Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/02/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This file was initially tagged by PlanespotterA320 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: Photo by Sergey Loskutov (1901–1980) & Boris Fishman (1917–1981), published 1938, so will be PD-Russia-expired in 2056. Converting to DR for categorization. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This photo is in Public Common in Russia and in the United States. See Licensing section on the page of this file. That is why it should be saved in Wikipedia.Георгий Елизаров (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I just dont like it Ruaa Zaidani (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Not useful Ruaa Zaidani (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep It's obviously useful, and you're wasting our time. Don't request deletion again, as you have no deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
not used anymore (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.213.65.85 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nonsensical reason. Flix11 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- delete now please 140.213.64.94 02:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
not used anymore (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.213.65.85 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nonsensical reason. Flix11 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- delete now please 140.213.64.94 02:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
not used anymore (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nonsensical reason. Flix11 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- delete now please 140.213.64.94 02:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
not used anymore 04:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.78.116.137 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Not used" is not a deletion reason. Do you have any other basis for wanting these deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- you can't delete now 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nonsensical reason. Flix11 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- delete now please 140.213.64.94 02:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nonsensical reason. Flix11 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism, in use. --Achim55 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ce n’est pas moi et pas libre de droit Gustave.Lercier.lançon (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Pouvez vous le supprimer pour moi! Gustave.Lercier.lançon (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ce n’est pas libre d’usage Gustave.Lercier.lançon (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ce n’est pas moi Gustave.Lercier.lançon (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ce n’est pas moi Gustave.Lercier.lançon (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
C’est choquant 176.148.7.36 03:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
https://www.deezer.com/br/artist/395594 RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Incorrectly nominated, as it’s a clear copyvio. Sorry. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
wrong format Mv1388 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Ahmad90donis (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Test or nonsense by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim55 (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry - I thought I had the correct permissions to upload this image, but I don't. The metadata shows that it actually belongs to The University of Sydney and a professional photographer, whose permission I have not obtained. This is very much my mistake, and I apologise! Please remove the image to avoid any form of copyright violation. Thank you. Foureyedraven (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
لأنه يخرق حقوق التأليف والنشر 1Bk ri (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if that's the case, you should delete User:Deepfriedokra too. On the other hand, looks like serving the purpose of a user page.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep inoffensive and minimalist user page.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
لأنه يخرق حقوق التأليف والنشر 1Bk ri (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, user talk pages are not deleted. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Very bad quality, File:Louvre Museum (7463560448).jpg, by the same author is better. Miniwark (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
A strangely blocky and blurry image credited in EXIF to "Google". Perhaps a Street View image put through a very heavy filter to hide the watermarks? Uploader appears to be a sock of Gejzir.owski (talk · contribs) who has a history of deliberately misidentifying photos of this area of Poland. Belbury (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Faked, the Biedronka store in Rotmanka looks completely different. --Achim55 (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete 1Bk ri (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why ?? after making more than million contributions over the last 8 years https://xtools.wmflabs.org/sc/commons.wikimedia.org/Marcel%20coenders Marcel coenders (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DMacks (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:Reason =speedy delete 1Bk ri (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --DMacks (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
See EXIF: "Author RICARDO BUFOLIN" "Copyright holder rbufolin@2021" - clearly a part of this set which, indeed, credits Ricardo Bufolin. Evidence of permisison from Bufolin needed. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Nevermind - found here, and more complete--F1. --Эlcobbola talk 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10). --Эlcobbola talk 16:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Completely absurd! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly usable as a thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
CV, see central watermark Mateus2019 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - image is tagged with the {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} license, which allows images from BollywoodHungama if they are from a BH set party or event in India. It's from their parties-events space on their site, link to the source is provided, this image appears to meet the criteria for the BH license. The delete tag was removed from image, but since the page still exists, replying. @Mateus2019, if you intended to not nominate this for deletion, you should comment here with {{Withdraw}} (at least I think that's still the process...). Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I undid the DR one minute later, but it didn't work. Mateus2019 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: DR was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 08:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Twitter bird logo
[edit]The Twitter bird is (c). The Pictofigo icon seems to be OK, included in this DR for good measure.
- File:Pictofigo-Twitter-icon.png
- File:Tweet-new.png
- File:Twitter Badge 1.png
- File:Twitter Bar 1.png
- File:Twitter Faenza.svg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Twitter bird logo
[edit]per earlier DRs. Non-free logo.
(t) Josve05a (c) 01:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- DIdn't see that, bt I want to raise it again, yes,since it is too similar to the 2010 logo (link) not to be classified as a non-free deriviative work. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. In my opinion these birds really different. Iniquity (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the argument of Iniquity, the bird of this logo is quite different from the original, in addition, is being used in several Wikinews for Publish templates that were quite discontinued with the classic «T». At least I'm against this. Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. In my opinion these birds really different. Iniquity (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- DIdn't see that, bt I want to raise it again, yes,since it is too similar to the 2010 logo (link) not to be classified as a non-free deriviative work. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: either cpvio or private artwork. --JuTa 17:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Twitter bird logo
[edit]Derivatives of the 2009 version of the non-free Twitter logo. Not licensed by Twitter. Too similar to original logo MO, therefore a non-free COM:DW.
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Classic.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Dark.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Default.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Gradient.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – iOS.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Light.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – Simple.png
- File:Map marker icon – Nicolas Mollet – Tweet – Media – White.png
(t) Josve05a (c) 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Licensed under see here --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not by twitter, only the derivate. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Twitter bird logo
[edit]Per above DRs
- File:Bioblitz festival DC - Flickr - treegrow (17).jpg
- File:Impact Hub Birmingham - The Walker Building - Coventry Street, Digbeth (25284371706).jpg
- File:The Art of Social Media.jpg
- File:Twitter Logo Blue.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Circular.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Rounded Square.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Square.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White.svg
- File:Twitter's San Francisco Headquarters.jpg
Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep File:Twitter's San Francisco Headquarters.jpg per COM:De minimis. --XXN, 13:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep following files:
- File:Twitter Logo Blue.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Circular.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Rounded Square.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Square.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White.svg.
I want to drew your attention to the fact, that in summary of each file I have left link to the original Twitter Brand Guidelines. According to it, you can freely use Bird logo, if:
- you have left 150% clear space around original bird
- you used original colours both of the bird and background (bird — only white "HEX #FFFFFF" or blue "HEX #1DA1F2"; background — blue, white or transparent)
- you do not transform original bird (add special effects, elements or anatomy; skew, rotate, stretch or change orientation ect.)
How you can see, mentioned files do not break rules from Twitter Brand Guidness, furthermore they were extracted from page with recommended social icons (p.6). Ігор Пєтков (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Those guidelines are about Trademark and not copyright. Also, they have non-derivative clauses, as you specify above.
Delete all logos which is not COM:DM, such a File:Twitter's San Francisco Headquarters.jpg which should be kept. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jonatan Svensson Glad, sorry, but i do not fully understand the purpose of deleting. Actually all these icons are trademarks of Twitter itself and I have mentioned this in Licensing paragraph. Brand Guidness gives recommendation how to use twitter social icon. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ігор Пєтков: unfortunately, the conditions under which Twitter allow reusing its logo are not acceptable for Commons. On Commons are allowed only absolutely free images, without any non-derivative or non-commercial clauses or restrictions. --XXN, 16:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: but almost all of the Trademark files saved on Commons have such non-derivative clauses, for example Facebook Trand Guidness. In both cases these clauses are usually related to the file itself. It just obvious, that you can not transform original logo, because it is a trademark. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let me make this clear for all. COmmons does not care about trademarks rules, or guidelines. We only care about copyright. There' a difference. In case of facebook, it is only using letters, so it is not copyrightable, but is still protected for trademark (they have rights against impersenation etc.), but in the case of Twitter, they too have trademark protection but they also hold copyright to the logo, isnce it is not just text, but is creative enough to be copyrighted under copyright law, which normal text does not. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- File:F icon.svg,File:New youtube logo.png,File:Apple logo black.svg all these files and a lot more are not allowed on the commons, because they content shapes, but not text (in case of facebook you can not put "F" into not rounded square or hexagon ect.), and there is special Guidness, that recommends you how to use. Anyway, Twitter Brand Guidness says, that you can freely use their logo, if you follow recommendation, that are similar for every company's logo saved on Commons Ігор Пєтков (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let me make this clear for all. COmmons does not care about trademarks rules, or guidelines. We only care about copyright. There' a difference. In case of facebook, it is only using letters, so it is not copyrightable, but is still protected for trademark (they have rights against impersenation etc.), but in the case of Twitter, they too have trademark protection but they also hold copyright to the logo, isnce it is not just text, but is creative enough to be copyrighted under copyright law, which normal text does not. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @XXN: but almost all of the Trademark files saved on Commons have such non-derivative clauses, for example Facebook Trand Guidness. In both cases these clauses are usually related to the file itself. It just obvious, that you can not transform original logo, because it is a trademark. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ігор Пєтков: unfortunately, the conditions under which Twitter allow reusing its logo are not acceptable for Commons. On Commons are allowed only absolutely free images, without any non-derivative or non-commercial clauses or restrictions. --XXN, 16:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jonatan Svensson Glad, sorry, but i do not fully understand the purpose of deleting. Actually all these icons are trademarks of Twitter itself and I have mentioned this in Licensing paragraph. Brand Guidness gives recommendation how to use twitter social icon. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- File:Twitter Logo Blue.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Circular.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Circular.svg
- File:Twitter Logo White On Blue Square.svg
These four files should be Deleted since SA is not permitted. Additionally, the subject of this photo, File:Impact Hub Birmingham - The Walker Building - Coventry Street, Digbeth (25284371706).jpg is also copyrighted and hence, it should be deleted as well.--Canopus Grandiflora 13:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm repeating one more time, all these files you can find in Twitter Brand Guidelines, social icons (p.6), they are not modified. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Files on Commons must allow modification --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This:
<svg height="100" viewBox="0 0 100 100" width="100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<circle cx="50" cy="50" fill="#fff" r="100"/>
<circle cx="35" cy="33" fill="#1da1f3" r="56"/>
<circle cx="07" cy="29" fill="#fff" r="51"/>
<circle cx="35" cy="53" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="23" cy="39" fill="#fff" r="20"/>
<circle cx="27" cy="40" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="18" cy="23" fill="#fff" r="19"/>
<circle cx="27" cy="24" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="53" cy="39" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="52" cy="-17" fill="#fff" r="51"/>
<circle cx="84" cy="14" fill="#1da1f3" r="17"/>
<circle cx="91" cy="05" fill="#fff" r="19"/>
<circle cx="80" cy="07" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
<circle cx="73" cy="-32" fill="#fff" r="51"/>
<circle cx="72" cy="31" fill="#1da1f3" r="19"/>
</svg>
draws the Twitter logo in SVG. Is that data really copyrightable? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: all but the one, per discussion. The Twitter permission does not allow modifications, so is not acceptable. To anwer the question about the svg code -- the code itself has a copyright and, if it describes a copyrighted icon, then it is also a derivative work of the icon and infringes on the icon's copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Twitter bird logo
[edit]Per previous category discussions, this precise bird logo design is copyrighted.
- File:Antu im-twitter.svg
- File:Be-your-social-media-marketing-manager-and-business-promoter.jpg
- File:Ei-sc-twitter.svg
- File:Font Awesome 5 brands Twitter square.svg
- File:Pexels-photo-267350.jpg
- File:Social Media.jpg
- File:Twitter box.jpg
- File:Twitter font awesome.svg
- File:Twitter-logo.svg
Belbury (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Licensed under Apache License, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Twitter-logo.svg. --Rosenzweig τ 07:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination, I didn't notice that this had changed, or that there were a couple of valid licences here amid the "own work" CC. Belbury (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Plagiarism from images posted on Toei Animation's corporate website (https://corp.toei-anim.co.jp). The illustration of the cat used in the logo mark is based on the character that appeared in the animated movie "The Wonderful World of Puss 'n Boots", but since this movie was released in 1969, it is copyrighted. considered to be within the term of protection of the right. Daraku K. (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment When I checked again, it seems that the user who uploaded this image had previously uploaded File:Toei Animation logo.png, which seems to be the same image as this, and was speedy deleted as Copyvio. (Special:redirect/logid/330957463), so I pasted {{Copyvio}} just in case. Daraku K. (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, re-upload of deleted copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No. Have you ever tried glasses? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept, vandalistic request. I will block the nominator. Taivo (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bull. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No, its not. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept, I blocked the nominator for vandalistic requests. Taivo (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No! It isn't. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept, I blocked the nominator for vandalistic requests. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry OSC 617 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No, its not. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept, I blocked the nominator for vandalistic requests. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because it shows a very very bad image 75.141.194.10 23:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Moderated as per usual. 75.141.194.10 23:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept, it is not a bad image. And even if it was, it's ineligible for deletion on the grounds of quality, because it is used in multiple projects. Taivo (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The installation package itself is clearly not the uploader's own work. In my opinion, the line drawing on the front cover is too complex clearly to say that it is below the US threshold of originality, due to the perspective induced by the non-trivial curvature of the building silhouette, Felix QW (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyright violation. The left-hand side clearly states © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. Touts droits réservés.
Whilst this certainly applies to the software contained in the package, there is no indication that this copyright notice does not also apply to the packaging. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 12:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)- Speedy delete as a copyright violation. The uploader may have scanned the cover, but they are not the copyright holder. The drawing of the building on the cover is well above the threshold of originality so there is no way this could be deemed PD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Metadata has copyright notice by Soriful Islam Tota who is a photojournalist and did not released this photo in public domain. Nahid Hossain (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, author's request. — T. 14:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Mdaniels5757, The signature was uploaded in an incorrect format, Please delete this file. I am the uploader.--Kontentman (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This DR was not visible. Uploaded request 181.203.238.127 02:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Dear Yann, can you delete this pdf file? the uploader says that the file is not uploaded in the correct format.--85.132.29.163 06:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Dear krd, please delete.--89.219.186.112 18:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Dear Yann, I think it would be right to delete this pdf file.--82.194.17.140 11:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Appears top be a copyrighted image incorrectly uploaded to Commons 204.128.192.31 17:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 14:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Background is possibly above threshold of originality (TOO) Trade (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Question Crumpled paper, original? I doubt it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)- Comment COM:UA?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Trade (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 14:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Unrecognizable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unused personal photo by non-contributor; no evident in-scope usefulness -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Unidentifiable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture of a playlist CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The name of the watermark on the picture is different from the one of the uploader CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Unidentifiable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The watermark on the picture does not mathc the uploader's name CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot per Metadata, also low resolution plus copyvio history of the uploader make it dubious of own work claim A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing full EXIF data plus copyvio history of the uploader make it dubious of own work claim A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS Di (they-them) (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I consider it to be out of scope: just a selfie, with covered faces. The source is also suspicious, and I don’t see why it would be freely licensed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Xtrls (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/194995784@N08
[edit]Flickrwashing. Flickr account created in 2022 with 0 followers
- File:Violet Edwards Award.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Interviews.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards with Rep. Laura Hall.jpg
- File:Canvansing 02.jpg
- File:Uw single.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards speaking to nurse.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards with U.S. Senator Doug Jones.jpg
- File:Neighborhood block party4.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Smiling.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards with Christmas Charities.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Campaigning outside.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards at Rock the Vote.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards with sorority sisters.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards at an event.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Speaking in Selma.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards getting vaccine.jpg
- File:AvocatingForHomeless5.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards at Clinton library.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Volunteering.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Speech.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards official Portrait.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards waving.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards at Groundbreaking.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Speaking.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards with Scouts.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards poses with a sign.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Gestures.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards speaking in front of Flags.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards speaking to Reporters.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards smiles at Camera.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards 1.jpg
- File:NACH Continuum1.jpg
- File:Violet Edwards Selfie.jpg
- File:Naacp fredom bqt7.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No reverse image results but these all look like stills from TV shows and cartoons. Uploader has many other copyvios uploaded as own work.
- File:Loi cong.jpg
- File:Dai bang.jpg
- File:Linh hon.png
- File:Deva (thiên).jpg
- File:Bat nhiet dia nguc.jpg
- File:Hon 11.png
- File:Thế giới Linh hồn.jpg
- File:Thiên đình.png
Belbury (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Photoshop sketch filter applied to pre-existing and uncredited source images, eg. File:Nien thu.jpg is a drawing at https://dongmynghe.com.vn/tim-hieu-tu-linh-la-gi-y-nghia-tu-linh-trong-phong-thuy, File:Yêu quái trong Tây du ký.jpg is a low res TV show still at https://kienthuc.net.vn/kho-tri-thuc/10-yeu-quai-tot-bung-nhat-trong-tay-du-ky-vi-tri-so-1-it-nguoi-co-the-doan-ra-1244002.html
- File:Nien thu.jpg
- File:Nhai xe.jpg
- File:Ba la sat.jpg
- File:Nguu Ma Vuong.jpg
- File:Tam phu.jpg
- File:Mau Thoai.jpg
- File:Truong Trong Canh.jpg
- File:Ngo dao tu.jpg
- File:Do khang.jpg
- File:Kiếm Durandal.jpg
- File:Thổ công 1.jpg
- File:Hà bá.jpg
- File:Yêu quái trong Tây du ký.jpg
- File:Orc in lord of the ring.jpg
- File:Trấn Nguyên đại tiên.jpg
Belbury (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Non-free television screenshot Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal picture; user locked Enyavar (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Modern primat as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: photo of non-contributor - im not sure. maybe she is notable? if not please speedy delete. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- she is a Renowned poetess of India. her poetry is translated and recognized in different parts of the world. Sid4poetry (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- ok, then shouldnt be deleted. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, it was added after your deletion request was started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- ok, then shouldnt be deleted. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
you can close this case. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: File is in use. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal photo by non-contributor Enyavar (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Based on web search results and the composition, I would have wanted to keep the photo, but it's from Facebook. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Com:Penis 200.25.22.137 15:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement, no encyclopedic value. Till (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: OoS --Alaa :)..! 17:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? Given is as source "Google" and as author "Unknown author". It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Likely not own works: most have FB/transmission code in EXIF data, several different watermarks (not matching uploader). And 2 montages without source for individual images. All need COM:VRT.
- File:A water canal.jpg
- File:Bannu Sports Complex.jpg
- File:Bannu Gul.jpg
- File:Akra Mounds.jpg
- File:The Start and the end.jpg
- File:Village Chowk(Hujra) Bannu.jpg
- File:Palm Trees Ghoriwala.jpg
- File:Mir Jani House.jpg
- File:Night view Tanchi Bazar.jpg
- File:Masala Market.jpg
- File:Bannuwal Boy.jpg
- File:Pashto Society.jpg
- File:Morning Tea at Bannu.jpg
- File:Landscape Painting of Frontier Children's Academy, Hayatabad, Peshawar.jpg
- File:Bannu Beef Pulao.jpg
- File:A village in Ghoriwala, Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg
- File:Shinning sun in the far greens of Ghoriwala.jpg
- File:Jaffar Khan Mughal Khel Mosque, Bannu.jpg
- File:John Nicholson's House, Bannu (Front).jpg
- File:John Nicholson's House, Bannu (Side).jpg
- File:Bannu Collage 2.jpg
- File:Bannu Collage.jpg
- File:Central Library, University of Science and Technology Bannu.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Article in pt-WP was deleted, apparently a personal photo of uploader Enyavar (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
not personal work. It's the photo of the profile Albin in all the social medias. Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 22:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for 3D Lesless (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for 3D Lesless (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for 3D Lesless (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomination. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, we had better choices in the category A1Cafel (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in UK. Artist Stephen Pusey is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Mural St Nicholas church pathway, Sutton, Surrey, Greater London - Flickr - tonymonblat.jpg
[edit]No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sulavxettri10 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Unused personal picture; account locked
Enyavar (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
According to the watermark, its author is Ivan Gorodnov, not Ilya Evseyev (uploader). INS Pirat (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Neo-confederate vanity upload Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Beside being inflammatory and divisive, its also hard to imagine this to be of any educational value or worth. Sundostund (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Since the person shown died in 1988, the photo is certainly not from 2012. Other claims including licensing look equally dubious. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
1941 German photograph. Since it wasn't public domain in Germany in 1996, it presents a possible URAA issue. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: OoS --Alaa :)..! 17:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Subject appears to be a copyrighted outdoor sculptural work in the US, thus not included in freedom of panorama Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Not own logo, and no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Doubt on the personal work, Seems like a screenshot from a TV show CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; low quality, tight crop, no exif. PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, Album cover, Ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as no permission (No permission since). No permission necessary as it is below COM:TOO. However, with no description it is unclear what this logo is supposed to represent, and unless further information is provided, it is out of COM:SCOPE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, dubious scope. --Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DoughNebeker (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) - There was a Wikidata item for this person (d:Q113484166) but on my request that was deleted, see d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Would_Q113484166_be_an_item_to_be_deleted? ("Does not meet the notability policy").
JopkeB (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Significant media coverage, so we might keep the photos even though Wikidata isn't satisfied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please elucidate this remark: who is this person Adam Petrilli and why should he has photos on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I just did a web search on the name last night. Have you done a web search? I think that should be done before every deletion request based on a lack of notability. Sorry, if I had more time, I'd do another web search and make statements about specifics in the results, but I want to get a snack and then get back to grading for my real job. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I did a web search and I did not see anything special, except self promoting. So that is why I asked for elucidating. So again: what makes this person so special that he should stay on Commons, please be specific. JopkeB (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have a few spare moments, so these are search results that did not seem like self-promotion to me: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netreputation-ceo-adam-petrilli-named-145100877.html, https://businesstalkmagazine.com/interviews/adam-petrilli-an-orm-innovator-leading-the-industry-with-a-revolutionary-business-approach/, https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/4-common-challenges-youll-face-when-starting-a-business/442813, https://www.entrepreneur.com/science-technology/4-ways-to-manage-your-next-brand-crisis-and-come-back/379148, https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/5-hacks-for-building-an-invincible-business-strategy/438661...I could go on. I think his column at Entrepreneur.com is the most significant media result, but I would think that being a member of the Forbes Business Council is a prestigious honor, though correct me if I'm wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your research. You indeed found articles indicating Adam Petrilli is not just any entrepreneur, but has earned its spurs (is this an expression in English?). But I do not know this is good enough for Commons. His team is small (according to the website 50), so he is not a leader of a big business. I cannot judge about the meaning of being a member of the Forbes Business Council and have no knowledge about the admission policy of Entrepreneur.com (some magazines and websites accept any article that looks good). Writing an article in a popular style can also be meant for self promotion or for promotion of your business. So, honestly, I cannot judge anymore about this deletion request. I only know that there is no Wikipedia article about him, none of the photos is being used yet in another Wikimedia project and in the Wikidata item were no links to trusted external databases. I hope an administrator or someone else can be a better judge. JopkeB (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Addition:
- I could not find Forbes Business Council on Commons.
- On Wikipedia there are only two lines about this online platform.
- On neither I could find people who are a member of this Council.
- These findings do not plea for keeping these photos on Commons. --JopkeB (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'm guessing the closing admin will consider photos of him to be out of scope. I prefer to err on the side of inclusion, within reason, but in these kinds of cases, it's always a question of where to draw the line. (Yes, earning one's spurs is definitely an English expression, which I would associate with cowboys.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Addition:
- I have a few spare moments, so these are search results that did not seem like self-promotion to me: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netreputation-ceo-adam-petrilli-named-145100877.html, https://businesstalkmagazine.com/interviews/adam-petrilli-an-orm-innovator-leading-the-industry-with-a-revolutionary-business-approach/, https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/4-common-challenges-youll-face-when-starting-a-business/442813, https://www.entrepreneur.com/science-technology/4-ways-to-manage-your-next-brand-crisis-and-come-back/379148, https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/5-hacks-for-building-an-invincible-business-strategy/438661...I could go on. I think his column at Entrepreneur.com is the most significant media result, but I would think that being a member of the Forbes Business Council is a prestigious honor, though correct me if I'm wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I just did a web search on the name last night. Have you done a web search? I think that should be done before every deletion request based on a lack of notability. Sorry, if I had more time, I'd do another web search and make statements about specifics in the results, but I want to get a snack and then get back to grading for my real job. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: While one or 2 may be in scope these are likely copyvios. I found them here - https://www.discoverwalks.com/blog/united-states/top-10-facts-about-entrepreneur-adam-petrilli/ - PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Onduidelijkheid of de licentie waaronder de foto hier is vrijgegeven klopt. トトト (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Functionally a duplicate of File:Perhaps the cutest kitten in the world. - Flickr - Clevergrrl.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete And much lower resolution Nv8200p (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Functionally a duplicate of File:I love my music !.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Andreas Brylka
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Andreas Brylka, died in 2016. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2087.
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 698 Kormoran.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 699 Storch.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 700 Uhu.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 701 Birkhahn.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 702 Wiedehopf.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 703 Wanderfalke.JPG
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0702.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: These 1959 (East) German stamps were published before 1966 without naming the author, so {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} will apply, and the stamps will be in the PD in Germany in 2030. However, the URAA restored their 95 year long copyrights in the US, where these stamps will be protected until the end of 2054. The files can therefore be restored in 2055. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screeshot of an app (seems to be Facebook) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Franklinerobe (talk · contribs)
[edit]No exif, one is from FB - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=148252860645102&set=a.148252863978435 - PCP
Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
copyrighted picture used in Times of India article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/exclusive-bigg-boss-16-contestant-mc-stans-friend-rohit-zinjurk-praises-the-rapper-says-his-behaviour-is-original-hes-not-trying-to-fake-things/articleshow/96010779.cms AngusWOOF (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Similar version available on web [1]. Hence, remove it per COM:PCP. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Obvious copyvio. Source says "found on google". PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
low-quality picture; we have better pictures of both people. Also a screengrab, likely a copyvio from some website. Enyavar (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
creator was not named - its not the uploader Bahnmoeller (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a still from a TV show, uploader has many other copyvios uploaded as own work. Belbury (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Vermutlich URV, Screenshot von einem Kartenanbieter im Internet AxelHH (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- delete, GoogleMaps CopyVio --Enyavar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pratik Dawange (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Unused personal pictures; both men yield no obvious search results online
- File:Sachin tambe 1.jpg
- File:Sachin Tambe.jpg
- File:Pratik Dawange 1.jpg
- File:Pratik Dawange.jpg
- File:20220803074849 010A9575.jpg
Enyavar (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/c/BOBBYSHANN CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
possible out of project scope image. check this page: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_ila%C3%A7lama (it got marked with speedy delete) . if it is got deleted or kept, do what its necesarry ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- --page got deleted, delete the image.-- ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 12:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (Foto: Kenny Beele) M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lê Phan Hoài Phúc (talk · contribs)
[edit]gibberish filename + no camera info = likely internet grab.
RZuo (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Xtrls (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In use in good-faith userspace draft. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal picture with no description Enyavar (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright for stamps of Germany lasts until at least 70 years after the death of the artist. In this case the artist, Hans Detlefsen, died in 1992. So images of these stamps are copyrighted until at least 2,062, if not later because of the URAA thing. Although I'll leave that up to others to decide which term to apply. Also, for anyone who wants to make an issue out of the fact that the artist isn't named on the stamps, please read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/Anonymous_and_pseudonymous_works before you waste everyone's time trying to argue about it.
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3344.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3345.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3346.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3347.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3348.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3349.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3350.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3351.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1990, MiNr 3352.jpg
- File:WRM Meissen Albrechtsburg castle - Albrechtsburg Meißen.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The files can be restored in 2063. --Rosenzweig τ 07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete it, please. I was wrong. CamiloB4 (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 05:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover https://music.amazon.de/albums/B08XNTQ8D9 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 05:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Ingush dance in Gveleti (Gelate). 19th century.jpg}} (Template doesn't work, anyway, it's File:Ingush dance in Gveleti (Gelate). 19th century.jpg ) Enyavar (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate Muqale (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure of the licensing of the other file, although PD-old should apply with it being from 1880 Enyavar (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've uploaded it twice. The website on mentioned on this one (top-left corner) is not the original source, hence the request for deletion. Muqale (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Jaroslaw Benda
[edit]Copyright for stamps of Germany lasts until at least 70 years after the death of the artist. In this case the artist, Jaroslaw Benda, died in 1970. So images of these stamps are copyrighted until at least 2040, if not later because of the URAA thing. Although I'll leave that up to others decide. Also, for anyone who wants to make an issue out of the fact that the artist isn't named on the stamps, please read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/Anonymous_and_pseudonymous_works before you waste everyone's time trying to argue about it.
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0042 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0043 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0044 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0045 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0046 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0047 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0048 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0049 mt B002d.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0050 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1939 DRBM MiNr0051 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0117 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0118 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0119 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0120 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0121 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0122 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0123 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0124 mt B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1943 DRBM MiNr0125 mt B0012.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: These are stamps of the en:Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia from 1939 and 1943, all featuring the same image. The protecorate had been annexed by Germany, so we can apply German laws. No author is named on the stamps, meaning that {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} applies, and the stamps are in the public domain in Germany since 2010 and 2014 (Germany being the country of origin because of the annexation at the time). They were however still protected on the URAA date of 1996-01-01, and accordingly the URAA restored their copyright in the US. The featured image was first published in 1939, which means the stamps are still protected in the US until the end of 2034. The files can be restored in 2035. --Rosenzweig τ 14:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Axel Bengs
[edit]Copyright for stamps of Germany lasts until at least 70 years after the death of the artist. In this case the artist, Axel Bengs, died in 1988. So images of these stamps are copyrighted until at least 2,058, if not later because of the URAA thing. Although I'll leave that up to others to decide which term to apply. Also, for anyone who wants to make an issue out of the fact that the artist isn't named on the stamps, please read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany/Anonymous_and_pseudonymous_works before you waste everyone's time trying to argue about it.
- File:Carl Zeiss Jena 20 1956 Mi. 546.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 683 Händel.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 713 Jena.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 714 Jena.JPG
- File:DDR 1959 Michel 736 Moped.JPG
- File:DDR 1964 Michel 1039-1044 6-block of 4 se-tenant sheet (18th Olympic Games, Tokyo).jpg
- File:DDR 1964 Michel 1039-1044 se-tenant sheet as bottom right corner 6-block with margins (18th Olympic Games, Tokyo).jpg
- File:Euler GDR stamp.jpg
- File:FDC 1981 GDR Schinkel MiNr2619260 pm B002.jpg
- File:FDC DDR 1963 Wostok5u6 B001.png
- File:GDR 1983 SouvBfWilhBade MiNr2825 pm B002.jpg
- File:GDR 1984 SouvBfSteller MiNr2825 pm B002a.jpg
- File:GDR-stamp Carl Zeiss Jena 10 1956 Mi. 545.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Carl Zeiss Jena 25 1956 Mi. 547.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Friedrich Fröbel 10 1957 Mi. 564.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Friedrich Fröbel 20 1957 Mi. 565.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Leipziger Frühjahrsmesse 1957 Mi. 559.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Leipziger Frühjahrsmesse 1957 Mi. 560.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Menschenrechte 10 1956 Mi. 549.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Menschenrechte 25 1956 Mi. 550.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Menschenrechte 5 1956 Mi. 548.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tag der Marke 5 1957 Mi. 600.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Thomas Mann 1956 Mi. 534.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 10 1956 Mi. 552.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 15 1956 Mi. 553.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 1956 Mi. 554.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 1956 Mi. 555.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 1956 Mi. 556.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tierpark 5 1956 Mi. 551.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Ungarnhilfe 20+10 1956 Mi. 557.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Uni Greifswald 1956 Mi. 543.JPG
- File:SouvBf 1957 GDR Postillion pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp GDR 1963 Michel 1093.JPG
- File:Stamp GDR 1963 Michel 1094.JPG
- File:Stamp GDR 1963 Michel 1095.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 20 MiNr 661.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 633.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 634.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 661.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 663.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1958 MiNr 664.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 763.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 784A.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 784B.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 789.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 791.JPG
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0543.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0545.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0547.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0549.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0550.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0551.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0553.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0555.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0556.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0664.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr Block 015.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0682.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0713.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0735.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960 MiNr 790.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0763.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0790.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1042.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1043.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1044.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1052.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1053.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1056.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1057.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1058.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr Zusammendruck 1039 - 1044.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr Zusammendruck 1052, 1053.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1093.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1094.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1095.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1098.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1099.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1307.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1969, MiNr 1467.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1541.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1542.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1543.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1544.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1577.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1594.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1595.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2061.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2062.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2063.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2064.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2522.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2523.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2524.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2525.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2526.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1980, MiNr 2527.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2619.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1981, MiNr 2620.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- MiNr 1057 shows a 1950 stamp, which is out of copyright in Germany ({{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}). Everything around the 1950 stamp is just plain text and {{PD-ineligible}}.
- MiNr 1058 shows a 1955 stamp. The 1955 stamp shows a 1521 painting, which is {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Everything around the painting is just plain text and {{PD-ineligible}}. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
-
MiNr 1057
-
1950 stamp -
MiNr 1058
-
1955 stamp -
1521 painting
_1955,_MiNr_0504.jpg)
- I'm fine with those specific ones being kept if they are based on otherwise PD paintings. Although you could argue they are original works. Otherwise, I don't see why they would be credited to Axel Bengs as the artist. There's obviously more that goes into creating a stamp them just copying and pasting the original painting and calling it done. For instance design of the typography, placement of the text, choosing the colors, Etc. Etc. I don't really find the "it's just plain text" thing to be compelling in this case since what makes something a stamp is overall design elements. It's not just a couple of random, plain words on a white piece of paper. That said, it's not something I care that much about. I just think calling the stamps "plain text" is miss-leading. The question would be though if unique elements that make Axel Bengs the artist are enough to be copyrightable. I don't know, but Germany seems to have a pretty low bar when it comes to what is an original work, mainly if it took artistic effort. Did Axel Bengs put artistic effort into creating these stamps? Probably. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- MiNr 543 shows an ancient seal, which is out of copyright. Everything around the seal is {{PD-ineligible}}. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- You have a link to an image of the original seal? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, see below. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- You have a link to an image of the original seal? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
-
MiNr 543
-
Seal
Deleted: This one was complicated. Two stamps were miscategorized and not at all by Bengs, several were by him and other designers like Rudolf Skribelka who died later than Bengs. Many of these were from before 1966, which means {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} applies if the authors are not named on the stamp, and the stamp is then in the public domain in Germany 70 years after publication. If authors are named, it's 70 years pma. All of them were protected in Germany on the URAA date 1996-01-01, and accordingly the URAA restored their 95 year copyright in the US. So undeletion dates are based on either German or US copyright, whichever expires later. We also have some special files showing postcards or first day covers with additional artwork. The artists of this additional artwork are not known, they all seem to be contemporary from the time of publication however, and since drawings and paintings created prior to 1 July 1995 cannot be anonymous in a legal sense in Germany (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works), these can be restored 120 years after publication with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Finally, we have the two stamps showing an university seal and a painting by Dürer. The university seal on the stamps is not an exact copy of the university seal we have or any earlier version I found, so it is probably an own creation original enough for its own copyright. The Dürer stamp is a derivative work of the Dürer painting in another medium (engraving), so not a pure copy and sufficiently original for its own copyright. I will annotate the DR with notes and undeletion categories. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Axel Bengs
[edit]Postage stamps of Germany are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the designer. That is unless their status is restored by URAA, but I'll leave that up to the closing administrator to decide. Either way, the designer of these stamps, Axel Bengs, died in 1988. so they are copyrighted until at least 2,059, if not longer.
- File:DDR 1963 Michel 939.JPG
- File:DDR 1963 Michel 940.JPG
- File:Stamp of Germany (DDR) Valentina Tereschkova.Jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0534.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0546.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0548.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0552.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0554.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0559.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0560.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0564.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0565.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0600.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0606 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0607 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0608 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0634.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0660.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0661.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0663.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0673.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0683.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0714.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1959, MiNr 0736.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0784 A.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr 0789.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1960, MiNr Block 016.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0841.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0842.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 841.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 842.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1962, MiNr 0916.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1962, MiNr 0923.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1962, MiNr 0924.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0970.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr 0971.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1963, MiNr Zusammendruck 0970-0971.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1039.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1040.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1964, MiNr 1041.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1122.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1123.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1147.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1148.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1149.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1150.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1151.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1965, MiNr 1152.jpg
File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1262.jpgFile:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1265.jpgFile:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1266.jpgFile:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1267.jpg- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1292.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1967, MiNr 1306.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1970, MiNr 1578.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: most, per nomination, kept four that were reproductions of paintings in the public domain and otherwise below the threshold of originality. As before, a few were miscategorized and not at all by Bengs, several were by him and Rudolf Skribelka who died later than Bengs. The restoration years are again a mix of German terms, US terms because of the URAA and some PD-old-assumed after 120 years because the death year of the designer of the miscategorized stamps is not known. --Rosenzweig τ 16:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Newspaper article CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture from a DVD CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Image is blurred and unused, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Possibly complex logo Trade (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello all, I'm fairly new to uploading video game logos to Commons so I have no idea what qualifies as complex or simple. Looking at other entries on the category I thought this qualified but perhaps it is not the case. I hope other more experienced users of Commons can chip in with their thoughts. Jotamide (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project. Author's request. Mychele Trempetich (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
this image is already on Commons in File:C.O. Card House.jpg (my bad) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Is this icon below the threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not completely sure, this is my first upload here so I didn't really know what kind of copyright it was under. After seeing that the Undertale logo was considered below the threshold of originality, and looking up some other instances of these, I figured the Celeste logo was also below the threshold of originality, but it could be completely false for all I know NimportNawak (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Royalbroil 02:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Die Autonummer ist sichtbar. Wenn Problem, bitte löschen. Ich kann danach dasselbe Foto mit retuschierter Nummer hochladen. WidmerThomas (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ist meines Wissens kein zwingender Löschgrund. Das Bild kann aber natürlich mit Retusche aktualisiert werden ("Neue Version hochladen") und das ursprüngliche Bild versionsgelöscht, wenn jemand ein Problem draus macht. --Enyavar (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Eine neue Version ist mittlerweile mit retuschierter Nummer unter neuem Namen hochgeladen worden. (File:Pierre Bergère in Salvan, Wallis, Schweiz.jpg) Dieses Bild hier kann also gelöscht werden.--Parpan05 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (as requested by the uploader shortly after upload) and discussion; new version is at File:Pierre Bergère in Salvan, Wallis, Schweiz.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Johannes Britze
[edit]The licensing tags on these images are incorrect. It hasn't been 70 years since the artist of the stamps died and I can't figure out any other reason the images would be PD. So these are copyrighted until at least 2031 since the artist died in 1960.
- File:DAN 1927 MiNr0168 pm B002a.jpg
- File:DAN 1927 MiNr0170 pm B002a.jpg
- File:DAN 1927 MiNr0171 pm B002.jpg
- File:DAN 1930 MiNr0185 pm B002.jpg
- File:DAN 1935 MiNr0222 pm B002.jpg
- File:DAN 1936 MiNr0232 pm B002b.jpg
- File:DAN 1942 MiNr0269a pm B002.jpg
- File:DAN 1943 MiNr0273 pm B002.jpg
- File:Denmark-Stamp-1935-HansChristianAndersen.jpg
- File:DenmarkStamp1.jpg
- File:DK 1941 MiNr0266 pm B002.jpg
- File:Timbre Danemark Christian10 1930.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Most files can be restored in 2031, except for those published after 1935 that will still be protected in the USA then because of the URAA. Those can be restored 95 + 1 years after publication. --Rosenzweig τ 16:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Stamps designed by this person are clearly copyrighted. The images of the two postal covers might qualify as de minimis, but hasn't seemed to be the consensus so I decided to include them in the DR anyway.
- File:Brief Kalkwerke Simon Rainer.jpg
- File:Briefumschlag Österreich Krimml Krimmlerwasserfälle Schönangerl.JPG
- File:DR 1941 810 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.jpg
- File:DR 1943 857 Großer Preis von Wien.jpg
- File:DR 1943 858 Großer Preis von Wien.jpg
- File:Semmering Heilklimatischer Höhenkurort Stempel Briefmarke Österreich 1952.JPG
- File:Stamp 1965 Austria MiNr1182 pm B002.jpg
- File:Tracht Montafon 1958.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ranzoni died in 1991, so the files can be restored in 2062. All US copyrights for the stamps should have expired by then as well. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It's my first work and My image. I think it's wrong copywright. So remove it — Delwar • 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use, and I don't see the "wrong copywright". Please be more specific than that. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It's my first uploaded picture and not mention proper author-name. So delete it as requested by the author. — Delwar • 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
It's my first work and My image. I think it's wrong copywright. So remove it — Delwar • 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use, and I don't see the "wrong copywright". Please be more specific than that. --Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It's my first uploaded picture and not mention proper author-name. So delete it as requested by the author. — Delwar • 15:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- You can edit that, can't you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate file Mv1388 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover, Unidentifiable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Found in other places online such as https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=552260529626696&set=a.286438332875585 so unlikely to be owned by uploader. discospinster (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be uploaded by author. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- He is the model on the cover, but is he its author? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, will need COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be uploaded by author. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- He is the model on the cover, but is he its author? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Source image is deleted per copyvio. See discussion. 魔琴 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content (G8). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be uploaded by author. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be uploaded by author. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- He is the model on the cover, but is he its author? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Reppop as no permission (No permission since)
Converting to DR for discussion, low-res without EXIF but no clear evidence that this is not self-photographed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Not found elsewhere using Google Images or TinEye. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't want this to be on internet 2405:201:AC03:F836:ACC2:4FD0:8E26:64FD 06:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Crop off? --Achim55 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Cropped it, now Keep? Otherwise, restore to original and delete. Possible version-delete? --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Cropped it, now
Kept: per User:Enyavar (deleted original version as courtesy). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Solara1000 (talk · contribs)
[edit](C) info clearly visible on one of the photos, needs OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Gbwaden, thank you for letting me know about that. Regrettably it is not possible to DELETE mistakenly uploaded images on Wiki!
- BUT: if everyone looks right at the Copyright hint inside the one image, you will find that it belongs to the ARTIST to whose page it was uploaded!
- So my suggestion to solve the issue here is: #
- 1. please delete the one image that has no copyright hint (which i wanted to do but couldnt get done).
- 2. leave the image on the page that it was uploaded to, that i contributed to his page and that permission to use it i have got from the artist.
- 3. try to implement a possible deletion option while uploading images on Wiki, if possible.
- Thank you, Solara1000 84.119.222.169 09:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Needs COM:VRT permission from the photographer (not the artist). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Starr-121029-0368-Eucalyptus sp-habitat view sunrise and West Maui-Hawea Pl Olinda-Maui (25076311472).jpg
[edit]The photo is blurry and we have file:Starr-121029-0369-Eucalyptus sp-habitat view sunrise and West Maui-Hawea Pl Olinda-Maui (25194594505).jpg , taken in the same place one minute later. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Partiallyirish (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Scope: Fictional maps and CoAs.
- File:Europe Soissium.svg
- File:EuropeEu Soissium.svg
- File:Soissium Location.svg
- File:Grand Principality of Soissium.svg
- File:CoA SSoissium.svg
- File:CoA Soissium.svg
- File:Grand Principality of Soissium Map and Major Cities.svg
- File:Soissium CoA.svg
- File:Europe-Soissium.svg
- File:Soissium.svg
- File:Flag of the Grand Principality of Soissium.jpg
Enyavar (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I dont understand what the problem is, some of these are useless and redundant yes but some are required for my work. There's no delete button once they're uploaded. Partiallyirish (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I may have misunderstood what you are doing and what your work is: In which universe was "Soissium" a nation in Europe, so that the material you uploaded is educational within Commons:Scope? --Enyavar (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Fantasy map. (Yes, Sheba existed, but this supposed area of control is ridiculous.)
Enyavar (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" , es handel sich jedoch um einm Werk des lebenden Künstlers Manfred Mayerle Lutheraner (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
There's zero evidence this stamp is PD. Let alone the uploaders own work. In the meantime copyright for anonymous works in Argentina lasts for 50 years after the date of publication. So this is copyrighted until at least 2073. Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal cosplay photo, self promotion Enyavar (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
copyvio, uploader is not photographer or rights holder Alabasterstein (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
DUPLICATO MrGennì (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @MrGennì: While File:Panorama di Sant'Agata di Puglia (Fg).gif is the same photo, the quality of it is worse than that of the PNG file. So I think we should rather delete the GIF file. --Rosenzweig τ 12:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: and deleted the GIF version as duplicate, per User:Rosenzweig. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Creator was not named - it was not Justibe Maleewan Bahnmoeller (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be a blank file uploaded for test purpose CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture by single-contribution uploader Enyavar (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Painting would not be public domain and the current CC license is incorrect. RAN (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_). I created the original Demetrius Comino article on Wikipedia in February 2012 and contacted Dexion's current owner, the Constructor Group, regarding illustrations. I had an email exchange with Constructor's marketing manager Scott Walker who subsequently uploaded several images, including this portrait, to the Commons in April 2012. If required, I can forward a copy of an email from that time to establish the copyright holder's involvement (I still have access to my old Gmail account from that time). Please let me know how I can help. Paul W (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- The copyright belongs to the artist in Australia, not the foundation. "In Australia Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1 January 1955" or "Artistic works [where] the creator died before 1 January 1955." Comparing photographs to the painting, it was created circa 1955. Only the artist can release the image under a CC license. If you need the images in Wikipedia, they can be transferred there under "fair use". --RAN (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I will look at the Fair Use opportunity. Paul W (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
functionally a low-res duplicate of File:Peacock-842165.jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and improperly attributed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Functionally a duplicate of File:Blue Jay-27527.jpg, improperly sourced Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Low resolution picture of (uploader, wife and their horse?); no further description Enyavar (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Very identical to File:09565jfCutcut Bridge Pulilan Bulacan Cagayan Valley Road Maharlika Highwayfvf 12.jpg. COM:NOTUSED, COM:WEBHOST-ing content by now-blocked Judgefloro (talk · contribs), treating Commons as a personal cloud storage of his. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Austria.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Moldova.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of French Guiana.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Devendra Tiwari BKM (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Unused personal picture, badly photoshopped, Name doesn't bring up relevant search results online
Enyavar (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Songwriting Bio Pic... Qué significa? 181.203.199.215 21:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gcortez9578 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Unused personal photos of uploader, no such person in government positions turns up in searches online
Enyavar (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
personal photo from non contributor Ivanbranco (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
possible out of project scope image. check this page: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birebin.com . if it is got deleted or kept, do what its necesarry. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, it is the original work of the company. Permission has been obtained from the company for use. It will not create any copyright. We would like to help if you write what needs to be done to prove it. Longyoue (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Longyoue even it is not copyright, article is really poor written(or it is not notable) and will be deleted.
- also contact VRT for permission. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Modern primat Since the articles of the betting sites are short, they were written with the same content as the others. Adding more content will detract from notability. Longyoue (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
--page got deleted, delete the image.-- . not in use and not notable. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 13:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robalibros (talk · contribs)
[edit]suspicious photos without camera info. unanswered question on user talk page.
RZuo (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Missing permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The image does not appear on the stated source page. The stated source page is "© 2005-2023 AMiner". The subject is said to be the author, but it does not look like a selfie. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- The image was taken using a laptop (webcam) using the Gnome (Linux) app "Cheese", which has a 3 second timer. 186.26.117.153 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Tiny image, no EXIF. Appears at https://www.utoronto.ca/news/meet-u-ts-five-newest-sloan-fellows with no free license. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- As stated, my own work. Indeed that website - which clearly cobled together a bunch of images from various places - also used it. I don't know if this website took it from Wikipedia or elsewhere, but that is not the source of the image. Bquast (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Website is from Feb. 2013 - photo from "2028" and uploaded in 2022. Needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Meme image CzarJobKhaya (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
NATO's terms of use said photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use", but fair use claims are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Besides, commercial re-use is explicitly disallowed [2]. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
NATO's terms of use said photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use", but fair use claims are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Besides, commercial re-use is explicitly disallowed [3]. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the official portrait of Albanian politicians fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the ministerial photo of Albanian government fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
NATO's terms of use said photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use", but fair use claims are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete In use, but should be deleted unless the photographer goes through the COM:VRT process. User:Lawielas, were you the photographer, or did you just upload the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Delted: Image from facebook with no indication that it was published under a free licence --D-Kuru (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
copyright belongs to J J Pearlya Photography 2A00:23C5:FF94:6F01:21A1:976:296C:B961 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
self-photo of a not notable person Paulbe (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The OGL explicitly excludes departmental and public sector organisation logos. Logo is being used on Wikipedia under fair use. Adam9007 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, see w:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/December#His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services logo. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright infringement: Upload of a fair use logo which is owned by the Halifax Mooseheads. Flibirigit (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I work for the Halifax Mooseheads and we would like our proper logo to be used. We were trying to update the page to correctly represent our brand. Webmaster1994 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Webmaster1994 Please send permission to COM:VRT. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Seeking permission to have our updated logo added to the wikipedia page. My name is Scott MacIntosh, Manager of Communications with the Halifax Mooseheads. email is scott@halifaxmooseheads.ca. We unveiled a new logo and jersey change on September 17th, 2022 and would like the wikipedia page to reflect that. Webmaster1994 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I assume that the team does not want to relinquish copyright to the logo, and I have uploaded a correctly licensed fair use logo. This incorrectly licensed image should now be deleted. Flibirigit (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Seeking permission to have our updated logo added to the wikipedia page. My name is Scott MacIntosh, Manager of Communications with the Halifax Mooseheads. email is scott@halifaxmooseheads.ca. We unveiled a new logo and jersey change on September 17th, 2022 and would like the wikipedia page to reflect that. Webmaster1994 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Webmaster1994 Please send permission to COM:VRT. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thesaurabhsaha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images without metadata, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Bhuragaon Adarsha ME School.jpg
- File:Bhuragaon Haricharan Sarkar High School.jpg
- File:Bhuragaon ferry ghat.jpg
Yann (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment At least two of them are not tiny. I shouldn't take the time to check now, but perhaps we should consider them not unlikely to be own work on an old cellphone unless there are matches on TinEye or Google Images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, considering also the images compression, this is what's usually found on social media. Yann (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK, that's a relevant consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have taken these photos on Jio Phone, Which is a small feature phone. And i have confirmed that all three images are my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesaurabhsaha (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, considering, that the user is indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, I do not consider him a trusted user and I accept the request. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, actually decent quality. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think so. It is slightly blurred. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly don’t see where it is slightly blurred. I think it’s decent enough to be kept, considering it was taken in 2012. It would work out nicely as a thumbnail. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --Lukas Beck (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche
[edit]- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 03.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 04.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 06.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 09.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 12.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 15.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 17.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 18.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 23.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 26.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 28.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 30.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 32.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 33.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 38.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 39.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 43.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 52.jpg
- File:Premiazione Wiki Loves Marche 2022 53.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:Galessandroni. I believe they should be deleted because are redundant. --Giacomo Alessandroni What's up! 14:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, I decided to delete them all as derivative works. There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by RoBri as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: uploader is not claimed copyright holder Kadı Message 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: On internet since 2015 according to TinEye https://tineye.com/search/ecac1b9959918ebd93f010e43048c43230b8bce0?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No clear proof (eg. on google images) that this file is a copyvio. However, 1) the uploader had all of their previous uploads deleted, 2) It's a typical stolen from website size and 3) The uploader has no other edits that have not already been deleted. This usually indicates a hit and run-account that uploads copyvios and never contributes an edit again. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the official portrait of Albanian politicians fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: I believe that only covers text like laws and official documents. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the ministerial photo of Albanian government fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:Albania shows that this covers text, not photographs. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the ministerial photo of Albanian government fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:Albania shows that this covers text, not photographs. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the ministerial photo of Albanian government fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:Albania shows that this covers text, not photographs. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the ministerial photo of Albanian government fulfills (b) inventions, legal, administrative and judicial acts, as well as other official creations and their collections, presented in order to inform the public A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why not? Similar countries use basically the same text and are allowed. The term 'official creations' is explained in another law which I already mentioned in previous requests. The law says that every creation of whatever format paid by government is considered official work. Bes-ARTTalk 12:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:Albania shows that this covers text, not photographs. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jaroslav Benda
[edit]The stained glass windows are from the interior of a chapel in Naarden, Netherlands. According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places. Nor does does FOP cover 2D artwork. So the standard rule of Life + 70 years applies to these stained glass windows. In this case that 70+ PMA would be 2040 at the earliest since the artist, Jaroslav Benda, died in 1970.
- File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527961 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527963 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527964 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, overzicht van de kapel met de band met de zeven glazen panelen - Naarden - 20527966 - RCE.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep See this related discussion. -- Vysotsky (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what that a DR that hasn't even been closed yet shows. Maybe you can enlighten me though. Are we really going to argue that probably copyrighted images should be kept just because someone claimed they mailed a random employee of an organization that has nothing to do with copyright law? What happened to that anyway? 10 days later and still no word huh? That sucks. Realistically how long should we have to wait to hear back before the images are just deleted anyway because the person isn't authoritative? You can't just steamroll DRs by claiming you emailed someone who hasn't even contact you and probably won't be a reliable source if they did. Really, the images in this and the other DR should just be deleted and then you can do un-deletion requests for the images if or when you hear back from the person. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Vysotsky. -- Mdd (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- To the closing admin please see my comments in the other discussion. Mdd and the other keep voter have zero argument for why these or the other images should be kept. Just a bunch of vapid talking points that were made as a stalling tactic. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, the situation here is plain and simple. This is just common practice, as explained elsewhere recently:
- And this is the case here as well. We are relying on the RCE permission here. -- Mdd (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. Except that like you've been told several times now by multiple people it only extends to the image, not what it depicts. Anyone can release an image under whatever license they want to. That doesn't mean the subject of the image is free of copyright though. I know you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- One more time, let's look at the facts:
- All of these four works nominated here are still online at the RCE website under the same conditions
- The RCE has been notified, has responded shortly that I would further investigate, and apparently had nothing to add
- There is so far no real evidence of Adamant1's bold statements
- What I get, is that practically none (or maybe even none) of Adamant1's statemants regarding the IRL case has any basic in any fact. He is not even prepared to admit that art works almost 90 years in place is a permanent setting, see the Adamant1 (Overleg) 04:56, 8 March 2023. comment.
- One more time, let's look at the facts:
- For the record, I would like to summarize the rational to keep this images, and propose a further cause of action:
- The subject is identified as photographs of artworks in a museum still under copyright photographed and released by a trusted state agency under CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence
- The rational to release those images here on Commons is the rule stipulated by RAN, 05:11, 7 April 2023
- To check, it was confirmed that the state agency still releases the images under the same licence
- To double-check, it was confirmed by the Museum oral and in writing that permission is granted for photographs to be taken, and shared as long as they could remember.
- To triple-check in reliable sources the conditions of the design and construction of the art works and interior was investigated, and it was confirmed what the museum also confirmed that the Czechoslovakian government ordered the artworks.
- To check once more it was confirmed that over the years other sources distributed photographs of the art works without further copyright restrictions regarding the art work. And several of those works are being released by an other regional state agency.
- Proceeding further down this road seems pointless, if the key premissse by RAN is not acceptable for the nominator. Maybe the premisse, the cause of this deletion debate so far, or similar cases from Wikipedia and IRL should be further investigated. I agree there remains a unsettling situation, that we cannot start reconstructing the chain of evidence from the scratch, because the data from 90 years is simply not there anymore. For artists copyright of these works where not their main concern, and in my experience in dealing with contemporary artist this still isn't. -- Mdd (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) / 02:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really feel litigating this nonsense anymore then it already has been, but your quibble about the windows being permanent or not is completely irrelevant because freedom of panorama in the Netherlands doesn't cover images taken inside of museums. So whatever. The windows are permanent, cool. It makes literally zero difference to if the images are copyright violations or not. All I'm going to say other then that is the closing administrator should read the other discussion and the discussion Mdd started on the copyright board about something extremely similar to this. In both cases multiple people disagreed with their view that images like these can't be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, I would like to summarize the rational to keep this images, and propose a further cause of action:
Kept: Per precedent in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg. This is a public place and Dutch FOP covers it. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The stained glass windows are from the interior of a chapel in Naarden, Netherlands. According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places. Nor does FOP cover 2D artwork. So the standard rule of Life + 70 years applies to these stained glass windows. In this case that 70+ PMA would be 2040 at the earliest since the artist, Jaroslav Benda, died in 1970.
- File:Interieur, band met glazen panelen en enkele bezoekers - Naarden - 20527958 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, detail van een van de glazen panelen met de naam J.A. Komensky in beeld en de RVS ophanging - Naarden - 20527970 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, detail van een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527965 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, detail van een van de RVS poort met beelden - Naarden - 20527969 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met de RVS poort met beelden - Naarden - 20527968 - RCE.jpg
- File:Interieur, overzicht kerk met geopende poortdeuren, houtsnijwerkpaneel en een van de geëtste glaspanelen - Naarden - 20527972 - RCE.jpg
- File:Naarden - Kloosterstraat 29 - Comeniuskapel - 30214 - 1.jpg
- File:Naarden - Kloosterstraat 29 - Comeniuskapel - 30214 -3.jpg
BTW, I nominated File:Interieur, detail van een van de RVS poort met beelden - Naarden - 20527969 - RCE.jpg and a few other images of the same statues for deletion because the windows make a good portion of the images. Although people could probably argue they would be de minimis in those specific cases, but I'll leave it up to others to determine if that's the case or not. I'm not sure who the artist of the status are either. Otherwise they might also qualify for deletion, but that's not for another time. Also, I'm aware some of these images were provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed as part of an image release. Please read their disclaimer before trying to use that as keep reason. "The Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed, exclusively provides images that are either made by its own employees, or that are otherwise free of copyright." The key thing there being the images are copyright free. That doesn't mean specific objects featured in the images are copyright free though or that derivatives of them would be either. Adamant1 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The images can be kept, as the are covered by the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 18. In the Netherlands Freedom of Panorama extends to interiors of churches, as earlier noted on Commons. In general: this paragraph in the Copyright Act of the Netherlands. There were several deletion requests in earlier years, all with the same result (as far as I know): images were kept. Vysotsky (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know where it was earlier mentioned that FOP explicitly extends to churches outside of the two deletions requests you cited. The last time I checked random DR comments don't override copyright rules pages. While I agree that Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't explicitly mention churches, there's zero reason it should have to list every single type of indoor place for us to air on the side of caution and delete the images. Like it would be ridiculous to say FOP extends to someone's bathroom in their private residence just because Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands doesn't explicitly mention that scenario. I think it's enough to just cite the guideline. Trying to argue that FOP would extend to someone's bathroom in their private residence just because it's not mentioned in the guideline would just be bad faithed. Even if you disregard that though FOP still doesn't extend to "photographs, maps, applied art, industrial design, and models." Which these windows would qualify as. Heck, FOP also doesn't apply to non-permanent art and these windows are clearly non-permanent. So be my guest and discard the "interior of buildings" thing. There's still multiple other reasons they don't qualify for FOP. Although I still think it's a valid delete reason.
- In the meantime the guideline clearly says "it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." There's zero reason that if FOP doesn't apply to museums or operas that it would apply to the interior of churches. There's nothing uniquely special about them. Also, it's a little absurd to cite a couple of previous DRs where you were the only person who voted as some kind of larger community consensus. It's clear you think FOP extends to the interior of churches. That's fine. Don't act like it represents anything other then your own opinion though. That said, if you want to muster up an actual reason why church interiors would uniquely qualify for FOP compared to say operas or museums be my guest. Otherwise, these images should clearly be deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In the previous deletion requests I gave my opinion, based on Dutch law and experience. Two different admins apparently agreed with that opinion. I have asked Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (via e-mail) their opinion on the (general) matter of photographs in churches. RCE made more than 30,000 photographs inside Dutch churches and made these photos available via their website, so I guess they have some thoughts about this issue. Vysotsky (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine. I've done many DRs for images of stained glass windows in Germany though. From what I remember they all resulted in delete and the FOP laws between that country and the Netherlands are essentially the same. So which DRs should we take as the authoritative consensus that FOP doesn't cover the interior of churches? You'd probably say yours. I'd say neither. But regardless, that's why I don't find the "I'm right because this DR" one upmanship thing to be at all useful. Because the other side can usually play that game to and then it just turns into a needless back and forth about who's DRs are "correct" and who's aren't. Anyway, that's why I asked why you thought there would be a special exception for churches compared to other extremely similar places that aren't covered by FOP. At least then you'd actually have something of substance to discuss use as a counter point to my deletion rational. Since that's kind of what we are here to do. Discuss why the image might be copyrighted or not.
- In the meantime the guideline clearly says "it does not apply to other indoors non-private places, such as hotels, cafés, or shops. It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." There's zero reason that if FOP doesn't apply to museums or operas that it would apply to the interior of churches. There's nothing uniquely special about them. Also, it's a little absurd to cite a couple of previous DRs where you were the only person who voted as some kind of larger community consensus. It's clear you think FOP extends to the interior of churches. That's fine. Don't act like it represents anything other then your own opinion though. That said, if you want to muster up an actual reason why church interiors would uniquely qualify for FOP compared to say operas or museums be my guest. Otherwise, these images should clearly be deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- In the meantime it's fine that you emailed Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed. I don't think whatever they say will be authoritative or overrule the guidelines though. I've done a lot of these at this point, and emailing people is usually a dead end. At least in specific DRs. That said, If you want to start a discussion about this at the village pump or the main copyright page then I'm more then willing to defer to what other people say about it and re-tract this if it turns out I'm wrong. Just saying "these images should be kept because so and so random person from Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed has said they are fine" doesn't really cut it though. Who exactly are they and what makes them anymore of an expert then us or make their opinions hold more weight then ours? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- To my best knowledge, Germany is not the Netherlands, nor are their copyright acts identical. For these images I have looked at the applicable law and jurisdiction from the Netherlands. I have e-mailed the person at Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed who is most knowledgable on copyright and I will report their findings back here. I will also contact a professor in Intellectual Propterty Law at a Dutch university. Vysotsky (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Germany is not the Netherlands No, Really? And here I thought they were the same country. Sarcasm aside, when something having to do with copyright is either ambiguous or otherwise unclear we will often cite precedent from countries with similar laws. For instance with stamps. In this case both Germany and the Netherlands are common law countries and members of the European Union. So they are pretty similar legally. Sure, there's probably some nuances there, but not when it comes to things like this. The word "public" doesn't have a drastically different meaning the Netherlands then it does in Germany. Nor does what constitutes a public building or not. In fact, both countries base FOP on if the subject of the photograph is visible from public grounds or not. The inside of a church obviously isn't "public grounds." It's ridiculously bad faithed to act like it is or that the laws between the two countries aren't extremely similar. Their essentially the same in every regard that matters.
- To my best knowledge, Germany is not the Netherlands, nor are their copyright acts identical. For these images I have looked at the applicable law and jurisdiction from the Netherlands. I have e-mailed the person at Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed who is most knowledgable on copyright and I will report their findings back here. I will also contact a professor in Intellectual Propterty Law at a Dutch university. Vysotsky (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- In the meantime it's fine that you emailed Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed. I don't think whatever they say will be authoritative or overrule the guidelines though. I've done a lot of these at this point, and emailing people is usually a dead end. At least in specific DRs. That said, If you want to start a discussion about this at the village pump or the main copyright page then I'm more then willing to defer to what other people say about it and re-tract this if it turns out I'm wrong. Just saying "these images should be kept because so and so random person from Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed has said they are fine" doesn't really cut it though. Who exactly are they and what makes them anymore of an expert then us or make their opinions hold more weight then ours? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Either way though, it's been ten since you emailed the person. I assume you haven't heard back since you haven't reported anything. So for the sake of brevity and everyone's time my suggestion would be that the images should just be deleted and then you can do un-deletion requests for them if or when you hear back. I don't think this is the proper venue to debate if the word of employees from random organizations in emails is authoritative or not anyway. You really should have taken it up somewhere like the Village Pump before assume it would be a valid reason to keep the images. Especially if your going to try and use it to derail multiple DRs before you've even heard back from the person like you did Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jaroslav Benda, which was ridiculously bad faithed of you BTW. It would have been fine to cite the discussion, but saying the images should be kept based on an email that you haven't even received and a DR that hasn't been closed yet is extremely poor form. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment You said: Germany and the Netherlands "are pretty similar legally" re copyright. Indeed, but there are some clear differences. Glad you mention postage stamps, in my view one of the differences. Dutch stamps 1852-1952 are considered Public Domain, whereas the German copyright rules for stamps are far more complicated. I made the connection between the two deletion requests because they are related. Your suggestion to have the images speedily deleted seems a bit strange, as they have been in Commons for over 10 years, uploaded in the course of a cooperation project between Commons and one of the most important Dutch heritage foundations. Yesterday I received an e-mail from Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed. The contact person from RCE told me she had sent the request to the RCE juridical department, hadn't heard back yet, and would alert me as soon as she got an answer. I will report back here as soon as I receive any news. Vysotsky (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure there's differences to. That's why I said "similar", not the same. But if it's a 1% difference and you have zero evidence that this is within the 1% then it's a distinction without a purpose because it's probably something they are the same one. That's why things like the precautionary principle exits BTW. We don't use caution when are 100% sure of the facts or outcome. We use it in cases like this one where something isn't clear so no one potentially sues the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not really sure what your referring to about speedy deletion either. This isn't a speedy deletion request, obviously. All I'm saying is that the images should be deleted if you don't hear back from the person you emailed within a reasonable amount of time. Since someone saying they emailed someone isn't and shouldn't be a valid excuse to force us to keep potentially copyrighted images in perpetuity.
- Either way though, it's been ten since you emailed the person. I assume you haven't heard back since you haven't reported anything. So for the sake of brevity and everyone's time my suggestion would be that the images should just be deleted and then you can do un-deletion requests for them if or when you hear back. I don't think this is the proper venue to debate if the word of employees from random organizations in emails is authoritative or not anyway. You really should have taken it up somewhere like the Village Pump before assume it would be a valid reason to keep the images. Especially if your going to try and use it to derail multiple DRs before you've even heard back from the person like you did Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jaroslav Benda, which was ridiculously bad faithed of you BTW. It would have been fine to cite the discussion, but saying the images should be kept based on an email that you haven't even received and a DR that hasn't been closed yet is extremely poor form. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Otherwise it's setting up a sort of a fait accompli thing were someone decides ahead of time that they don't want images related to a certain topic to be deleted for copyright reasons so they just say the images should be kept because they emailed someone, which we would then have zero choice to accept. Obviously that wouldn't be tenable process. But I did say "reasonable." I'm perfectly fine waiting a "reasonable" amount of time to see if you hear back, but it should be reasonable and to me you voting keep in other deletion requests based on an email you haven't received and that you don't know the contents of is unreasonable. It would have been reasonable to write a comment mentioning the email. That's not what you did though. You voted keep based on something that we don't even have, know the contents of, and that your acting like everyone should just accept without question as a reason to keep the images. As far as how long the images have been hosted on Commons, that's an obvious strawman that isn't worth wasting the time on. I think my argument here is pretty reasonable though. There's nothing wrong with deleting images with questionable copyright statues if someone hasn't delivered something they said they would after a certain amount of time has passed. Again, it's not like you can't just do an undeletion request if or when you hear back. The burden is on you to justify why the images should be kept in the meantime though and I haven't seen you do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: , you started this DR with the statement "According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places"... but I wonder about the origin of this statement? Are you referring to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands? And if so, what particular phrase?
Now you seem to present it as a fact, of which I am not aware although I have looked into this kind of discussions here on Commons several times in the past years. You stated that you have done many DRs for images of stained glass windows in Germany though, and got your way. But this is unrelated to the initial quite bold statement about "Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands." I have been studying those Dutch rules for many years now (in theory and practice) and I have not came across such a rule. So am I missing something? -- Mdd (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- you seem to present it as a fact I don't think I have presented it as fact that the law specifically says anything about churches. Which is why I asked Vysotsky what he thought the difference between a church and other semi-public places like museums or operas that FOP aren't covered by. The burden isn't on me to show what isn't covered by FOP anyway. It's on the people who want the images to be kept to justify why they think FOP applies in this specific instance. That burden obviously isn't being met just by repeatedly playing devils advocate either.
- Like I think I've said elsewhere, no one has to explicitly show in the law that people's bathrooms in their private residences aren't covered by FOP for us to assume that's the case. It's on the person who think they are to give a valid reason why FOP is valid in that specific instance. I'm super sick of repeating it at this point, but to quote from Commons:Deletion requests for like the fifteenth time "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." I'm clearly neither the uploader or someone arguing that the images should be kept. So it's on me to rationalize things. At least not beyond what I have in my original deletion request and subsequent comments. Be my guest and say why you think the interiors of churches are covered by FOP though. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you just don't participate in the discussion since your not adding anything to it by just playing devils advocate or using by strawmen to miss-represent my position. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I read at least three false assumption you made. The first two in your first comment, and a third in your second comment you stated:
- According to Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands images taken inside of churches are not covered by FOP law because they are not public places.
- Nor does FOP cover 2D artwork.
- ... these windows are clearly non-permanent
- In your second comment of 14:28, 22 February 2023, you already acknowledged the first two (being incorrect). And you brought up the third statement, presuming non-permanence. You apparently didn't check the current state 13 years later, and the background of the work itself. A current website states, see here, that In de periode 2007 tot 2010 zijn de glas-in-loodramen, de glazen panelen en het houtsnijwerk grondig gerestaureerd... (translated: In the period 2007 to 2010, the stained glass windows, the glass panels and the carvings were thoroughly restored). The pictures of the glass window are no pictures of an exhibition of the glass windows. They are the result of a three year period of restoration, and are permanent.
- Ok thanks, I read at least three false assumption you made. The first two in your first comment, and a third in your second comment you stated:
- You seem to be on a fishing exhibition presuming that no matter what false arguments one keeps bringing up, the burden is on the uploader. To complicate things even further you start a mass-deletion request, with a different types of images with different types of copyright regulations:
-
Peope visiting the church with glass sculpture in the back -
Construction detail with the painting in the back -
Here a fragment of the glass sculpture is the main topic -
Picture of a sculpture group with painting in the back -
Collage of diffent artworks inside the church -
Group visiting the church interior, sculptures, constructions, windows, ceiling and the glass windows in the back -
Even more interior details -
Picture focussing on the lights
_-_Naarden_-_20527965_-_RCE.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![57 File:"Gordon Gibbens" Mural in Penge London by Zabou.jpg](#File:"Gordon_Gibbens"_Mural_in_Penge_London_by_Zabou.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![87 File:"Girl at a Window" Street art Mural London (49961930973).jpg](#File:"Girl_at_a_Window"_Street_art_Mural_London_(49961930973).jpg){kind=link}
![98 File:"Cloud Living Room" 2003, Vermont Marble.jpg](#File:"Cloud_Living_Room"_2003,_Vermont_Marble.jpg){kind=link}
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
,_1973.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_panorama.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![03:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-A1Cafel-20230222030200-File:"Gordon_Gibbens"_Mural_in_Penge_London_by_Zabou.jpg){kind=link}
![04:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-IronGargoyle-20230301044000-File:"Gordon_Gibbens"_Mural_in_Penge_London_by_Zabou.jpg){kind=link}
-20230222035500-File:Daniel's_masterpiece.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Bannu.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![08:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-A1Cafel-20230222080400-File:"Girl_at_a_Window"_Street_art_Mural_London_(49961930973).jpg){kind=link}
![05:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-IronGargoyle-20230301050700-File:"Girl_at_a_Window"_Street_art_Mural_London_(49961930973).jpg){kind=link}
![19:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-Daniel_Case-20230222190000-File:"Cloud_Living_Room"_2003,_Vermont_Marble.jpg){kind=link}
![05:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/02/22#c-Krd-20230301054100-File:"Cloud_Living_Room"_2003,_Vermont_Marble.jpg){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0702.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3344.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3345.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3346.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3347.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3348.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3349.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3350.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3351.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1990,_MiNr_3352.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._1880%27s.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._1880%27s.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._19th_century.jpg){kind=link}
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
._1880's.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_20_MiNr_661.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_633.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_634.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_661.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_663.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958_MiNr_664.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_763.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_784A.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_784B.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_789.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_791.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0543.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0545.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0547.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0549.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0550.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0551.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0553.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0555.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0556.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0664.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_Block_015.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0682.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0713.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0735.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960_MiNr_790.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0763.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0790.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1042.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1043.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1044.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1052.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1053.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1056.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1057.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1058.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1039_-_1044.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_1052,_1053.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1093.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1094.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1095.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1098.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1099.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1307.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1969,_MiNr_1467.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1541.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1542.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1543.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1544.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1577.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1594.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1595.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1975,_MiNr_2061.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1975,_MiNr_2062.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1975,_MiNr_2063.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1975,_MiNr_2064.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2522.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2523.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2524.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2525.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2526.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1980,_MiNr_2527.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2619.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1981,_MiNr_2620.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1057.jpg){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1058.jpg){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0543.jpg){kind=link}
_Valentina_Tereschkova.Jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0534.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0546.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0548.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0552.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0554.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0559.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0560.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0564.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0565.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0600.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0606_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0607_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0608_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0634.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0660.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0661.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0663.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0673.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0683.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0714.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1959,_MiNr_0736.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0784_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_0789.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1960,_MiNr_Block_016.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0841.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0842.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_841.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_842.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1962,_MiNr_0916.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1962,_MiNr_0923.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1962,_MiNr_0924.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0970.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_0971.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1963,_MiNr_Zusammendruck_0970-0971.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1039.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1040.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1964,_MiNr_1041.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1122.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1123.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1147.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1148.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1149.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1150.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1151.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1965,_MiNr_1152.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1262.jpg){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1265.jpg){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1266.jpg){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1267.jpg){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1292.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1967,_MiNr_1306.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1970,_MiNr_1578.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1973.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1973.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_1973.jpg){kind=link}
,_1973.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-20230222214000-File:Cardston_house.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_panorama.png){kind=link}
,_panorama.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_panorama.png){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_panorama.png){kind=link}
-20230222131800-File:Demetrius_Comino_Portrait.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Naarden_-_20527961_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Naarden_-_20527963_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Naarden_-_20527964_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
- These kind of regulations consist of copyright rules, but just as much of common law and common practice. And what about the copyrights holders of the artist of the work? Are they happy we are using his work as an motive for the suggestion that the RCE and the uploader might have violated copyright. They must be aware of the work shared on Wikipedia since 2013... If they would have a problem, then this would be different. -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really feel like debating the nuances of what makes something permanent or not since it's tangential to the fact that church interiors aren't covered by FOP anyway, but I will say that the document you cited doesn't say the windows are permanent. At least from what I can tell. Just that they were restored. There's clearly a difference between something being restored and being permanent. They aren't mutually exclusive either. Temporary works of art are restored all the time. I'm not going to waste my addressing the rest of what you said since it's obvious personal insults and strawmen. Someone starting a deletion request because they think an image is copyrighted isn't a "fishing expectation."
- These kind of regulations consist of copyright rules, but just as much of common law and common practice. And what about the copyrights holders of the artist of the work? Are they happy we are using his work as an motive for the suggestion that the RCE and the uploader might have violated copyright. They must be aware of the work shared on Wikipedia since 2013... If they would have a problem, then this would be different. -- Mdd (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- That said, in this case I think I've laid out the reasons why I think the images should be deleted pretty well and I've said multiple times I'm perfectly willing to wait for Vysotsky to hear back about the email. So I think I've been pretty reasonable about it. I definitely don't deserve to be personally attacked over the whole thing, but you clearly have have no better argument except to claim I'm being overly demanding or some nonsense. All I'm asking is for you to do the basic minimum required to provide evidence that the images should be kept. It's not my on that your apparently either unable or not willing to do that. I'm perfectly fine waiting for Vysotsky to hear back about the mail though. Just as long it's within a reasonable timeframe. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel this way. The phrase fishing expectation was meant in a more general sense that you are trying to get a better picture of the situation. The second part was meant more in general about how these discussion sometimes progress. -- Mdd (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Similarity: There is some similarity with this mass nomination of works, where on the images kept the building was not the main subject of the image. Based on that common rules at least 6 of the 8 images could be kept at once. For the other two, the third and the eight image, probably FOP can justify their presents here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see what a DR for outdoor images of Indonesia has to do with this. Can you explain how exactly it's relevant to the discussion please? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Rephrase and re-assessment from scratch
[edit]After some reconsideration I changed my mind about this particular situation: This deletion request seems to be wrongfully framed from the beginning, and should be rephrased. We are not dealing with a Chapel of a church, where the main question is if there is FOP in churches in the Netherlands. Instead:
- The 8 photographs are pictures of the interior of a Chapel, which is part of a museum: the Comenius Museum Naarden
- Those 8 photographs are part of a collection of (at least) 41 pictures of the interior of the chapel currently present at Wikimedia Commons
- Hereby 7 of the 8 photo's are part of a series of 19 pictures, see here in and around the Comenius Museum Naarden made by Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed for it's magazine the Tijdschrift Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed
- These images have been made in one series on 18-09-2009 and have been uploaded 27 jan 2013
- It is evident that the Comenius Museum Naarden has given permission to the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, which is an internal affair
- Based on their own internal copyright policy the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has released the whole series of images under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
These are the most important facts I can think of so far. The main question here is, do we want to trust and build on these two organizations. If so we should trust their copyright policies. In this particular case I think we can trust that these organizations have made the proper arrangements with the copyrightholders of the works in the interior. And if not we can trust, that they will make those proper arrangements. We have no need for additional permission. -- Mdd (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is one part I left out so far. In this particular situation we are not dealing with the more or less standard setting of pictures of art works or other copyrighted material shared on Commons. Hereby there is often the situation that:
- a person (acting on Wikipedia as (semi)anonymous user) made a picture or series of pictures of art works in a church/museum/public space with some art works involved,
- The pictures are taken without the permission of the church/museum and or the artists.
- The pictures are not published before
- The church/museum and or artist is not informed, and as such are not yet aware of the situation
- There is a significant chance that the artist (or its rightful copyright owners) will not be amused, that this kind of publication on Commons has taken place without his/their knowledge (especially if the FOP or de-minimis circumstances are questionable)
- Most of the Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands on other territories (especially FOP and de-minimis) on Commons relate to this particular real-life societal setting, which I hereby called the standard setting.
- In this particular situation we are dealing with an altenative setting:
- an well known photographer or organization made a picture or series of pictures of art works in a church/museum/public space with some art works involved,
- The pictures are taken with the permission of the church/museum, and or the artists.
- The pictures are published before for a longer time
- The church/museum and or artist are most likely informed direct or indirect, and as such are aware of the situation
- There is a small chance that the artist (or its rightful copyright owners) will not be amused, that this kind of publication on Commons will take place without his knowledge
- This alternative setting requires and fundamentally other approach. We cannot simply pretend this is a case of the normal standard setting.... -- Mdd (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- More specific about the copyright situation of the artworks and interior design of the chapel
Althought I think it is not (yet) our primary concern, I did look further into the most likely copyright status of the interior and art works in the chapel. In order to get a clear picture we should start with the renovation in the 1930s, where there where at least five parties involved:
- The museum organization or predecessor, who commissioned the renovation of the chapel into a mausoleum
- The Czech architect, who made the interior design
- The Czech sculptor, who made the sculptures
- The Czech glass artist, who designed the stained glass sculpture
- Another Czech sculptor/designer, who designed the fencing
If no arrangements would have been made, the interior design, the sculptures, the glass sculptures and the fencing all separately are still under copyright. In this particular case the architect, artist and sculptors could have acted as one and created one artwork. In that case this art work would be under copyright until 70 years after the last creator died. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Now the story goes that the work was commissioned, and it is possible that initial arrangements have been made.
The publication of photographs under a CC licence in 2009 by the RCE and in 2013 also by Wikipedia added a new chapter to the copyright status of the works. The initial publication was made with approval of the museum, and with from the start or latter on with the (silent) approval of the owners of the copyright of the works of the architect, sculptors and designer.
Now whether or not there is a satisfying and enduring copyright arrangement here, I am not sure. This might be a thing the RCE legal department can confirm or not. I do think the regular FOP don't apply here, and that de-minimis regulation only applies for maybe one to four images of the 41 images present. Depending on what the RCE is going to feed back, we could have to delete about 35 to about 39 of the 41 images present until regular copyright expires. -- Mdd (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- A few things.
- 1. To point 1 of your first comment, cool that the church is in a museum. Museums are still not covered by FOP in the Netherlands though. To cite Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands "It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." So great, the church is in museum. It's distinction without a purpose though because either way the work is still not covered by freedom of panorama.
- 2. To your fifth point in the first comment, where exactly is it evident that the Comenius Museum Naarden has given permission to the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed and also where is the evidence that the Comenius Museum Naarden owns the copyright to the stained glass windows? It doesn't automatically follow that just because the windows are currently in the Comenius Museum Naarden that the Comenius Museum Naarden owns the copyright. Artists can put their works in whatever museums they want to. That doesn't mean the museum owns the copyright to their work.
- 3. To point six of your first comment, while your correct that the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed has released the whole series of images under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, as I think I've said already that has nothing to do with if the particular work in the image is copyrighted or not. Just because I take a picture of an otherwise copyrighted painting and release that picture under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license doesn't mean the artist can't sue people who the image for copyright infringement. Obviously, the license of a particular image is different from the license of whatever the image is of and it's completely ridiculous to act like that's not the case. In this instance, there's evidence that the stain glass windows are free of copyright. It's completely irrelevant to this that the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed released their images of the windows under a free license.
- 4. The last part of your comment about if we should trust the copyright policies of the two organizations is a non-sequitur because no one is questioning their copyright policies. Again, the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed can release the images under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. That doesn't mean that is in the images is free of copyright. The rest of what you've said is extreme speculation. So it's not even worth responding to. Except I'll say that speculation isn't valid and 100% this is a normal standard setting. The law makes it clear that museums aren't covered by FOP. What it doesn't do is make special exceptions for "non-normal settings" in museums (whatever that means). This is pretty simple. Either the stained glass windows are copyrighted making images of them also copyrighted, or they aren't. That's it. As I've said multiple times now I'm perfectly fine waiting until we hear back from the RCE if we ever do. It should be within a reasonable time frame though. This has been open almost a month and apparently we still haven't heard anything. I'm fine waiting a bit longer, but if we don't hear anything any time soon then I say we just assume the works are copyrighted and you can do an undeletion request if we ever hear from them. It would be ridiculous to continue hosting potentially copyrighted material for multiple months while we wait for an email. Especially considering there's zero evidence that the stained glass windows and/or images of them aren't copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment These images have been in Commons for more than 10 years. I have written to the jurists at the Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed and to the best professor on copyright in the Netherlands. I have not received any answer as yet. I am currently looking at all relevant jurisprudence. This deletion request is important and has potentially large consequences for Commons, so I am glad you are "fine waiting a bit longer". Vysotsky (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Although I'd be interested to know how exactly this could have large consequences for Commons. We routinely delete images of otherwise copyrighted works that are tagged as cc-by-3.0 already anyway and the law in the Netherlands is pretty clear that interiors of museums aren't covered by FOP. So the only thing that deleting these images will do is continue how we were already doing things. The only that would be different is that we would be following the policy and law by deleting images that aren't covered by FOP, but that should have been happening already. To the degree that it would have consequences outside of this DR is on the people who decided to ignore longstanding guidelines and what the law says by uploading the images. That's on them though. Realistically we can't use the potential consequences as an excuse not to delete the images though. Otherwise it just creates a fait accompli situation where no copyrighted material can be deleted simply because someone uploaded it. Since every DR has potential consequences. That's literally how this works. Although I'd still like to know how exactly you think this could have large consequences for Commons since I don't think there will be any if the images are deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @Vysotsky: Any word yet or should we revisit this in another month? lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Continued
[edit] Comment Thanks for your patience. I received no message from the Rijksdienst Cultureel Erfgoed, but here are three other, hopely useful, observations:
- Last week I got a phone call from Prof. D. Visser, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Leiden University since 2003. I had asked him by e-mail if Article 18 of the Dutch Copyright Law applied to works of art, e.g. paintings, in churches in the Netherlands. His answer was threefold. He said one should ask oneself three questions to see if the Freedom of Panorama exception (Art. 18 AW) would be applicable. (1) "Is this a public place?" He said he didn't know the exact details of this case, and knew of no jurisprudence, but it seemed very likely that a church in the Netherlands would be regarded as a public place. (2) "Were the paintings (etc) destined to be in this public place?" (In other words: were the works of art part of a temporary exhibit, or a permanent part of the building, as Dutch law requires? (3) "Were the images of the works of art cropped?" (To address the clause as situated there (Dutch: zoals het zich aldaar bevindt) in the text of the Dutch law.)
He told me his remarks could be quoted. - I checked some jurisprudence regarding Art. 18 Auteurswet. Cases are rare, and I found only 2 (old) cases regarding Art. 18 (Freedom of Panorama): one case regarding usage of a work of art in a municipal brochure and one case regarding usage of a work of art from a stadium in Amsterdam. Both cases (dating from 2006) were not quite similar to this case, but in both cases usage was permitted.
- Regarding the question if the building in this case was a church or museum: I don't know about the situation in 2009, when the photographs were taken. Most important question in this matter is the question if the building was a public place at that time.
- In short, as to the general question: it seems likely that -according to Dutch law- churches in the Netherlands are regarded as public places. As to this specific case, I gladly leave the decision to the opinion of a moderator. Vysotsky (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Direct permission by Comenius Museum
[edit]Early this afternoon I contacted the Comenius Museum and spoke with a boardmember of its foundation, who confirmed that people are free to photograph and distribute photographs of the interior of the Comenius Museum, its chapel and the art works. This permission was based on their authority, as far as I have understood. Now I have agreed to write them back to further explain this situation and ask for written conformation. -- Mdd (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's something? Although written premission would be great and I'd be interested to know how exactly it would work in practice. Like does the museum own the copyrights to everything they put on display or what? Otherwise it seems like someone who baught an original work of art uploading an image of it to Commons while ignorantly (through no fault of their own of course) saying they own copyright to it since they baught it from the artist, which isn't how these things work. So anyway, their written premission doesn't mean much if we don't know if the rights to the works were transfered to them in the first place, how exactly they were, and what the terms are if they hold them. It's possible the copyright was granted to them just for people taking photograps of the works in the museum but not for those photographs to then be used for any purpose by anyone. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
In the conversation the board member confirmed, what I already suspected, that they are closely working together with officials of some Dutch and Czech government and to the board member's memory, there has never been any copyright complain about those works being photographed or whatever. She did tell me, that in contrast to what the Wikipedia article states, that the Chapel was never transfered to Czechoslovakia but rented for a symbolic amount of 1 guilder per year. Now we know that the interior of the Chapel with the art works was commissioned by the Czechoslovak government in the 1930s. The Chapel has always been associated with the Comeniusmuseum, and since 1992 the museum moved to the current location next to the chapel.
Now it is clear that the Comeniusmuseum has been governing the copyright of the works, and several articles in Dutch copyright law could apply in this situation. Now because of the situation that never before any copyright complains occurred, I think, it has never been established what is the most solid ground for the current situation. At the moment therefor there is also no copyright concern here, so I am not sure what I should ask the foundation to confirm yet.
Also, in my opinion Adamant1 with those questions keeps bringing up even more false dilemma's (*) ignoring the obvious: there is no direct real copyright violation event here. There is a lack of Wikipedia regulation, how to deal with this situation. I think Wikipedia is creating it's own internal conflicts here. I have seen this happen before over the years resulting, in my opinion, in a kind of overruling external regular laissez faire copyright business and doing business promoting culture. I am not going to participate in this, so for now I will leave it. At the moment I see no need for written conformation, and therefor will hold back on the intention. -- Mdd (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 with those questions keeps bringing up even more false dilemma's (*) ignoring the obvious: there is no direct real copyright violation event here. Uh, OK. It's pretty established that legal experts agree FOP laws of the Netherlands don't allow for pictures taken inside of museums. To quote Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands for like the fifth time now, "It certainly does not apply in the locations specifically excluded by the lawmakers: schools, operas, entrance halls of businesses, and museums." I'm not setting up a false dilemma by citing it either. You are by pretending that this hasn't already been decided by multiple legal experts and then expecting everyone else to suspend that while you do this song and dance about what other people say. And after what a month now you and Vysotsky have absolutely nothing to show for the stalling except a couple of vague comments by people clearly don't know anything. I don't really care if there's a "real direct copyright violation here" either. That's not the standard. Reasonable doubt that the works being portrayed in the images are free of copyright is. There's never an actual copyright violation involved in any of this anyway because it's not a court of law and We aren't here to be lawyers who legit copyright claims. Acting like we are is just a good way to Gish Galloping and stale this for another month while you tiddle your thumbs more. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
(*) To explain: I think it is naive to think a third party should have to answer any of those questions to us, or to any other external party. Every organization has it's own copyright policy, and we are not the copyright police to audit their policy. It is for us to determine whether or not we think the situation is natural or not. -- Mdd (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe it is even more delicate, the specific false dilemma here: That string of questions keep assuming that the copyright status has not been determined, while the common law and common practice does determined the situation. Ignoring this situation and bringing up trivial general unrelated obvious situations, distracts us from the real dilemmas here: Can we keep building on their permission? Is there any real reason to know better? Are we making a fair assessment here? What do we actually expect here? How can we smooth and simple resolve the situation here? In order to reach any solution, we have to establish some ground rules ourselves. For example any participant should accept the obvious, and not second guessing every single detail here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is naive to think a third party should have to answer any of those questions to us, or to any other external party. 100% they should have to answer what the copyright status of the works in the images is if there is a reasonable doubt that they can be hosted on Commons, and there clearly is. It's not our responsibility to take the word of every random institution that we obtain images at face value like they are some kind of holy, sacred all knowing and perfect body that can't make mistakes or whatever. It's not like they have said the images of free of copyright either. So what would we even taking their word on? Some vague none answer by a random professor? Or what else, the month of speculation about it from you and Vysotsky? Sure dude.
- Otherwise, What actual solid information has either one of you obtained at this point? I don't see any. Cool the person from the museum told you that people are free to photograph and distribute photographs of the interior of the Comenius Museum. That says absolutely nothing about the copyright status of the stain glass windows or if there's any restrictions on how people can use images of them though. At the end of the day "the museum" isn't "the stained glass windows" and that's what we need information on. Not if someone can take a picture of a chair in the museum's cafeteria or whatever. So you have absolutely nothing. Whereas in the meantime legal experts and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands are both pretty clear that images taken inside of museums aren't covered by FOP. So why not just cut the stalling routine and do an undeletion request in the future if it ever turns out the images aren't copyrighted? -Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Additional request to Comenius Museum for rationale of their copyright policy
[edit]Instead of asking for direct conformation, as I suggested yesterday, I mailed the Comenius Museum and asked if they could explain the rationale of their copyright-policy. I must admit that I have similar questions as Adamant1 raised, but on another level. I wonder, on what grounds do they permit people to photograph and freely share the works of the Comenius Chapel? For me there is no question whether the museum owes the copyright, because they do based on common law and common practice. But they may be behind in conformation or double checking this common practice. Or whatever. I will report back if I have any answer. -- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no question whether the museum owes the copyright, because they do based on common law and common practice. In no way is that common practice at all, anywhere. Even if it was though, where exactly is it established in the law that museums own the copyrights to the works that they put on display? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep. All of these images can be kept, as they are covered in the basis by the Dutch Copyright Act, par. 2, article 7. The work of the artists depicted was made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright. The local Comenius Society and later Comenius Museum have been acting on their behalf ever since, and have permitted photo's to be taken and distributed ever since.
Now I have received word from the Museum that they will look into this, but I doubt any outcome would change my mind here. Those images can be kept because on the one hand there is a straight forward legal release by the RCE. On the other hand individuals in the chapel have made pictures with implicit and/or explicit permission by the Museum to take pictures, and have rightfully released their images here. -- Mdd (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) / 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Where's your evidence that the windows were made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright? Because I don't see any evidence of that being the case. Just a bunch of vapid speculation. Also, as I've already stated and you seem to be ignoring, just because a museum gives visitors permission to take pictures of works of art they are displaying doesn't mean the works of art are free of copyright or that the images can be used for any purpose. Otherwise there'd zero reason Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands and legal commentators say museums aren't covered by Netherlands' FOP laws. That obviously wouldn't be the case if there was some kind of de facto rule that everything displayed in a museum is free of copyright.
- If you want a similar example, look into theme parks. They give visitors permission to take pictures of their rides all day long, but the designs of rides and particular characters they feature are still copyrighted. It's totally ridiculous to act like a theme park or museum giving people permission to take pictures inside of the establishment is at all equal to a particular work being free of copyright or not. They aren't at all comparable, legally or otherwise. You clearly have nothing else to argue at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
The releases of these nominated photo's here on Commons are based on the releases by the RCE, see for example here, and to quote @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): :
- If the CC license is from the website, we generally rely on the legal acumen of the state agency releasing the image, if they withdraw the license, so do we. --RAN (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (source)
In such a situation uploaders doesn't have to prove that the RCE releases are legal or whatever. We do have an obligation to assess if this is likely to be legal. Now I have looked into the history of the emerge of the Comenius Chapel and the events which made this happens from the 1920s to the 1930s. Also afterwards similar images where published in the newspaper in the 1930s, and on postcards in those days without additional copyright restrictions. The local government took pictures over the years, which are released in the regional documentation center under similar conditions as the RCE has done. And the museum in the last decade or so itself allows photo's to be taken. These conditions make me believe that the copyright on those art works might even been outdated. I don't see any inconsistencies here, and I think my vote is also consistent. -- Mdd (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah sure. I'm aware of what the releases by the RCE says in relation to the specific images on their website. That's not what my question was about though. I'm not asking what license these images are released under. Your the ones who are saying the windows were made in the 1930s in commission for the Czechoslovakian government, who received the copyright. So where's your evidence of that being the case or that the windows themselves are free of copyright in the meantime? It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This morning I received a message from the museum, confirming the art works where created in commission of the Czechoslovak government. It is the policy of museum director and manager of the mausoleum, to allow photos and reproduction thereof, if and given this endorses one of our most important assignments and responsibilities as a foundation: namely the opening & accessibility of the grave of Comenius, and the further dissemination of Comenius' ideas.
Earlier I found conformation of the first part in older newspaper articles from those days and in contemporary documentation. The second part is a general permission to allow reproduction of the works similar to the permission all artists and photographers give when they share there works on Flickr or here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. This data endorses the vote and argumentation I gave 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC) / 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC). -- Mdd (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment by Ellywa
[edit](Copied from my talk page with Ellywa's permission)
Hi Adamant, I looked through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Comeniuskapel, Naarden. I have no time to read it all at the moment. Among others, there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright (and even then... what is the successor of the older country) My general comments are as follows:
- The chapel is now part of a museum, so it is not a public space according to the Dutch copyright law as worded on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Freedom_of_panorama. Therefore there is no freedom of panorama in the chapel.
- If there would be FOP in the building (which I do not think there is), copyrighted works can only be published "as they are", which means including the environment of the building, so isolated details should be deleted in any case, such as File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527961 - RCE.jpg.
- The glass is de minimis on some images, and can be easily cropped from some others.
--Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by Mdd
Thanks @Adamant1: for copy/pasting this comment here, and thanks @Ellywa: for taking an interest into this case. What I would like to know first is, in what kind of capacity this comment was made? Is it of a concerned user, who wants to give his/her assessment of the situation. Or is it as a moderator, intending to close this case soon? Something tells me it is the second, and I will presume this in my next response. In short, it seems like Ellywa is to chose in one direction. First a direct comment about her assessment:
- 1. Now first the statement there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright
- I would specify, there is no direct evidence from the Czech government, yet, but there is direct evidence that the RCE has released these images, for example File:Interieur, een van de glazen panelen waarin het leven van Comenius is geëtst (ontwerp- Jaroslav Benda) - Naarden - 20527961 - RCE.jpg.
- The first disturbing aspect of this comment therefor is, that the RCE permission is being overseen, denied, expelled, dismissed, or whatever in this assessment. First question is than is this even allowed for a Wikimedia Commons moderator to do so? If so this is a very disturbing development, that one or all of the 500.000 images present from this source can be dismissed, without even a simple consideration. What kind of Wild West situation would this create?
- It would have a very disturbing impact that if we cannot trust the permission here, could we trust any of the other 0.5 a million permissions granted to us. It would also have a very disturbing impact that a Wikimedia Commons moderator has the authority here to dismiss legal permission without any saying. Again what a Wild West situation this is? Also the counter-side of dismissing such permission is, that it more or less suggests a whitewashing operation from the RCE. A motion of distrust towards the RCE, or whatever. Again what a Wild West situation and naive thing to do, is to think that in the long term such possible defamatory allegations towards outsiders can remain without consequences.
- 2. Next the whole saying there is no evidence the Czech government owns the copyright (and even then... what is the successor of the older country)...
- One could argue here that there is also no evidence the Czech government doesn't owns the copyright. But there is a ton of indirect evidence, that it actually did. I could specify with all kinds of links. Also I could ask through the museum for some kind of official permission if this is required, etc.
- 3 Third, the saying The chapel is now part of a museum...
- This is the fair assessment here, yet it is the question if that even matters. The situation should be taken into account of the time that the pictures where taken, and @Vysotsky: already stated he didn't know what the situation was about 15 years ago. The fair assessment here is that the 15 years ago, it was a museum also.
- We should however take into account here, that it was not just a museum. It was a museum that allowed people and institutions to take pictures and share them with the world.
- 4 The second bullet-point with the statement If there would be FOP in the building...
- This whole saying can be dismissed here, because there is no FOP. And if so, I seriously doubt the part that "isolated details should be deleted in any case..."
- 5' The statement The glass is de minimis on some images, and can be easily cropped from some others.
- This is also not relevant, because permission is granted by the museum, and towards the RCE who released the images on their own.
Now I can be wrong here from start to finish, and that is why I have written it down here as specific as possible. What keeps troubling me the most is the unimaginable undesired precedent ruling out these permissions by the museum and the RCE would created. If we cannot build on their permission here, who can we trust. The foundation of cooperation seem to fades away here to build on the permission of other organizations and people by name give us. Maybe I am to close, and I am not seeing straight... so I will distance myself here as will for now. Or maybe this one thing: Again this is mind blowing, and for one reason Ellywa has that effect on me. -- Mdd (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal
To end this long discussion I would like to close this deletion request as keep myself, a non-admin closure on personal title. This is also a way for Wikimedia Commons to reduce the liability in this matter. -- Mdd (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "liability" your referring to, but how about not. The only reason it turned into long discussion is because you went off on multiple long-winded screeds that if I'm being frank clearly didn't add anything to the discussion. You can't just rant about a DR for multiple months and then close it yourself because the ranting didn't end in the outcome you wanted. Sorry. Especially since it's pretty clear from Ellywa's comment and the ANU discussion most everyone disagrees with you that institutions should get a special pass from following copyright rules. Although I think it would be inappropriate for a keep voter to close a DR as keep regardless of the details anyway. Whatever the outcome, this needs to be looked over and closed by an administrator. To the degree that it hasn't been yet is 100% on you and Vysotsky. I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, proposal withdrawn. Still it is my opinion, that this deletion request is an anomaly from the start. It ignores the common practice, as explained elsewhere recently:
- If the CC license is from the website, we generally rely on the legal acumen of the state agency releasing the image, if they withdraw the license, so do we. --RAN (Overleg) 05:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Earlier on I made a significant effort to look into the history of the photoshoot, location, organization and its history, as well as into the own Wikimedia procedure. I found no irregularities, which should justify to ignore common practice here. We should follow our own common practice and keep these images online as they are. I will rest my case now. -- Mdd (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- As I said in the other DR, the common practice assumes what is being depicted in the image is PD, which isn't the case here. So it has zero relevence and you've already been told as much by multiple people now. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per precedent in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AndrieskerkAmsterdam2019-2.jpg. Public place so covered by FOP. Vysotsky also has a good point that it could have been a chapel in 2009. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
sourcing sketchy PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on a lack of evidence to question it basically. Born in 1914 and is allegedly from 1941. Looks about the right age from the image. I don't know the bio but it looks like this would probably be PD-Russia so a pre-1943 publication is needed I think. The oddest thing is that the main use is at English at en:User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Heroes of the Soviet Union under the page of the globally banned nominator who took the userpage from someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP, we don't know when this was published so copyright status is the US in uncertain. Possibly public domain in Russia but we don't know that for sure. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The picture is of w:en:Anna Gréki (14 March 1931 – 6 January 1966), probably taken in the 1950s. The subject was born and brought up in Algeria, went to university in France, returned to Algeria, was deported to France in 1958, returned to Algeria after 1962.
- If the picture was taken in France (see COM:France) and the author is known and lived after 1953 the work would be copyright protected.
- If taken in France, anonymous and published after 1953 it would be copyright protected.
- If it were taken in Algeria, see COM:Algeria, it would be free if published before January 1, 1987.
- Otherwise it would be protected if the author lived after 1973, or anonymous and published after 1986.
We do not know. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We don't have enough information on publication to determine if it is public domain. I think it's from the 1950s and French, but that's an educated guess. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Formal portrait. Author is claimed to be subject. No provenance. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question Jameslwoodward, why isn't the link OK? The file description can be changed by anyone and is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Metadata lists Kazumi Ogata as the author, which is different from the subject. Deleted per COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Extremely tight crop of File:Tribute to Graham Chapman.jpg, a wide shot of various photographs and items left in tribute in a public place in London. This is a 1960s publicity shot of Chapman, it can't be claimed as CC-Attribution to the Flickr user who took a photo of it on the street in 2019. Belbury (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. UK FOP doesn't cover photographs and the photograph is not PD in the UK yet. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low photo quality Mv1388 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question Do we have a higher-quality image of this work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Should have been a G7 speedy deletion instead of a DR. Deleted since DR was made right after upload. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
likely copyvio, scan of a manufacturer's photo, unlikely to be "own work", unable to be relased into the public domain as was not taken by the copyright holder Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- In this case, and for the sake of equal treatment, you will have to delete all the photos of builder portraits contained in this page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rolling_stock_builders_portraits Altona (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP since we don't know when this was published. Undelete in 2065 which is 120 years after photo creation in 1944. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
El latón es una aleación, así que no se da de forma natural como piedras. Por tanto la imagen no es de latón, pero es de tan bajo tamaño que no es posible saber qué es en realidad. Parece que se ha sacado de una fuente externa que no se consigue leer. Y el asuario no se puede localizar. B25es (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously from an external source, very low resolution, has all the classic signs of netcopvio. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Salt The Fries 86 (talk · contribs)
[edit]John Box's works? flickr account doesnt have valid permission?
RZuo (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Flickr account doesn't appear to have a valid permission. Undelete in 2076. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused text-only image, out of scope. Also added:
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hjart as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep High-quality, interesting portrait of what as near as I can figure out from Google translations of http://aak-kyrkan.se/sankt-fransiscus-forsamling/ and https://aak-kyrkan.se/team/diakonissa-jade-sandberg/ is a Swedish Episcopalian priest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ikan Kekek, high quality photograph that has potential educational use. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Scarf scholar AGM (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pure text docs, out of scope.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- DELETE Agreed. These were "uploaded" by them simply to grab 15 minutes of fame, as some sort of "source" when the ACTUAL document exists on the official U.S. Government website in its pristine, reliable form HERE --> Philippines Defense Cooperation - Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.65.220 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I was not attempting to be famous by reproducing a document.
- I did not play any part in writing the original agreement.
- I found the scan that was attached to the article to be of not so great quality.
- (Some pages were tilted. Gross!)
- PDFs barely live up to their name as they become increasingly inaccessible and bloated.
- But clearly I need to reference the Wikipedia Commons documentation as text files are not allowed as documentation.
- Despite being a very reliable and low bandwidth format.
- I wanted to start contributing to Wikipedia because I think it is an important repository of human knowledge.
- So thanks for your feedback.
- Separately, thanks for showing me the link to documents on the US Department of State.
- I probably should have checked there first. Scarf scholar AGM (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not clear what year this picture was taken. Nooritahir433215 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Photograph looks consistent with a 1920s photograph. PD in Afghanistan and the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yanguas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://viagens.sapo.pt/viajar/viajar-portugal/artigos/entrudo-em-pias-a-tradicao-ainda-e-o-que-era-nesta-aldeia
- Uploader, creator and EXIF information match, I see no copyright violation here. Polarlys (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- O artigo em causa assim como as fotografias são da minha autoria.
- Podem comprovar isso contactando o Sapo Viagens ou mesmo vendo a autoria do mesmo artigo no site que vocês mencionaram.
- Tenho os direitos do texto e das fotografias. Obrigado. Pedro Sá Fotografia (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, I see no copyright violation. Pedro Sá Fotografia, poderia confirmar sua identidade por meio de COM:VRT? Pingando Yanguas. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yanguas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuUGF0u7bolNiHnKTRweUk0P2Vage2Mxvf-POgwXxV3tWIgBtjT85bsGFnnCo_4TiUtBIG7cX_6E8Kzj6WroEqML8z06k0VMmLo1Q1G23s5zl33RS9uZpdonnXWYuBCsMoMpklz9-2U8XcNNbjX0uLH8boQoCIoVZdW_z803CJxC0R56aKRPuGX4fH/s4940/IMG_7728.jpg Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader, creator and EXIF information match, I see no copyright violation here. --Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- O artigo em causa assim como as fotografias são da minha autoria.
- Podem comprovar isso contactando o site que vocês mencionaram.
- Tenho os direitos do texto e das fotografias. Obrigado. Pedro Sá Fotografia (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Metadata matches information provided. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yanguas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZq8v70CgETuHFLUwyOcOka1x8TI0Tr2nuFLMYDn-lM5zu6CEWYG_ZdgpyhDjBxEB6stt06td79TtHpntuyDWsKrcWoNmI4eBBf2zFxAoEdo2fi3ZOXdWvIPjG8joQkVfNE-hVJROB9HSNdyK8bUc6YaCrRQRNQ_gIOawkArBazNj1mltAbstcTNQX/s4137/IMG_7557.jpg Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader, creator and EXIF information match, I see no copyright violation here. --Polarlys (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- O artigo em causa assim como as fotografias são da minha autoria.
- Podem comprovar isso contactando o site que vocês mencionaram.
- Tenho os direitos do texto e das fotografias. Obrigado. Pedro Sá Fotografia (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Metadata backs up that the uploader is the creator. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo is copyright Philip Hutchinson 2A00:23C5:FF94:6F01:21A1:976:296C:B961 17:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo Yann (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: above TOO and not PD due to age. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Album cover, Nothing proves the uploader is the owner of the copyright CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, probably an album cover. What about {{PD-ineligible}}? The artwork does not meet the threshold of originality for me. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; TOO in the UK is very low; the mere fact that the text "club tikka 45" isn't in a straight line is enough to push it over the line. —holly {chat} 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Copyright rules by territory/Philippines and prior consensus images on stamps of the Philippines are still copyrighted by the original creator. In this case, the photograph comes from https://www.biology.utah.edu/faculty/baldomero-olivera/ and is copyrighted by Nicole Morgenthau. Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is definitely a clear cut DW. But as with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1981 stamps of Seychelles was closed, it's probable that the Philippines Post Office got all proper permissions from the author. Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find the link to it right now, but there was another conversation about them using prior works in stamps at one point and at least from that conversation it sounds like they don't care about or get the proper permissions when they do it. So it's not at all probable that they got the proper permissions before publishing the stamp. Nor do I really see how the DR about stamps from Seychelles are relevant to this since they are a different country and therefore obviously do things differently. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; even if the Philippine government got permission from the original author, that doesn't mean it's available under a free license. —holly {chat} 21:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 源義信 as duplicate (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F8|SSID-12587531_陳英士先生殉國十三周年紀念冊.pdf
as it is not an image it shold be discussed. Sanandros (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- The file is a same but lower-quality copy of 陳英士先生殉國十三周年紀念冊.pdf. 源義信 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
While stamps of the Philippines can sometimes be PD they aren't in cases where the image on them is copyrighted. In this case the image of Gloria Romero is from a prior photograph. A copy of which can be found here https://pixelatedplanet.net/2020/02/take-a-look-at-iconic-movie-queen-gloria-romeros-timeless-beauty/. Well I'm 100% sure about the copyright status of the original work, my guess would be that's it copyrighted unless someone has evidence to the contrary. So this image should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, anonymous photographs are protected for 50 years. This photo was taken in the 1950s, well before 1972, and there is no evidence of authorship. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Us having no evidence of authorship doesn't mean there wasn't an author. Also, the Philippines government has an established history of using otherwise copyrighted images without permission on stamps. For instance see the two DRs listed in the stamps section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines. So I think it's pretty reasonable to delete this image based on the precautionary principle. Especially since there's way less chance the photographer has been dead for 50 years compared to the opposite. I'd be interested to know what your evidence that the image was taken in the 50s is though since I couldn't find an exact date for it. So what evidence do you have that it was taken in the 50s? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Two images out of many thousands is a very low percentage. Besides, by this logic, we should delete millions of images on Commons that have no author information (and are tagged with {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}} and other similar templates). Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- So you have zero evidence that it was taken in the 50s then? Good to know. And your the one who took issue with me supposedly speculating about the source of an image in another DR when there was pretty obvious evidence where it came from. Sure dude. Anyway, I'm sure your aware that Commons:Deletion requests says "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." Fear mongering about other images on Commons clearly doesn't meet that bar. What does though is citing any binding copyright law, the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on. You clearly aren't going to cite the date of publication. So anything else you want to cite or can we call your completely baseless objections to the original reason I nominated this for deletion good? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Two images out of many thousands is a very low percentage. Besides, by this logic, we should delete millions of images on Commons that have no author information (and are tagged with {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}} and other similar templates). Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Us having no evidence of authorship doesn't mean there wasn't an author. Also, the Philippines government has an established history of using otherwise copyrighted images without permission on stamps. For instance see the two DRs listed in the stamps section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines. So I think it's pretty reasonable to delete this image based on the precautionary principle. Especially since there's way less chance the photographer has been dead for 50 years compared to the opposite. I'd be interested to know what your evidence that the image was taken in the 50s is though since I couldn't find an exact date for it. So what evidence do you have that it was taken in the 50s? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
From a quick search it is obvious that the image was taken before 1972, compare with her 1960 wedding images here. It is extremely difficult to find the author for any cinema-related photographs from the Philippines of that era, this image included. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that obvious. There's a ton of pictures of her here from the fifties and early sixties where she looks a lot younger. Like take this image of her from a play in the fifties. She clearly looks younger there. She looks slightly younger in her weeding photograph then in this one to. It's possible the image was taken in the late 1960s since it looks like she's in her late 30s to early 40s in the original of this image, but Occam's razor says it was more likely taken in the earlier to mid 70s unless there's obvious evidence to the contrary. Either way, it clearly wasn't taken in the 50s like you originally claimed. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The original photograph looks like a 1950s photograph (granted it could have been done in the early 1960s). The original is likely public domain, and it's extremely likely that the Philippines Post Office had permission to use it regardless. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find the link to it right now, but there was another conversation about them using prior works in stamps at one point and at least from that conversation it sounds like they don't care about or get the proper permissions when they do it. So just because the original negative might be from the 1950s or early 1960s it doesn't mean they used it as the source or got permission to republish the photograph from the original photographer (or whomever owned the rights at the time). And we really need more then speculation. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There is no evidence of the date the original picture was taken. As mw. Romero started acting in 1949 and worked upto 2018 according the article on en:WP, the photo can be taken from that period. She looks young, but a lot can be done by makeup and photo editting. As there have been other issues with stamps of the Philippines showing copyrighted derivative works, I think the photo must be deleted, as there is no COM:EVID the original photo is in PD. --Ellywa (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
While stamps of the Philippines can sometimes be PD they aren't in cases where the image on them is otherwise copyrighted. In this case the image is a screenshot of a basketball game video. While I don't have a link to the original video screenshots from it can easily be found on Google Images by searching for his name. Either way, this image is clearly copyrighted unless someone has evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The rationale for deletion is a speculation. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a crop of this image from ESPNs website, which is from a televised basketball game. It also has the grainy quality of a television broadcast video at that time. What's more likely, that it's a screenshot of a pre-recorded video or at least was taken by a professional photographer or that some rando in the crowd took it with their Kodak handheld camera? Either way, it hasn't been 50 years since the game was played or the image was taken since he played between 1972 and 1994. So even if I'm wrong about it being a screenshot of a video it should still be deleted per the copyright term of Create/publish + 50 years for photographs. Unless your going to argue the image was taken the first year he played basket, but that would be way more speculation then anything I've said. Especially since the photograph is of him playing for the San Miguel Beer and he didn't start playing there until 1988. Good luck trying to speculate that's not the case though. In the meantime, it's pretty obvious the image should be deleted until 2,038. Really it's laughable that your even trying to argue it should be kept.
- As a side to that, it's not on me to do all the footwork to figure out if the images you uploaded are PD or not. Maybe do it yourself next time. People shouldn't have to keep nominating your images for deletion or repeatedly waste their time countering your nonsense keep rationales just because you couldn't be bothered to do the monochrome of effort it would take to find out what the copyright status of an image is before you upload it. Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please stop personal attacks and fix your ESPNs link (I see no image there)? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it's not a personal attack to request someone do their own research to figure out if an image is copyrighted before they upload it. That's literally the policy, which you should know and care about following since your an administrator. More so considering you've had a bunch of your uploads deleted as COPYVIO at this point. I shouldn't have to point it out either. Really, I could have just left a "Don't upload copyrighted material to Commons or you might be blocked" warning to your talk page. I though this would be the more civil way to go about things though. Either way, just do the research yourself next time before you upload the image. It's not that hard. It took me less then a minute to figure out where this one came from. So there's really no excuse.
- Could you please stop personal attacks and fix your ESPNs link (I see no image there)? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- As a side to that, it's not on me to do all the footwork to figure out if the images you uploaded are PD or not. Maybe do it yourself next time. People shouldn't have to keep nominating your images for deletion or repeatedly waste their time countering your nonsense keep rationales just because you couldn't be bothered to do the monochrome of effort it would take to find out what the copyright status of an image is before you upload it. Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Anyway, I don't have the time or urge to provide a valid link to ESPN since the deletion request doesn't hinge on it and the whole thing seems a bit like derailing anyway. If you do a Google Image Search for "Ramon Fernandez" though it's the third image on the list, which has the ESPN link attached to it. I have faith you can find it on your own ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Fernandez ended his basketball career in 1984 according to en: Ramon Fernandez, consequently, the original photo for this stamp has been taken prior to 1984. We have no information about the date or the photographer, but this stamp design clearly is a derivative work of a photo. We have no message from the Philippines post office that the original photo is in PD. So imho this image must be deleted based on COM:PRP and because evidence is not available. It can be undeleted, based on Philippine copyright law about photos (supposing it was taken in the Philippines) in 1984+51=2035. </noinclude>. --Ellywa (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
While sometimes stamps of the Philippines are public domain, they aren't in cases where the image is otherwise copyrighted. In this case the image appears to be based on the one found here. Although I'm not 100% sure it's copyrighted we should probably air on the side of caution just in case since images on similar stamps have turned out to be. Maybe someone can find the original source and figure out it's copyrighted status though. I'm fine with retracting this if it turns out to be public domain.
Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines, anonymous photographs are protected for 50 years. This photo was taken in the 1950s, well before 1972, and there is no evidence of authorship. Materialscientist (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Us having no evidence of authorship doesn't mean there wasn't an author. Also, the Philippines government has an established history of using otherwise copyrighted images without permission on stamps. For instance see the two DRs listed in the stamps section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines. So I think it's pretty reasonable to delete this image based on the precautionary principle. Especially since there's way less chance the photographer has been dead for 50 years compared to the opposite. I'd be interested to know what your evidence that the image was taken in the 50s is though since I couldn't find an exact date for it. So what evidence do you have that it was taken in the 50s? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Two images out of many thousands is a very low percentage. Besides, by this logic, we should delete millions of images on Commons that have no author information (and are tagged with {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}} and other similar templates). Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- So you have zero evidence that it was taken in the 50s then? Good to know. And your the one who took issue with me supposedly speculating about the source of an image in another DR when there was pretty obvious evidence where it came from. Sure dude. Anyway, I'm sure your aware that Commons:Deletion requests "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." Fear mongering about other images on Commons clearly doesn't meet that bar. What does though is citing any binding copyright law, the applicability of any relevant Commons policies, or any relevant facts such as date or place of publication, author, date of author's death and so on. You clearly aren't going to cite the date of publication. So anything else you want to cite or can we call your completely baseless objections to the original reason I nominated this for deletion good? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Two images out of many thousands is a very low percentage. Besides, by this logic, we should delete millions of images on Commons that have no author information (and are tagged with {{Anonymous-EU}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}} and other similar templates). Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Us having no evidence of authorship doesn't mean there wasn't an author. Also, the Philippines government has an established history of using otherwise copyrighted images without permission on stamps. For instance see the two DRs listed in the stamps section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines. So I think it's pretty reasonable to delete this image based on the precautionary principle. Especially since there's way less chance the photographer has been dead for 50 years compared to the opposite. I'd be interested to know what your evidence that the image was taken in the 50s is though since I couldn't find an exact date for it. So what evidence do you have that it was taken in the 50s? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The image is clearly taken before 1972, compare, for example with her 1957 photos here. It is extremely difficult to find the author for any cinema-related photograph from the Philippines of that era, this image included. Materialscientist (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- She's on a 1958 cover for Song-Movie Magazine here and she looks younger in that image she does in this one. Plus her hairstyle is drastically different. Maybe it was taken in the 1960s, but either way you were clearly wrong the image is from the 1950s. If there's any shot it might have been taken in the mid to late 1960s then IMO it should just be deleted per the precautionary principle since there's zero way to pin down the exact date. Like if your going to keep walking the date back to later and later years to the point of speculating that it was taken around 1967 or whatever then I'd have to think your just being bad faithed and there's zero justification to keep the image. It's to bad there's no way to definitively date the original. There's a few images of her in her forties with the same hair style, but that's not conclusive evidence of when it was taken. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The original negative appears to be from the late 1950s or early 1960s. It's also probable that the Philippines Post Office got all proper permissions. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find the link to it right now, but there was another conversation about them using prior works in stamps at one point and at least from that conversation it sounds like they don't care about or get the proper permissions when they do it. So just because the original negative might be from the 1950s or early 1960s it doesn't mean they used it as the source or got permission to republish the photograph from the original photographer (or whomever owned the rights at the time). --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, There is no evidence of the date the original picture was taken. --Ellywa (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Upload for Freedom as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:SSID-10893569 獨秀文存 上下 第3卷 通信.pdf
as it it not a image it should be discused. Sanandros (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, files look different to me. --Ellywa (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Upload for Freedom as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:SSID-10893918 獨秀文存 上下 第2卷 隨感錄.pdf
as it is not an image it should be discussed. Sanandros (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, files look different to me. --Ellywa (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)