuprum17 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Cuprum17: That link does not work for me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There is always a risk but do we have any reason not to trust that the claim of USCG is not correct? I think he was called both Bob and Robert and according to http://www.a-bsp.org/html/200th/charle/charle.htm for example "During World War II he served as a fighter pilot in the U.S Marine Corps." So I do not think that it is unlikely that he was working for US Government. --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - There is no reason at all to believe that Lavin was employed by the government as a painter. To say that the fact that he was a Marine fighter pilot suggests that is quite a stretch. However, while the painting is signed "Lavin", the required year and (c) do not appear so it is PD No Notice. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hoax flag. The source links to a dead link in Wikipedia. See Commons:Deletion requests/Provincial flags of Panama. Taichi (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely in use. Cannot be deleted for this reason. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
New reupload of the same false flag with circular reference. The FOTW source claims to Wikipedia (see "Overview" section), but there is no external reference or testimonial evidence from the Panamanian authorities about the flag, leaving doubts about its existence. The flag was deleted in 2014, but was again uploaded in 2018. In 2023 there was a DR but failed because was "widely used" in Wikimedia projects. Now, I removed in all projects and again call the DR because blatant hoax, there's not any source besides FOTW (There is no official document from the Panamanian government that validates its existence). Taichi (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo collage without educational use. Copyvio https://vk.com/nezvanovofficial?w=wall528844024_10736 Drakosh (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:DERIV, sweatshirt is the focus of the photo and is artwork taken from the cover of the album In Utero. Belbury (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know!! :) would it still be a copyright violation if only the text was showing ? Kauey (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Kauey: Just text would be fine, text logos are considered public domain, eg. File:Nirvana logo yellow.svg. It's only the artwork that's the issue. Belbury (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of trophy, see User:Elcobbola/Awards for example. Trophy is de minimis in source image, but not when cropped as here. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This flag is very possibly a hoax, the source doesn't clarify under what legal basis the flag was made and local specifications from a Panamanian or Guna website. It could be a misinterpretation of the Guna Yala flag (since they are of the same ethnic group), there do not seem to be other sources that support this, not even the Guna General Congress (highest tribal body) seems to have registered a Wargandi flag, only from Guna Yala. Taichi (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. File in use across multiple projects. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle: Not anymore. Withdrawn from all articles. Taichi (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- in use in several places. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This flag has no use in Wikimedia projects currently (which is why the deletion request was rejected in 2023). The source claimed in the file (apparently not updated since 2000) shows a model almost similar to that of the flag of Guna Yala (neighboring region of Wargandí, but of the same ethnic group called "Guna"). As argued in the 2023 DR, there is no reference from Guna tribal authorities in a design with white stripe (only yellow stripe is valid), so it could be a false or misrepresented design of Guna Yala flag but without approval from local authorities. Taichi (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File is in use on user pages, allowed per COM:INUSE. Consigned (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per above. used in a template as well. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 00:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Again. putting it back into deletion request, because isn't COM:INUSE. This flag has no use in Wikimedia projects currently (which is why the deletion request was rejected in 2023). The source claimed in the file (apparently not updated since 2000) shows a model almost similar to that of the flag of Guna Yala (neighboring region of Wargandí, but of the same ethnic group called "Guna"). As argued in the 2023 DR, there is no reference from Guna tribal authorities in a design with white stripe (only yellow stripe is valid), so it could be a false or misrepresented design of Guna Yala flag but without approval from local authorities. This flag is the only one of a group of false indigenous flags of Panama that were hosted in Commons and the rest have already been removed and deleted. Taichi (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom & earlier discussion; no longer used anywhere in Wikimedia. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Own work? 186.174.84.245 01:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- What reason is there to think it's not own work? Reverse google image search doesn't find any hits. — Rhododendrites talk | 03:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Found using bing: https://www.moviemeter.nl/images/photo/40000/40785.jpg. However, it's not clear if they took it from Commons. --Achim55 (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: AGF. Needs evidence that this isn't own work. Been on commons since 2015, which makes it more tricky. --Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not the flag of the city of Taranto but a fake created with the flag of the province and its coat of arms. GJo (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image was obtained from Flickr under a CC BY 2.0 license. I can't image it would qualify for de minimis though since a collage of otherwise copyrighted images still contains copyrighted images. Let alone would qualify for freedom of panorama since it's not an image of a building. Nor is someone's wall a public place. So the image probably copyrighted due to being a compilation of clearly copyrighted images. Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE, image originally authorised for WP article/WD item cancelled for spam Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The UN named her a SDG water pioneer - this can realistically be used. --Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DouglasGoldman as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7. More than 7 days, so converting to DR, but Delete anyways. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete duplicate of PoaPratensis2.jpg. @DouglasGoldman: I recommend using the {{Duplicate}} template instead. TilmannR (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Tem uma marca patente. JorgeDGVerde (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Tem uma marca comercial. JorgeDGVerde (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Appears to be OoS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aleksander Trojkowicz
[edit]Copyrighted until 2056.
- File:Barbakan Trojkowicz.jpg
- File:Fragment polichromii BaczalDolny.jpg
- File:Nocna Katedra na Wawelu Trojkowicz.jpg
- File:Serce Jezusowe BaczalDolny.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 22:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
While we apparently have an appropriate license for the photograph, there is no evidence that the two drawings prominently shown here have been freely licensed by Ms. Piene. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In terms of the photo, I see that the uploader "Jurek Smorag" has included the credit "Photography: Piotr Smorag" in the caption. Could a Polish(?) speaker comment on whether it is common for somebody to have two names and alternate between them on different occasions? Otherwise we would have to assume that the photographer is not actually the uploader but rather some family member of theirs. Anyways, if we resolve the issue regarding the photo's authorship, then there is no need to delete the photo entirely; at worst it could be cropped more tightly. On the COM:DM question it's a close call so I am neutral there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and likely flickwashing. Flickr account has 2 photos, 0 followers. --Gbawden (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded by a crosswiki spammer. See English Wikipedia checkuser case. Taichi (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Out of project scope: Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#F10. --Lymantria (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Russia has no freedom-of-panorama exception for such works. So, if this sculpture is still in copyright, a permission by the sculptor is needed or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9942.jpg - sculptor Mikhail Ruzheynikov (1894-1960)
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9940.jpg - sculptor Mikhail Ruzheynikov (1894-1960)
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9943.jpg - sculptor Mikhail Ruzheynikov (1894-1960)
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9941.jpg - sculptor Mikhail Ruzheynikov (1894-1960)
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 0638.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9950.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9949.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9952.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 0039.jpg old enough?
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9959.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9958.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9976.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9979.jpg
- File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9976.jpg and File:2023-02-02. Краснодар DSC 9979.jpg - was built in 1906-1914 (WLM card, Здание Общества взаимного кредита). In public domain per {{PD-RusEmpire}} --Butko (WLM card, talk) 09:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Undeleted the two mosaics that look like they could have been created before 1917 Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by وحید اسکوئی (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal and private images, out of scope
- File:وحیداسکوئی28.jpg
- File:وحیداسکوئی27.jpg
- File:وحیداسکوئی26.jpg
- File:وحیداسکوئی25.jpg
- File:وحیداسکوئی23.jpg
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by وحید اسکوئی (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal pictures
- File:وحید باقراسکوئی.jpg
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند678.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند677.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند676.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند675.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند673.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند674.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند672.JPG
- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند671.JPG
File:نمای اقتصاد سهند670.JPGFile:نمای اقتصاد سهند669.JPG- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند667.JPG
File:نمای اقتصاد سهند668.JPG- File:نمای اقتصاد سهند666.JPG
- File:وحیداسکوئی24.png
- File:21وحیداسکوئی.JPG
HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Upldate: I found out that three of the photographs above depict former Iranian minister of health (Kamran Bagheri Lankarani), so I removed them from my list. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Laykyun Sekkya
[edit]According to w:en:Laykyun Sekkya, the statue was incepted in 2008. Freedom of panorama no longer exists in Myanmar since the retroactive 2019 copyright law came into force.
- File:Approaching Bodhi Tataung (5090311929).jpg
- File:Laykyun Sekkya Monywa 001.jpg
- File:Laykyun Setkyar 02.jpg
- File:Laykyun Setkyar 03.jpg
- File:Laykyun Setkyar Buddha Statue Monywa, Myanmar (Second Tallest Buddha Statue in World).JPG
- File:Laykyun Setkyar Muni 001.jpg
- File:Look up into the eyes of Buddha (5090389297).jpg
- File:The 423 ft standing Buddha at Bodhi Tataung.jpeg
- File:Yattawmu Paya.JPG
- File:မုံရွာမြို့မှ ရပ်တော်မူဘုရားကြီး.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation; stained glass windows are contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Hamburg (26462277848).jpg
- File:Interior of St. Katharinen, Hamburg (01).jpg
- File:Interior of St. Katharinen, Hamburg (04).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I uploaded new pixelized versions of Interior of St. Katharinen, Hamburg (01) and Interior of St. Katharinen, Hamburg (04). But this is a gothic church from the middle age, the stained glass is only visible in the background. Es ist außerdem lächerlich, hier in Englisch diskutieren zu müssen. Außerdm betreibt MSg hier ausschließlich Abbau und keinerlei Dokumentation von Baudenkmälern. Das haben schon so viele angesprochen. --Chris06 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good idea. No copyright violation anymore. Ich habe das auch schon gemacht. "Lächerlich" ist noch eine Untertreibung. Wesentliches wurde gar nicht verstanden. --Wikiwal (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Deleted the first file, and revdeled the other two files, and kept the versions with the copyrighted windows pixelated. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Works by Pere Català i Pich
[edit]- File:Aixafem El Feixisme (Smash Fascism) Art.IWMPST8479.jpg
- File:Aixafem el feixisme.jpg
- File:Pla de campanya publicitària.jpg
_Art.IWMPST8479.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Work by Pere Català i Pich (1889-1971). Copyrighted in Spain until 2051.
Antecedents: Commons:Deletion requests/File:AixafemElFeixisme.jpeg. --Pere prlpz (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Undelete in 2052. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Buddha Kyaikto
[edit]Per the 2019 Copyright Act, there is no more freedom of panorama in Myanmar. The law appears to be retroactive; hence even images uploaded before May 2019 are no longer OK to be hosted here. Per w:en:Statue of Gautama Buddha (Myanmar), the Buddha statue dates to April 2019.
- File:Bottom Side View of the Statue of Gautama Buddha, Kyaikhto.jpg
- File:Gautama Buddha statue at Kyaikto, Myanmar.jpg
- File:Statue of Gautama Buddha, Kyaikhto.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No FoP in Myanmar. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Cover image of Free as in Freedom
[edit]- File:Free as in Freedom.jpeg
- File:Richard Matthew Stallman3.png
- File:Richard Matthew Stallman.jpeg
- File:Richard Matthew Stallman2.jpeg
- File:Richard Matthew Stallman cropped.jpeg
Per wikisource:Free as in Freedom (2002), [The c]over photograph of Richard Stallman [is copyrighted by] Sam Ogden/Photo Researchers, Inc. and cannot be used without permission. It is NOT released under the GFDL/cc-by-sa-3.0 --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Clear copyright notice and lack of a free license for cover. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Extremely bad graphics compilation of flags, no value of such a file Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unused low resolution file. Countries are not labeled and it also implies Israel is part of the EU where is actually just plays association football under UEFA. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the book 2nd edition was published in 1964, I highly doubt that the image is PD. [2] Fralambert (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Photo couverture Jean-Louis Frund (1965)
- bonjour, pour la Flore laurentienne, j'ai un contrat de publication du manuel édition 1964, avec l'éditeur qui possède les droits, Chenelière éducation, pour toutes autres photos, je suis toujours l'auteur, il y a peut-être une meilleure manière de le dire, je me plierai à vos règles.
- Le site Internet florelaurentienne.com est un organisme à but non lucratif, j'en suis la responsable, je travaille à la publication de la Flore depuis plus de 22 ans, tous les jours, c'est un très grand site 1800 pages, qui grandit s'afine, s'enrichit tout le temps, c'est l'histoire d'une vie
- florelaurentienne.com est un site gratuit
- sans aucune publicité
- je suis l'auteur de la photo Rue Principale 005.jpg Nichole Ouellette (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
cover page from 1964 under copyright law gpesenti (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I also doubt the photograph used in the book cover from 1964 is in the public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Blaze Wolf as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Out of project scope In use in enwiki. Kadı Message 19:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe the current use is legitimate. IT's simply used on a user page with who knows what on it. User seems to be NOTHERE but that's not something relevant for Commons. Blaze Wolf (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Blaze Wolf: Please note that "Out of scope" files/pages should normally be listed at Commons:Deletion requests. Speedy deletions only happen, when specific criteria are fulfilled.
- Keep per COM:INUSE: "The uploading of small numbers of images [...] for use on a personal user page [...] is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." TilmannR (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: Then Twinkle Global should probably be changed so I can't tag it for out of scope for speedy deletion. Blaze Wolf (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- it’s not meant to be enclopedyic anyways, it’s just for my wikipedia page💀 Feilynn (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Only use is in user pages and uploader is not yet a substantial contributor to Wikimedia projects. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
duplicado Tiancatwiki (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tiancatwiki: Si es un duplicado exacto de otra foto de Commons se puede marcar con {{Duplicate}} indicando de qué foto es duplicada. Si no indicas cuál es la foto igual a esta es difícil ver el motivo del borrado.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW, false license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
duplicado Tiancatwiki (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not flag of the city but flag of province, the coat of arms is not free but copyviol from http://www.araldicacivica.it/provincia/frosinone/ GJo (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio from multiple sources over the internet, see https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitpyoMrmgToH9JLv2_1I3Msm0S1usAi5RfvUyWiGtcV-K3ww4ypy_1NjjD_1P3NX_1qG1X9YW4Kx8kKHq4ALDeFK1tJdTfmaZA9KSfA55KxHxz6CWmFFQ9F9ZQilQXv3aleATm3Yy51iSESyvtM0K6sfez7wnKvvQ
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as the only external hit I found, used our image. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- This image is cropped part of personal photo of own dragon's breath plant. Houfescu (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- This file was initially tagged by Vojtěch Dostál and Johnj1995 converted the {{Speedydelete}} into a {{Copyvio}}.
- Weak keep. I found the site that links back to Commons, and additionally a listicle from 2 January 2023. They claim "Image Source: Flickr", but I wasn't able to find it there. Maybe the name of the original image doesn't contain the words "dragons breath" or maybe the writers of the list took the image from Wikipedia and copy-pasted the same image source under all images. I don't think we have enough evidence for a deletion. TilmannR (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep OK, sorry, I must have overlooked myself. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here you have originals for this photo https://ibb.co/album/n6KJRQ Houfescu (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- That URL doesn't really respond. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- ibb co had some issues, I uploaded it here https://easyupload.io/m/fz0nvu they are originals photos of pepper used to wikipedia image which I uploaded Houfescu (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- That URL doesn't really respond. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This deletion request regards files uploaded by Ymmo. These were noticed after a DR was started for another image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pipistrel Panthera aircraft.JPG, and it was found that this user appears to be a representative of the company Pipistrel. They were requested to send written permission to VRT, but there was no response. While source is claimed as "own work", author is given as "Pipistrel d.o.o Ajdovščina"; every photograph is taken with a different camera model and has different resolutions, which tend to be signs of multiple authorship. While it pains me, being an aviation geek, the precautionary principle says these need to go.
- File:Pipistrel Apis-Bee.jpg
- File:Pipistrel WATTsUP airplane.jpg
- File:Matevž Lenarčič in his Sinus.jpg
- File:Matevž Lenarčič after landing.jpg
- File:Matevž Lenarčič-high altitude.jpg
- File:Matevž Lenarčič in Virus cockpit.JPG
- File:Matevž Lenarčič.JPG
— Huntster (t @ c) 14:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Too bad. There's a chance they're just not monitoring that account any more. E-mailing them might actually work, but I just don't have the time to get engaged in things like this any more. El Grafo (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
doutes.... 2016 ou 2022 ? https://www.infolocale.fr/collectivites-institutions/dinan-agglomeration-406744/evenement-plancoet-concert-spectacle-musical-concert-ellis-borsarello-avec-lorchestre-national-de-bretagne-7280326 - copyrighted Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 22:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
нет описания 94.125.243.234 09:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Belbury as no source (No source since) Krd 03:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The online source have been added (Source: http://mtrsenai.blogspot.com/2011/12/100.html?m=1) Pagers (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've corrected the copyright information for India, but I'm not sure when this photo was first published, so not sure about the US copyright situation.--Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The supposed subject, en:Pandithurai Thevar, died in 1911, so it should have been published before then. This would also clear the US copyright situation. Felix QW (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Source has been added, and it appears to be out of copyright in India and the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This and more images from the same series had been tagged already in 2018 by the uploader shortly (2 days) after upload for speedy deletion due to "Suppression Immédiate|Violation de droits d'auteur concernant le Parc Disneyland Paris. Toute représentation du parc Disneyland Paris ne peut être utilisé à des fins commerciales.". As an invalid template had been used, this was never seen/processed. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Lustre du couloir du Phantom Manor.jpg
- File:Portrait d'Ariel la petite sirène.jpg
- File:Novembre 2017 - La cabane des robinsons (2).JPG
- File:Service à thé du Hollywood Tower Hotel.jpg
- File:Le train fou du BTM se fait éclabousser.jpg
- File:Enseigne du Temple Traders Boutique.jpg
- File:Le train fou du BTM se fait éclabousser.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
See older DRs at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Big Thunder Mountain at Disneyland Paris
Deleted: per nomination. No FOP in France, and the costumes are not cosplay but officially made customes worn by employees. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Прошу удалить файл. Это фотография была загружена мной. Dipish mot (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in Russia for pamplets. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
WW2 period picture, not own work of 2023. Original author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Поддерживаю номинацию к удалению. Фотография периода Второй Мировой (Великой Отечественной) войны никак не может быть собственной работой 2023 года. --Jim Hokins (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Photo is by A. Daragan. See Газета "Боевая кавалерийская" № 60, 14 июня 1943 года. Красноармейская газета which contains a photo from the same photo shoot just at a slightly different angle. I don't know what year Daragan died but Russia is 74 years PMA for GPW photos so safe to assume this will remain copyrighted for quite some more time.--68.134.5.142 15:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by uploader as "Suppression Immédiate|erreur sur le nom de l'image à l'importation" 4 minutes after upload (>2 years ago). However, due to the invalid template, it had never popped-up as speedy, though G7-criterion was fulfilled. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, this was because of a small error in the name of the file. The name of the person is repeted twice in it. Is there a way to rename the file without deleting it? In all case, I think that the file should not be deleted. Rastapeuplulos (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- What should the correct filename be? --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably File:Portrait de Jemal Taleb 2020-10-13.jpg, without the repetition? Felix QW (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably File:Portrait de Jemal Taleb 2020-10-13.jpg, without the repetition? Felix QW (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- What should the correct filename be? --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion != renaming. --Stifle (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Está duplicado Términus (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Image is just a subset of File:Euphorbia psammogeton.png that somehow downloaded incompletely. The full image has been uploaded as a png. 127(point)0(point)0(point)1 (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
0(point)0(point)1-20230203094600-File:Euphorbia_psammogeton.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: cropped version does not show more detail, not in use, of no education value wrt the original image. --Ellywa (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs, these drawings can't be hosted on Commons as they are close copies of specific photographs: https://focus.nouvelobs.com/2022/10/11/170/0/1024/512/875/0/75/0/40f6d91_1665497877334-proces-bobigny-19721108-afp-079-img1900560867.jpg and https://img.olympicchannel.com/images/image/private/t_1-1_1280/primary/t8m9hszvuod1dyauh7ny
Belbury (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Les illustrations sont de ma propre composition. Elles ne sont pas les copies des photos indiquées (pas du tout photohttps://focus.nouvelobs.com/2022/10/11/170/0/1024/512/875/0/75/0/40f6d91_1665497877334-proces-bobigny-19721108-afp-079-img1900560867.jpg) : il s'agit de deux portraits différents mis ensemble. L'illustration de DERARTU est composée par deux portraits qui s'inspirent de documents, mais ne les recopient pas. Elldé (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Excessive accusation. Original compositions, not simple "copies" of photographs (even if inspired by). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the images are derivative works from the original photos. We would need permission from these photographers to maintain the images on Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Burmese freedom of panorama no longer exists. As per the 2019 Copyright Act, Burma/Myanmar becomes a no-FOP country effectively. Several indications in the miscellaneous provisions give clues that the current law is retroactive. See also some latest comments at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Myanmar#Page content update. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- +1 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Agree to Delete. And agree to make {{NoFoP-Myanmar}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I agree to Delete Category:FoP-Myanmar. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: there are still 15 un-nominated images in that category. These need to be reviewed one-by-one, as some of the works may be in public domain now. Unfortunately there is a scarcity of background information about most of the works included in that category. Ping @Gone Postal: who added this FOP template to some of the photos there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete We already had {{NoFoP-Myanmar}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Cafel (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: there are still 15 un-nominated images in that category. These need to be reviewed one-by-one, as some of the works may be in public domain now. Unfortunately there is a scarcity of background information about most of the works included in that category. Ping @Gone Postal: who added this FOP template to some of the photos there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I will nomate the images in the category for deletion. --Ellywa (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)