Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-سفرهای_استانی_رئیس_جمهور-_یاسوج.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
uploaded for vandalism purposes discospinster (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unsupported license claim etc. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake 由紀奈 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already on February 21. --Achim55 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Albatros Trokut (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Caricato due volte Bellavarda (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, dupe of File:Lastricato Via Vandelli.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera, The Juniors saga 11.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera, The Juniors saga 06.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera, The Juniors saga 10.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protagonistas de The Juniors y la fórmula Imperial con el Director de Cine Ricardo Tavera.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera, The Juniors saga 09.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera 02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera, The Juniors saga 16.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detrás de cámaras de la película The Juniors y la Fórmula Imperial del director Ricardo Tavera y el escritor Armando Tavera 03.jpg
Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
uploaded by accident before our designer did it Scann (WDU) (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
-20230310004600-File:AmbienteSano_logo_vert.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Image non référencée sur un article, droit d'auteur non respecté OlivierJon (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Previously posted image, not free Osama Eid (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 21:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 21:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
rimozione dalla pagina personale Le1ar2 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep: No reason for deletion. In use on it:Lista di santi con i loro attributi iconografici. --Achim55 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Done: Yet another low quality image of a male penis. Deleted per {{Nopenis}}.
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Pubescent" implies underage. You should report anything with this title to Wikimedia Legal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I overlook the word "Pubescent". I have reported it to Wikimedia Legal Team. However, I am disappointed with the speed of handling these kind of cases. Like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male external genitalia.png, the WMF legal team still made no response to it after two months. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oy! :*( Well, in any case, I definitely vote to
Delete this, sight unseen, based on the title. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oy! :*( Well, in any case, I definitely vote to
Speedy delete RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by unknown admin. --Rosenzweig τ 07:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio, multiple Google Images hits. --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This picture had appeared in several places on the web (such as this and this one) prior to its upload to the Commons. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Random photo from internet Syced (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete collage of unsourced photos, no evident in-scope usefulness -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Screengrab from https://es.aliexpress.com/item/1005004787800881.html. P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes delete it 88.223.131.230 04:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Not the work of NPS, credited to Wayne State University/Detroit Free Press Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Reuther Library, Wayne State University holds the Detroit Free Press archive, and the DFP did not renew copyrights. --RAN (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I think we should keep it. NewDealChief (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-not renewed. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Breach of Freedom of Panorama Syced (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of Commons project scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C_%D8%B1%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%B3_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-_%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AC.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C_%D8%B1%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%B3_%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-_%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AC.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo from Tasnim without Tasnim's watermark and photographer name. Per this and this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. MehdiTalk 06:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo from Tasnim without Tasnim's watermark and photographer name. Per this and this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. MehdiTalk 06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo from Tasnim without Tasnim's watermark and photographer name. Per this and this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. MehdiTalk 06:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Image-artifacts suggest that this is a screenshot or a reproduction of an existing image. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This is not a selfie as claimed, probably copyright violation. Depicted person is not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in es.wiki and es:Usuario:Lirajohn is deleted, probably the file is out of project scope as well. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work, see [1]. Yann (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Taken from the web from any of these. Very unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Taken from any of these. Unlikely to be the work of the uploader (see uploader's other uploads). Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low resolution screenshot of a freely licensed video showing an unidentified band playing Cuban music. I don't know if this is in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
remnant pic of deleted french "user" page, useless without context, questionable regarding personalty rights of depicted minor Fl.schmitt (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Image that appears to be a collage has a watermark on the lower left. Doesn't appear to be from the uploader. No source provided for the many very small images used. Abzeronow (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
To delete: The same user/artist trying to do a self promotion as in this request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Puxunito CoffeeEngineer, No proven notability (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. apparently not notable, looks like self-promotion. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Brief autobiography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Obviously copied from Web. It's a Tim Allen selfie, as noted https://diply.com/147687/tim-allen-shows-off-his-new-beard-as-part-of-his-transition-int Jayron32 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: A copyright watermark can be seen on the bottom left CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as statted in the description CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: A copyright watermark can be seen on the bottom left CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: A copyright watermark can be seen on the bottom left CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The cropped image focuses on a copyrighted character (Torchic), so COM:DE MINIMIS does not apply in this case.. Also, COM:TOYS. ZebaX2010 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, looks like spam. --Rosenzweig τ 11:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Look closely, it is a edited photo. I highly doubt it is uploader own work. File metadata also doesn’t help. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Trade (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, apparently a person which is not notable. --Rosenzweig τ 11:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. Johnj1995 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, text pdf with out of scope content. --Rosenzweig τ 11:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Group7BW1313 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW of unsourced works.
RZuo (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Group7BW1313 (talk · contribs)
[edit]com:out of scope powerpoint slides.
RZuo (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pythontrials (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self promo on km.wp. Also, flickr washing.
- File:Ashinigogoi wsj2021.jpg
- File:Ashinigogoi timesofindia2021.jpg
- File:ALPHS Inc. product price.png
- File:ALPHS Inc. website product.png
- File:ALPHS Instagram in March 2023.jpg
- File:Ashini gogoi 2003.jpg
- File:Ashinigogoi2021.jpg
- File:Ashinigogoi2020.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Flag-map of Algeria.svg Nedrko (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- why this flag should be deleted? Riad Salih (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate file ⵎⴰⵙⵏⵙⴰ (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nominated by sock, unclear what it duplicates. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Bad rasterized svg. The PNG-version is preferable. One-eyed pirate (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Nombre de progrma de TV --Jgeovani (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- agreed. this was my first try in Vector Graphics.— G.G. 06:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Dont delete this page. The flag should stay!!!~ Mary Dietrich diggydogluv@gmail.com
Kept: its in use. JuTa 23:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor SVG 2001:448A:11AC:1AC0:4DE6:B59D:A497:B9BE 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Strakhov (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Henry Rollins photos uploaded to Flickr by beezlebubba
[edit]- File:Henry-rollins-03 (3113650932).jpg
- File:BlackFlag HenryRollins (3113651150).jpg
- File:Henry-front (2233932706).jpg †
- File:Henry-left-arm-long-hair (2233932656).jpg
- File:Henry-right-arm (2233932670).jpg †
- File:Henry-rollins (3112818857).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-01 (3112818889).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-02 (3113650846).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-05 (3113650994).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-06 (3112819423).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-06 (3112819463).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-old-before-back (3113650900).jpg
- File:Henry-rollins-poster (3113650864).jpg †
- File:Rollins (3113650814).jpg
- File:Rollins bf (3113651126).jpg
- File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Flickr user beezlebubba appears to be Flickrwashing photos of singer and actor Henry Rollins, including an already deleted screenshot of Rollins ripped from a video game. Other content on beezlebubba's account is also clearly not theirs to freely license. Some files (†) have clear watermarks indicating beezlebubba is not the copyright holder. --Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete This seems like a pretty obvious Flickrwashing account. I requested that it be blacklisted at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment One other file, File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg, was uploaded by this user but this was passed through COM:VRT well before any of these photos were brought to Commons so I'm checking up on the permission that beezlebubba provided on the VRT noticeboard before moving to delete that one. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)- Delete given my response on the VRT dashboard about this. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just randomly checked original size of this image and the very little EXIF it has mentions "Copyright © Photorazzi / Photorazzi". ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've added File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg to the deletion request as the permission does not seem suitable. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bobamnertiopsis: This is more of a license-reviewing problem than the issue has to do with the VRT permissions. I am pretty much unsure why the ticket mentions two files that come from two different uploaders on Flickr beezlebubba and Pelle Sten. Pelle Sten does appear to have interests in photography and their flickr account does also appear established but I don't feel making other related files a reason for deletion of 1993 image - File:HenryRollins Performing 1993.jpg. However, I'd like to have your input on this as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I know that you have not DR'ed that image, but still, I'd like to hear from you. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I feel a lot more comfortable that File:HenryRollins Performing 1993.jpg has been legitimately freely licensed by its uploader and don't feel the need to nominate it for deletion. Sten seems to be the bona fide photographer of the images on their Flickr profile, so I don't have any qualms with that one. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I know that you have not DR'ed that image, but still, I'd like to hear from you. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bobamnertiopsis: This is more of a license-reviewing problem than the issue has to do with the VRT permissions. I am pretty much unsure why the ticket mentions two files that come from two different uploaders on Flickr beezlebubba and Pelle Sten. Pelle Sten does appear to have interests in photography and their flickr account does also appear established but I don't feel making other related files a reason for deletion of 1993 image - File:HenryRollins Performing 1993.jpg. However, I'd like to have your input on this as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've added File:HenryRollins Singing.jpg to the deletion request as the permission does not seem suitable. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just randomly checked original size of this image and the very little EXIF it has mentions "Copyright © Photorazzi / Photorazzi". ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I realized it is bad for my privacy 由紀奈 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per courtesy to the author. No use on the projects. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Most likely copyright Infringement. Contributor wrote "Unknown author" and "Subject person having copyright". This contributor has uploaded only this file. 61.120.241.1 11:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- And no licence. --61.120.241.1 19:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hum... I fail to see how this fits in with the project scope. It may be some kind of story (very "illustrated") however I am unable to think of any project it might be useful on. Herby talk thyme 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete some weird porn/erotica novel I guess. WMC is not a self publishing platform for amateur smut, that’s well established, but it’s weird seeing it in literary form and not just the usual dick pics. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: selfpublished ...literature?, out of scope. --Strakhov (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: file was originally uploaded by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: file was originally uploaded by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 08:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
criterion code such as G7 for "author/uploader request" Sakida0 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, courtesy deletion of unused file by uploader's request. --Rosenzweig τ 08:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Simplification des versions Sakida0 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I want to delete this image, because I already added another one in png format. Wiki-Harpia (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Hello, I want to delete this image, because I already added another one in png format. Wiki-Harpia (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Horrible quality dick pic; there needs to be a “propose deletion” on Commons for this crap Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 08:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:CUR Australia Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- also file:CAMEL Studio Logo.png
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, fair usage Snowflake91 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded this file without realizing the source was on the "Questionable Flickr images" list, and after further review I've concluded the source most likely does not have permission to license this image as CC-by 2.0. Christopher Lee Adams (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Very low resolution, unlike own work. Larryasou (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
logo for a residential college at the w:University of Queensland, dubious own work claim. Unclear which year this was published/first used, so may still be copyrighted. Also exceeds Australian TOO, so ineligible for PD FASTILY 08:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Text-only file. No obvious educational use. 193.210.224.238 10:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be some kind of spam/promotion of a blog and I must question whether this is actually this user's own work as claimed (that said, it's not impossible; the blog on which this first appeared is anonymous). Even if it's being used legally, there is no WMF project that would benefit from this image, which means that it does not belong on Commons. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --James F. (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
All rights reserved on image incompatible with CC BY-SA 4.0 plus perhaps other issues DeirgeDel tac 02:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Related image File:Norma De Saint Picman Noravisionsolarmetaverse2.jpg from the same uploader has the same issue. Marbletan (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Spam image, copyright violations. Lemonaka (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo scanned from book published in 1987. There is no evidence that it was created 70 years ago. Licence is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the schema was created before 1953, we're talking about a fake license. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. Can not be scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. Uoijm77 (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Why do you speak english with me? We are living in Germany and expert discussions i better do in my first language. Diese Aufnahme soll die Wirkungsweise einer bestimmten Getriebekonstruktion verdeutlichen, weiter nichts. Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte. So habe ich noch einmal die Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Die meisten Benutzer sprechen Englisch. Die Lokomotive, in die das Getriebe eingebaut war, wurde ab 1953 produziert. Daher ist nicht bekannt, ob die Zeichnung vor mehr als 70 Jahren angefertigt wurde. Uoijm77 (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dann machst Du bei mir eine Ausnahme. Ich habe meine Vorlagen, nach denen ich Bilder veröffentlichen kann und habe keine Lust, auf englische Texte über ein Foto, was offensichtlich vor über 100 Jahren entstanden ist, zu antworten Rainerhaufe (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Das Schreiben auf Deutsch wäre respektlos gegenüber anderen Benutzern. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Von mir kommen aber die Antworten in deutsch. Durch die Schöpfungshöhe werden aber das Bild zu einem gemeinfreien Aufnahme gesetzt, da nicht bekannt ist, wer sie angefertigt hat. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Drawings created before July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. There is no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago. It is not known when this drawing was first published. It's hard to say how long it's still protected. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Das Schreiben auf Deutsch wäre respektlos gegenüber anderen Benutzern. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dann machst Du bei mir eine Ausnahme. Ich habe meine Vorlagen, nach denen ich Bilder veröffentlichen kann und habe keine Lust, auf englische Texte über ein Foto, was offensichtlich vor über 100 Jahren entstanden ist, zu antworten Rainerhaufe (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- What prevents you from this picture? Игорь Петров СПб (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vielleicht verstehst du das ohne Sprachbarriere ja doch besser, ich habe dir das nämlich schon einmal erklärt: Der Titel des Buches lautet Diesellokomotiven und Triebwagen in Glasers Annalen 1937–1953, - das heißt diese Abbildungen wurden im Original in der Zeitschrift de:Glasers Annalen in diesem Zeitraum veröffentlicht! Und es ist vollkommen egal, wann das Reprint in Buchform erschien! Es zählen nur die Rechte des Originals, keine Repro, keine "neu aufgelegte Edition" etc. Die bereits rechtsgültige EU-Direktive zum Urheberrecht hat es ein für alle mal klargestellt: keine neuen Rechte an Reproduktionen gemeinfreier Werke! Bevor du dich hier also zum Anwalt der entrechteten Fotografen aufspielst, recherchiere endlich zu diesen Themen! Das wurde in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia, hier auf Commons und an vielen Stellen im Netz alles sehr ausführlich besprochen. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Presumably German drawing with an unknown author and an unknown date (but apparently from the period 1937 to 1953). Drawings created prior to 1 July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works). The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if the author had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. Also, the drawing was still protected by copyright in Germany in 1996, so the URAA most likely restored its copyright in the US as well if it had been published by then. Because we don't know when this drawing was first published, we don't know for how long it is still protected in the US, might be the end of 2036 (1940 + 95), or it might be longer. Because all these things are not known, I've deleted the file. It can be restored in 2074 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Carl Bellingrodt died in 1971. Uoijm77 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: The author of this 1940 German photograph is named as de:Carl Bellingrodt. Bellingrodt died in 1971, so this photo is still protected in Germany until the end of 2041. The file can be restored in 2042. --Rosenzweig τ 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This schema was not created 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Wolfgang Messerschmidt, Lokomotivtechnik im Bild, Motorbuch, Stuttgart, 1991, ISBN 9783613013841 Uoijm77 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Its better, you speak in german with me. Expert discussions i can better do in my first language. Ich habe der Datei die Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Die Darstellung dient der Veranschaulichung der hydrodynamischen Bremse in einer dieselhydraulischen Lok. Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte.Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Most users speak English. This diagram hasn't been created over 70 years ago. The template is fake. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Presumably German drawing with an unknown author, said to be from ca. 1960 and yet tagged with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? Someone needs to learn how to calculate here. Also, a drawing like this is not below the threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) in Germany as claimed later. Drawings created prior to 1 July 1995 furthermore cannot be anonymous works in Germany (COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works). The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if the author had died in 1952 or before, but obviously that cannot be the case for a ca. 1960 drawing. As the drawing was still protected by copyright in Germany in 1996, the URAA most likely restored its copyright in the US as well if it had been published by then. Because we don't know when this drawing was first published, we don't know for how long it is still protected in the US, might be the end of 2055 (1960 + 95), or it might be longer. Because all these things are not known, I've deleted the file. It can be restored in 2081 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 17:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]copyvios of different kinds.
RZuo (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, 1st is a selfie but out of scope, In 2nd the subject is the uploader so not an own work and is also an advertisement, 3rd was speedy deleted by Infrogmation. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]Low-quality photos of exceedingly common subjects
- File:Grassland 3.jpg
- File:Group.jpg
- File:Laterite soil.jpg
- File:Leaf in zoom.jpg
- File:Long road.jpg
- File:Outcrop 2.jpg
- File:Plant 35.jpg
- File:Plant 37.jpg
- File:Plant garden.jpg
- File:Sharp edged plant.jpg
- File:Sharp plant.jpg
- File:Soil 2.jpg
- File:White and yellow flower.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]Spam garbage
- File:Agatha Ferreira Model USA.jpg
- File:Cerave Skincare Vietnam Logo.png
- File:FD Factory.jpg
- File:Fiona Backstage.webp
- File:Fiona Franchimon.jpg
- File:Ma'am & Sir's Image with Boman Irani 2.jpg
- File:Photo représente des bijoux en or.jpg
- File:Range SHot.jpg
- File:SJL7300.jpg
- File:Un ensemble des bijoux traditionnelles en or.jpg
- File:Un modèle des bagues en or blanc.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Either File:Photo représente des bijoux en or.jpg or File:Un ensemble des bijoux traditionnelles en or.jpg (they are identical) and File:Un modèle des bagues en or blanc.jpg look usable and probably fine in terms of copyright, though the description needs to be cleaned up in the latter and the categories need to be fixed in both. Why is there a Category:Beauty? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- A legitimate, but ultimately terrible, container category. I was planning on cracking it into like five separate cats Dronebogus (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I find it hard to understand why it's a more reasonable category than Truth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up File:Un modèle des bagues en or blanc.jpg a bit. --El Grafo (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and mostly screengrabs anyway. Kept two as in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]Useless spam and personal junk
Dronebogus (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]Out of scope and spam
- File:188beautycom.jpg
- File:Celeste Octavia For PUMP Magazine Photo By Barry Druxman.jpg
- File:Le-thi-minh-thu-founder-188-beauty.jpg
- File:Riddhima Pandey.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all. The 1st and 3rd are spam. The 2nd needs permission from the photographer Barry Druxman. The 4th is a personal file of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and User:Marbletan. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beauty
[edit]Spam, OOS (keystrokes)
- File:Key Ingredients of Best Sunscreen.jpg
- File:Major Ingredients in Whipped Sunscreen for Healty skin.jpg
- File:Sofia castañeda.png
Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 16:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article Syced (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It's in use, as you know because you questioned the notability of the article the exact same minute you started this deletion request. I don't understand why people don't wait until the relevant articles are deleted to make these kinds of nominations, but your reason was not true at the time when you gave it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP. Likely copyvio, no meaningful exif. --Gbawden (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. According to the source link of the photo 1, no evidence that Zhang Zifeng Studio has released the image under CC 4.0 Bookish Worm (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo by non-contributor. --Karim talk to me :)..! 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 14:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Rainerhaufe1
[edit]
These files may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. These files are a copyright violation because it are copyrighted and not published under a free license. The files are subjects to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. These files is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when there were published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photos scanned from book published many years later. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that there were published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photographs were published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. There are not factory pictures. There are many indications that these photographs were taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. These photos are from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that these photos are from many years later. There are no signs that these are a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. --Uoijm77 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Rainerhaufe
[edit]
These files may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. These files are a copyright violation because it are copyrighted and not published under a free license. The files are subjects to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. These files is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when there were published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photos scanned from book published many years later. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that there were published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photographs were published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. There are not factory pictures. There are many indications that these photographs were taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. These photos are from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that these photos are from many years later. There are no signs that these are a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. --Uoijm77 (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no the the same or compatible license as the original. 2001:B400:E4DE:AB19:C666:7C0D:9FD2:BD82 07:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It is highly unlikely the uploader has rights to every one of the images in this montage, and thus can claim rights to the entirety of it. The uploader has already uploaded a great many copyright violations. This is no different. Copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Copyright violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. © Eisenbahn Kurier. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained.© Eisenbahn Kurier. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz: Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten. EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. © Eisenbahn Kurier. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained.© Eisenbahn Kurier. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz: Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten. EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz, Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz-H. Schöning, Dirk W. Kupfer, "Die Flensburger Kreisbahnen", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn, 2004, ISBN 3-933613-70-1. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Foto ist 1929 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist, weil es fast 100 Jahre alt ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The age of the photo in this case does not matter. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken Uoijm77 (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Wer tut hier die Realität beschwören? Warum soll man aber mit Kanonen nach Spatzen schießen und eine Scan von einem Buch aus der Neuzeit schützen wollen? Der Urheber hat mit der heutigen Möglichkeit des Scans vom Negativ viel bessere Möglichkeiten. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1988. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. The photo was taken at the train station, so it is not a factory photo. This picture was probably taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. This is a photo from an private collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz Kurz, "Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bild ist 1930 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Picture shows engine in as new condition with original kkStB number plate (which was gone at the latest at the end of 1918), so 1905 (year of production) is very much more likely than the 1930ies. This locomotive didn't even remain in Austria after WW I. And please - spare us your sermon with every deletion request you make. We already got your message! It just doesn't change the mind of most people here. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. It is not known when it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sinnlos, er kapiert's nicht und fordert überall einen wasserdichten Beweis dafür, dass das Foto vor mehr als 70 Jahren erstmals veröffentlicht wurde. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It is the uploader's responsibility to prove that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. No one has presented conclusive proof that the photo was published earlier than this book. The image is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sinnlos, er kapiert's nicht und fordert überall einen wasserdichten Beweis dafür, dass das Foto vor mehr als 70 Jahren erstmals veröffentlicht wurde. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Herbert Ortner offers good evidence that this is a pre-WW1 photograph and that this was initially published before it was republished in a book in 1988. A photographic print would have been published near creation. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Only it has been proven that the photo was taken before 1918. No conclusive evidence that the photo was published in another book. There is no evidence that the photo has been republished. Claiming copyright is not just making unsubstantiated claims. Indisputable evidence would be to include the title of the book or magazine in which the photo was placed. The uploader must provide adequate evidence that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under an appropriate license. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Solche Fotos wurden auch von in dem Buch Eisenbahn in Sudetenland von Andreas Knipping mit veröffentlicht, es sieht nach einem Autor Hermann Maey aus, und der war gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wie bereits an anderer Stelle erwähnt: Hermann Maey ist nicht gemeinfrei aber diese Aufnahme ist von 1905. Da war jener gerade einmal 3 Jahre alt: Wikidata:Q112452507 Der "übliche Verdächtige" aus Österreich, Otto Zell, war auch noch nicht geboren. Pragmatisch betrachtet, spricht also nichts gegen ein behalten dieser Aufnahme -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no clear evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright should be established on indisputable evidence. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wie bereits an anderer Stelle erwähnt: Hermann Maey ist nicht gemeinfrei aber diese Aufnahme ist von 1905. Da war jener gerade einmal 3 Jahre alt: Wikidata:Q112452507 Der "übliche Verdächtige" aus Österreich, Otto Zell, war auch noch nicht geboren. Pragmatisch betrachtet, spricht also nichts gegen ein behalten dieser Aufnahme -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of early enough publication. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
incorrect category name Dolphyb (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (001).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (002).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (003).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (004).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (005).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (006).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (007).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (008).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (009).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (010).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (011).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (012).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (013).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (014).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (015).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (016).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (017).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (018).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (019).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (020).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (021).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (022).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (023).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (024).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (025).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (026).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (027).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (028).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (029).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (030).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (031).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (032).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (033).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (034).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (035).jpg
- File:Liberation of Khorramshahr (Operation Beit al-Moqaddas) (036).jpg
_(001).jpg){kind=link}
_(002).jpg){kind=link}
_(003).jpg){kind=link}
_(004).jpg){kind=link}
_(005).jpg){kind=link}
_(006).jpg){kind=link}
_(007).jpg){kind=link}
_(008).jpg){kind=link}
_(009).jpg){kind=link}
_(010).jpg){kind=link}
_(011).jpg){kind=link}
_(012).jpg){kind=link}
_(013).jpg){kind=link}
_(014).jpg){kind=link}
_(015).jpg){kind=link}
_(016).jpg){kind=link}
_(017).jpg){kind=link}
_(018).jpg){kind=link}
_(019).jpg){kind=link}
_(020).jpg){kind=link}
_(021).jpg){kind=link}
_(022).jpg){kind=link}
_(023).jpg){kind=link}
_(024).jpg){kind=link}
_(025).jpg){kind=link}
_(026).jpg){kind=link}
_(027).jpg){kind=link}
_(028).jpg){kind=link}
_(029).jpg){kind=link}
_(030).jpg){kind=link}
_(031).jpg){kind=link}
_(032).jpg){kind=link}
_(033).jpg){kind=link}
_(034).jpg){kind=link}
_(035).jpg){kind=link}
_(036).jpg){kind=link}
com:PCP: no indication that any of these photos were published before. Hanooz 14:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Com:PCP asks you to present some evidence that the license is not correct, we assume that since they are available from an online archive, that constitutes "made public". --RAN (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) photographic "works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation". What is your evidence that these photos were published or exhibited 30 years ago (or more)? Hanooz 11:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was the question I asked you, to present some evidence. --RAN (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This event was exhaustively covered by the media in real time. These photos are not part of some private collection, but were taken by official IRNA photographers. The most reasonable view is that these photos were published immediately after they were taken, in 1982. There is no evidence that they are being published for the first time, like there is no text to that effect in the source description. Streamline8988 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Taken from the web from any of these. Very unlikely to be the work of the uploader. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (Photograph/Konrad) M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- authore: österreichisches Bundesheer Korpl84 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (HBF/ Daniel TRIPPOLT) M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- authore: österreichisches Bundesheer Korpl84 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (HBF/ Daniel TRIPPOLT) M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- authore: österreichisches Bundesheer Korpl84 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Most probably fake licence. File has (c) in metadata. Was a part of a promo activity, not in use anymore. Bilderling (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom, hard to see what if anything it depicts, OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Do we have any replacements?--Trade (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are about 40 images in the category, shouldn't have a big problem to delete this. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Invisible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Incorrectly licensed as this is not the work of the FBI. Credited to the Alaska Republican Party https://alaskapublic.org/2019/09/25/ben-stevens-once-left-the-alaska-senate-in-disgrace-now-hes-gov-dunleavys-top-deputy/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep It's used in an official FBI publication/record on the 2008 Alaska corruption case which does not credit it to the Alaska Republican Party. I find it hard to believe the FBI would commit copyright fraud or use images that aren't theirs without attribution or credit. ~ AlaskaGal (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly not the sort of photo that would be taken by the FBI. I would presume the FBI would use the image as fair use, so the idea that the FBI would not commit copyright fraud is not mutually exclusive with this image still being copyrighted by someone else. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and IronGargoyle. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Greetings! As uploader, I have no idea whether Vanuatu currency is covered by copyright (even after reading the laws!). But of course we will comply with all laws. I have no objection to deleting this image, and thank you for raising the issue. Daderot (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand, artistic images are copyrighted by default. If we can't find any act or another reasonable argument in favor of copyleft we have not to upload these to Commons.--Alexander Roumega (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Greetings! As uploader, I have no idea whether Vanuatu currency is covered by copyright (even after reading the laws!). But of course we will comply with all laws. I have no objection to deleting this image, and thank you for raising the issue. Daderot (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Greetings! As uploader, I have no idea whether Vanuatu currency is covered by copyright (even after reading the laws!). But of course we will comply with all laws. I have no objection to deleting this image, and thank you for raising the issue. Daderot (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I understand, artistic images are copyrighted by default. If we can't find any act or another reasonable argument in favor of copyleft we have not to upload these to Commons.--Alexander Roumega (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Greetings! As uploader, I have no idea whether Vanuatu currency is covered by copyright (even after reading the laws!). But of course we will comply with all laws. I have no objection to deleting this image, and thank you for raising the issue. Daderot (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Vanuatu Alexander Roumega (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
A 1950 German postcard is still protected in the USA until the end of 2045 because of the URAA. The file should therefore be deleted; it can be restored in 2046. I'm also not so sure the photo (or montage really) is "anonymous" as claimed, image searches will show you that it is credited to "Röhnert", which is the name of a photographer but also his agency. Rosenzweig τ 11:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image EXIF says "(c) PHOTOFENDI", no evidence of permission is given. Belbury (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I suspect copyvio. I don't know the origin of this photo, but here it was posted in April 2014. So it's clearly not created in 2023, it's unlikely to be an own work, and I'm not sure about the license either. At English Wikiversity this photo is licensed via fair use. Facenapalm (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by ANTON MYTNYK) M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Downloaded somewhere from the Web like from here, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
poor quality, useless image 84.97.149.43 18:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: it doesn't save disk space to delete images. PierreSelim (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
This image is blurry and unused and I believe that there is alternatives to replace it A1Cafel (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
although the photograph itself is correctly licensed, the trophy is a copyrighted work of the International Academy of Television Arts & Science, and this is a derivative work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
the trophy artwork is copyrighted Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Copy of a deleted Wikipedia article (w:es:Enrique Conde Blanco). Outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lil elitechong (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of the user's contributions appear to come from the web, either Skyscraper City or the MRT website. With one exception, these are all at web resolution with no metadata, no way to verify that the uploader is the photographer.
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-November-Jalan-Chan-Sow-LinChan-Sow-Lin-1-Large-700x450.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-July-Jalan-Tun-Razak-Hospital-Kuala-Lumpur-2-Large.jpg
- File:Abdullah Hukum LRT Station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Cyberjaya Utara station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Cyberjaya City Centre station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp 16 Sierra station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Putra Permai station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Hospital Kuala Lumpur station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Taman Equine station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp Serdang Jaya station.jpg
- File:MRT Corp SSP Serdang Raya Selatan.jpg
- File:MRT Corp SSP Serdang Raya Utara.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp Putrajaya Line Bandar Malaysia Utara.png
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Jalan-Raja-Muda-Abdul-Aziz-Raja-Uda-2-Large-700x450.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Jalan-Conlay-Conlay-1-Large-700x450.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Jalan-Binjai-Persiaran-KLCC-1-Large-700x450.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Taman-Naga-Emas-1-Large.jpg
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Jalan-Tun-Razak-Ampang-Park-2-Large-700x450.jpg
- File:Ampang Park Stations (updated).png
- File:Ampang Park Stations.png
- File:MRT-Corp-SSP-Line-December-Jalan-Tun-Razak-Ampang-Park-1-Large-700x450.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree I can confirm some image is from the MRT Corp website (Link to all image here). Wiki Farazi (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
less than 600 o, useless. F (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, but it's in use, so we can't delete it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Imagen utilizada en Wikipedia en español para vandalizar Geom (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete No possible educational use, falls in COM:SPAM. Has in fact been spammed. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
It's likely a copyright violation.
This photograph was first seen in the "author information" section from a 1974 paper.[1] The uploader claims that it belongs to the Public Domain due to pre-1978 publication without a copyright notice for the photograph. I disagree with this claim - the publication in question was a paper journal, the existence of a copyright notice is determined by its copyright page. If we inspect the copyright page of IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (Volume: 21, Issue: 1, February 1974), a clear copyright notice exists at the beginning of the journal:
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE is published bimonthly by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [...] Copyright 1974 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Second-class postage paid at New York, N.Y., and at additional mailing offices.[2]
Thus, I believe it can be implied that everything contained in this issue of the journal is copyrighted by IEEE unless proven otherwise. Since it was published before 1978 but with a copyright notice, it's copyrighted for 95 years after its first publication. Thus, it's currently still copyrighted.
Furthermore, the research paper was supported by the U.S. Government, the paper said:
Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission during summer employment at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Hence, there's a possible argument that it's US government work in public domain. Unfortunately, I believe that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is an autonomous institution managed by The Regents of the University of California. It accepts research grants from the US government, but technically it's only a contractor, not a government institution per se.[1]
Furthermore, the authorship information attached to the file is incorrect, it currently says "University of Florida", but in this paper, the author's communication address was shown to be
Permanent address: Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.[1]
Either University of California or Kansas State University would make sense, but not University of Florida. In conclusion, I believe unless there's evidence to the contrary, this photograph is still copyrighted, non-free material in violation of Wikimedia Commons's copyright policy, and thus should be deleted. Bieraaa (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Had a think about this one; it's CC-BY 3.0 on YouTube, but the uploader seems to be a promoter of some sort, rather than the artist. I'm given pause by some of the description text from the YouTube video: "We are providing you a great way to listen to the latest and classical singles, mixtapes & albums." "If you believe this video breaches your copyright, please direct your DMCA related emails to [email removed]". "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use. No copyright infringement." None of this is suggesting that Slammer Media is actually the copyright holder on this video and as such I don't think they have the capacity to release under a free license. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright vio BlinxTheKitty (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted artwork. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This sculpture is likely to be copyrighted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:PACUSA and COM:FOP. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:PACUSA and COM:FOP. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:PACUSA and COM:FOP. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:NUDE photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
stated as an official portrait, which means it's likely copyrighted AngusWOOF (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Bernhard Schmeiser, "Krauss-Lokomotiven", Verlag Slezak, Wien, 1977, ISBN 9783900134365. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Lok wurde bis 1927 auf der Walhalla-Bahn eingesetzt, die Aufnahme ist also gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Dann schau Dir doch die Internetseite der Walhalla-Bahn an, dort steht geschrieben, daß die Lok 1927 verkauft wurde. Sie ist also, wenn die Aufnahme auf der Walhalla-Bahn aufgenommen wurde, bis maximal die Zeit fotografiert worden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme wurde vor 1927 von einem unbekannten Fotografen aufgenommen. Das ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung.Rainerhaufe (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date 1977. --Wdwd (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Siegfried Bufe und Heribert Schröpfer, Eisenbahnen im Sudetenland, Bufe-Fachbuch-Verlag, Egglham, 1991, ISBN 9783922138426. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist ein Werkfoto von CKD und wurde vor dem 2. Weltkrieg angefertigt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only proven case of the publication of this picture is the aforementioned book. This photography is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unsinn. Die Fahrzeuge wurden 1933 bis 1940 hergestellt und aus der Zeit stammt die Aufnahme von einem unbekannten Fotograf. Das ist die Realität.Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- No strong arguments for keeping. There is no evidence that the photo was published earlier than the mentioned book. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Werkfotos wurden nur erstellt, wenn sie auch irgendwo veröffentlicht wurden z. B. im Firmenarchiv, und das vor 1945. Rainerhaufe (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No strong arguments for keeping. There is no evidence that the photo was published earlier than the mentioned book. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unsinn. Die Fahrzeuge wurden 1933 bis 1940 hergestellt und aus der Zeit stammt die Aufnahme von einem unbekannten Fotograf. Das ist die Realität.Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only proven case of the publication of this picture is the aforementioned book. This photography is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date around 1990. (Remark: If author's death is unknown and the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago it may be a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired - this is not the case.). --Wdwd (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1995. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. This is not factory photography. there are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Wolfgang Messerschmidt, "Lokomotivtechnik im Bild", Motorbuch, Stuttgart, 1991, ISBN 9783613013841. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Lenz-Ventilsteuerung war eine Entwicklung der 1930er Jahr, das Bild ist auf jeden Fall ca. 100 Jahre alt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Aber man hat sie nicht zum Spaß nach dem 2. Weltkrieg erstellt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- The digression contained in the discussion is embarrassing. A serious discussion should be based on evidence and arguments, not on unnecessary digressions. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use objective arguments. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das Bild ist eine Werbefotografie aus den 1930er Jahren. Damals hat man keine Bilder zum Vergnügen fotografiert. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Embarrassing argument. Copyright laws should be respected by everyone. There is no clear evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- The digression contained in the discussion is embarrassing. A serious discussion should be based on evidence and arguments, not on unnecessary digressions. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use objective arguments. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Aber man hat sie nicht zum Spaß nach dem 2. Weltkrieg erstellt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date around 1990. (Remark: If author's death is unknown and the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago it may be a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired - this is not the case.). --Wdwd (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. This is not factory photography. there are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Bernhard Schmeiser, "Krauss-Lokomotiven", Verlag Slezak, Wien, 1977, ISBN 9783900134365. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datei ist 1935 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete In another more recent book it is credited to Austrian photographer Otto Zell (1909–1964). -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep nach Bildunterschrift stammt die Aufnahme auf dem Gelände Wiener Ostbahnhof um 1935. Der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat nur ein Foto verwendet, was heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- In diesem speziellen Fall hat er leider insofern Recht, dass der Fotograf identifizert und das Bild noch geschützt ist. Sieh bitte meinen Kommentar oberhalb. Der Rechteinhaber für die Fotos von Otto Zell ist derzeit der österreichische Fotograf und Autor Helmut Griebl, der sein Archiv kommerziell intensiv verwertet. Somit ist auch keine Freigabe zu erwarten. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The age of the photo in this case does not matter. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. One of the participants in the discussion pointed out that the author of the photograph died in 1964. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrmals Keep oder Delete verwenden, aber der Fotograf ist lt. Bildunterschrift nicht bekannt, es steht bloß Sammlung Zell/Griebl. Aufnahmen solcher Art wurden früher von Hermann Maey fotografiert, und der ist gemeinfrei. Stattdessen von der Veröffentlichung 1977 auszugehen ist auch Milchmädchenrechnung. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Da muss ich dich leider enttäuschen: Der Fotograf ist in diesem Fall eindeutig Otto Zell! (1909–1964) Was Hermanm Maey betrifft, der starb erst 1988 ist somit auch keinesfalls gemeinfrei. Biografische Daten zu den meisten Fotografen des DLF und einiger anderer sind inzwischen recherchiert und auf Wikidata zu finden. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- ich habe bloß die Bildunterschrift auf Seite 47 gesehen Foto um 1935, und da war es für mich eine fast 90 Jahre alte Aufnahme. Die Lebenddaten der Fotografen sind mir nicht bekannt.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Uploading this photo is copyright infringement. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- The uploader disregards copyright in many cases. Many of these photos are not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- ich habe bloß die Bildunterschrift auf Seite 47 gesehen Foto um 1935, und da war es für mich eine fast 90 Jahre alte Aufnahme. Die Lebenddaten der Fotografen sind mir nicht bekannt.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Conjuring reality. The author of the photo has been revealed. The photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Da muss ich dich leider enttäuschen: Der Fotograf ist in diesem Fall eindeutig Otto Zell! (1909–1964) Was Hermanm Maey betrifft, der starb erst 1988 ist somit auch keinesfalls gemeinfrei. Biografische Daten zu den meisten Fotografen des DLF und einiger anderer sind inzwischen recherchiert und auf Wikidata zu finden. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrmals
Deleted: Photographer Otto Zell died 1964, missing permission. Could be restored in 2035. (Thanks to Herbert Ortner for the additional infos). --Wdwd (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. This is not factory photography. there are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Bernhard Schmeiser, "Krauss-Lokomotiven", Verlag Slezak, Wien, 1977, ISBN 9783900134365. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datei ist 1935 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist, weil es fast 100 Jahre alt ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The age of the photo in this case does not matter. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollen nicht mehrmals Keep bzw. Delete verwenden. Die Bildunterschrift ist "um 1935 aufgenommen". Der Fotograf wurde nicht genannt, es wurde bloß die Fotosammlung Zell/Griebl angeführt. So viel wie ich weiß gemeinfrei. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright laws should be respected by everyone. There is no clear evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- die Bildunterschrift um 1935 aufgenommen zeigt aber ein gemeinfreies Foto an.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright laws should be respected by everyone. There is no clear evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollen nicht mehrmals
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. The given information is a publication date is 1977. (Remark: If author's death is unknown and the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago it may be a reasonable assumption that the copyright has expired - this is not the case.). --Wdwd (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Files by Barython
[edit]
License laundering. 5 files with 3 different authors, all licensed by the uploader. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- All these files were uploaded on 23 July 2007. In 2007, the taraexpeditions.org website does not mention an explicit license: https://web.archive.org/web/20070911001634/http://www.taraexpeditions.org/. Nowadays the website prohibits non-commercial usage:
All elements on the site and the site itself are protected by copyright, trademark law, designs and/or any other law in force.
These elements belong to the Tara Ocean Foundation or are used with the agreement of third parties who have authorized the Tara Ocean Foundation to use them. They can only be used for private, personal and non-commercial purposes.
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
previously published at https://www.nossobairrojacarepagua.com.br/post/taquara-se-prepara-para-novo-shopping Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW - cropped out of this poster. Эlcobbola talk 22:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2013. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - "Eisenbahn-Kurier 07/2013", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2013, ISSN 0170-5288. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Foto ist über 100 Jahre alt. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Delete. The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. --Uoijm77 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist, weil es über 100 Jahre alt ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is obviously an old picture published long ago, as halftone is visible. --Yann (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in unknown year. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. It's hard to tell if this is a promotional photo. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Hans-Dieter Häuber, Dierk Lawrenz, "Schwartzkopff-Lokomotiven 1867−1945", Steiger-Verlag, Moers, ISBN 3-921564-75-1. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Aufnahme stammt aus dem Jahr 1925, ist also fast 100 Jahre alt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Question So if a photo had been taken in 1870 but there was no proof it had been published by 1950, that would have to be deleted, too? Seems absurd, but is there a cutoff point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- We recognize that photographs older than 120 years are in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, whatever. It's completely absurd, but the law is the law. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep woher willst Du wissen, daß das Foto jetzt erst veröffentlicht wurde? Das wurde schon viel, viel früher veröffentlicht und der heutige Veröffentlicher hat es also als gemeinfrei veröffentlicht. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Really? What else? An amateur snapshot by uncle Joe? Just a hint from an experienced user: Before you copypaste your standard sermon into a deletion request do at least a check if it even fits the case! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- You folks don't get multiple votes. The nominator does not get an additional vote after the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is obviously an old picture published long ago, as halftone is visible. --Yann (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. I looked through the book from which the photo was scanned. There is no information about when the photo of the document was taken. German vehichle numbers clearly indicate that this is not a factory photo. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - "Preussen Report: Eisenbahn Journal: Preußen Report Band No. 10: Elektrolokomotiven und Elektrotriebwagen", VGB Verlagsgruppe Bahn, Fürstenfeldbruck, 1996, ISBN 9783896100054 Uoijm77 (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Lokomotive ist 1932 ausgemustert worden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist, weil es über 100 Jahre alt ist.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete False information. The photo was not taken more than 100 years ago. The vehicle has number by locomotive classification system of German state railways. The image is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Rainerhaufe and Uoijm77: Both of you using repeatedly templates such as {{Vk}} or {{Vd}} in the same discussion... is not useful (but the very contrary), and it does not make your point more valid. Please stick to use them just once. Strakhov (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Es ist eine von dem Benutzer Uoijm77 offensichtliches Spiel mit dem Schießen von Kanonen auf Spatzen. Ein von der Qualität her nicht sonderlich gutes Foto, von den aber leider kein besseres im Netz wie Eisenbahnstiftung zu finden ist, und man hat mit der Aufnahme aber zumindest ein gutes Vorstellvermögen über eine uralte Lok. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is not in the public domain. There is no clear evidence that it was published earlier than the book. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Und wer hat es dann veröffentlicht? Irgendein reicher Geldgeber, der geschützt werden muß? Die Märchenstunde ist erst nach 21 UhrRainerhaufe (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is not in the public domain. There is no clear evidence that it was published earlier than the book. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Es ist eine von dem Benutzer Uoijm77 offensichtliches Spiel mit dem Schießen von Kanonen auf Spatzen. Ein von der Qualität her nicht sonderlich gutes Foto, von den aber leider kein besseres im Netz wie Eisenbahnstiftung zu finden ist, und man hat mit der Aufnahme aber zumindest ein gutes Vorstellvermögen über eine uralte Lok. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Info: Doesn't help a lot: it was published previously in "Taschenbuch Deutsche Elektrolokomotiven" by Horst Obermayer, even showing the AEG logo at bottom left. --Achim55 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is probably OK, but we need the date of publication. Yann (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} does not apply as we have just a proof of publication from 1997 but not from more than 70 years ago. We cannot assume “no author disclosure” without having evaluated the original publication. Neither applies {{PD-old-100}} as the author and their life span remain unidentified. This cannot be kept without further research. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1995. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Deutsches Lok-Archiv. Dampflokomotiven", Transpress, Berlin, 1995, ISBN 3-344-70903-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bild ist 1950 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bildautor: Klaus Kieper. +2018. Köhl1 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Republishing an historic image doesn't transfer the copyright, or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a republishing an historic photo. The only case of publishing an picture is a mentioned book. This photo probably comes from private collections. Therefore, it was probably published for the first time in this book. There is no evidence that the picture was published even earlier. One of the participants in the discussion pointed out that the author of the photograph died in 2018. Uoijm77 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Because this unquestionably was not public domain in Germany in 1996. URAA applies. 1995 was probably not the first publication of this photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the photo was published earlier than the book. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Uoijm77 (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- If this were a negative, I might agree with that. If this was a photographic print, then it would have been published around creation, and copies could have been disseminated to railfans who wanted a photograph of this locomotive. Maybe the uploader could tell us if this book cited said "private collection" or not. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Incorrect allegation. Denying reality is pointless. One of the participants in the discussion pointed out that the author of the photograph recently died. Copyright law is not about making assumptions. There is no unequivocal evidence that the photograph was published earlier than the aforementioned book. No further discussion of copyright is necessary. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- If this were a negative, I might agree with that. If this was a photographic print, then it would have been published around creation, and copies could have been disseminated to railfans who wanted a photograph of this locomotive. Maybe the uploader could tell us if this book cited said "private collection" or not. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 1995. --Wdwd (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Deutsches Lok-Archiv. Dampflokomotiven", Transpress, Berlin, 1995, ISBN 3-344-70903-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datum korrigiert, Lokomotive ist 1935 ausgemustert worden. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. --Uoijm77 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Vor 1935 hat man Lokomotiven nicht zum Spaß fotograiert. Der Veröffentliche hat hier eine Aufnahme genommen, die heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The digression contained in the discussion is embarrassing. A serious discussion should be based on evidence and arguments, not on unnecessary digressions. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use objective arguments. The claim that in those days private individuals did not take pictures is illogical. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen aber nicht mehrfach Keep oder Delete verwenden. Ich finde es eher peinlich über ein qualitativ nicht sonderlich gutes Foto einer Lok, die 1935 ausgemustert wurde, eine Diskussion aufzuziehen, als ginge es um sonst etwas. Etwas mehr Augenmaß bitte. Fotos solcher Art stammen von Werner Hubert, der ist gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- völliger Blödsinn, dann hätte die Aufnahme irgendein Eisenbahnfan vor 1935 fotografiert, und das Argument, daß es aus einem Buch von 1995 stammt ist kein Argument. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen aber nicht mehrfach
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 1995. --Wdwd (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Deutsches Lok-Archiv. Dampflokomotiven", Transpress, Berlin, 1995, ISBN 3-344-70903-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datum korrigiert, Lokomotive ist 1931 ausgemustert worden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Lok ist 1931 ausgemustert worden. Offensichtlich ist man zu faul im Archiv nachzuschauen und führt Diskussionen über unmögliche Tatsachen, nur um sich wichtig zu tun. Hat man eine Lok mit einer Handglocke am Führerhaus schon einmal in der Zeit nach 1950 gesehen? Aufnahmen dieser Art wurden von Werner Hubert fotografiert, der ist gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Erklärungen sind nicht stichhaltig. Das zufällige Auffinden in einem Buch aus den 1990er Jahren über eine Lok, die 1931 ausgemustert wurde, ist kein Argument.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 1995. --Wdwd (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Bernhard Schmeiser, "Krauss-Lokomotiven", Verlag Slezak, Wien, 1977, ISBN 9783900134365. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datei ist 1935 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Die Aufnahme wird schon viel früher veröffentlicht worden sein, und der Veröffentlicher von 1977 hat ein Foto verwendet, daß heute gemeinfrei ist, weil es fast 100 Jahre alt ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The age of the photo in this case does not matter. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollten nicht mehrmals Keep oder Delete hintereinander verwenden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekann, es wird die Fotosammlung Zell/Griebl genannt. So viel ich weiß, gemeinfrei. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright laws should be respected by everyone. There is no clear evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollten nicht mehrmals
- Keep Generally we assume images found in the wild have been made public when they were created, except for those with a clear provenance of remaining as a negative in an archive unseen by the public. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. I don't think I agree with Ran's statement in the meantime either. "In the wild" is a pretty term that could apply to most images that are uploaded to commons. There's plenty of niche local history journals and similar publications that feature images from local families that have never been published until then. You can't just assume such images have been published just because we don't have access to the original negatives or know if they rea stored in an archive somewhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Slezak books had their own distinctive style of contributions. "Sammlung Zell/Griebl" means "picture by Zell from collection Griebl". Evidentially a photograph by Austrian photographer Otto Zell (1909–1964). A free license is not to be expected from Mr. Griebl. Delete and undelete in 2035. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Likely author Otto Zell died 1964, so picture is still under copyright. Thanks to Hebert Ortner for the additional infos. --Wdwd (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2001. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Gerd Wolff "Deutsche Klein- und Privatbahnen Band 11 Niedersachsen Teil 3", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2009, ISBN 978-3-88255-670-4. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datei ist vor dem 2 Weltkrieg entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist falsch. Das Foto wird um 1937/38 zum Umbau des Tw entstanden sein. Dabei ist es garantiert von irgendjemanden veröffentlicht worden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollten nicht mehrmals hintereinander Keep bzw. Delete verwenden. Wenn man aber zu faul ist, sich mit der Historie des Bildes auseinanderzusetzen, gibt man das Datum der Veröffentlichung des Buches zur Erreichung seiner Ziele an, ein bischen mehr Augenmaß bitte! Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ, das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto von 1937, wo es privat verboten war, zu fotografieren, mit einem unbekannten Fotografen ist keine UrheberrechtsverletzungRainerhaufe (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollten nicht mehrmals hintereinander
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 2009. --Wdwd (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2001. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Ludger Kenning, "Damals bei der Schleswiger Kreisbahn", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn. 2017, ISBN 978-3-944390-02-4. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Datei ist vor dem 2. Weltkrieg entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist falsch. Die Aufnahme spielt eine Rolle. Das Foto ist schon viel eher veröffentlicht worden, der jetzige Veröffentlicher hat ein Foto verwendet, was heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 2010. --Wdwd (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2010. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Ingo Hütter, Thorsten Bretschneider, "Die Osthannoverschen Eisenbahnen", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2010, ISBN 978-388255-730-5. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist vor dem 2. Weltkrieg entstanden, nach dem Krieg haben die Fahrzeuge ein anderes Design gehabt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- The digression contained in the discussion is embarrassing. A serious discussion should be based on evidence and arguments, not on unnecessary digressions. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use objective arguments. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Ich finde es eher peinlich, über eine Aufnahme aus den 1930er Jahren eine Diskussion anzuführen und dabei das Erscheinungsjahr des Buches als Beweisgrund anzugeben. Man sieht ja deutlich den Scan vom Buch. Der Scan vom Negativ sieht ganz anders aus. Es gibt leider keine Aufnahme von dem Fahrzeug in der Eisenbahnstiftung oder sonstigen Seiten. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The digression contained in the discussion is embarrassing. A serious discussion should be based on evidence and arguments, not on unnecessary digressions. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't use objective arguments. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence that the image was published before it was featured in the book and as the nominator says a lot of times rare photographs are kept in private collections and aren't printed anywhere to make them more collectable. Especially ones having to do with trains and I say that as a collector myself. There's plenty of photographs in my collection that have never printed anywhere else, including the internet. Except for the Ebay listing that I bought the images from and I paid a pretty good premium for the privilege. That's just the nature of the thing. Often times extremely rare images are horded by people who want to publish books about the topic of the images to. So the odd's are good that the image wasn't published anywhere else, at least without actual evidence to the contrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 2010. --Wdwd (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Ludger Kenning, "Damals bei der Schleswiger Kreisbahn", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn. 2017, ISBN 978-3-944390-02-4. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Foto ist 1950 entstanden. Außerdem ist auf der Eisenbahnstiftung kein ähnliches Bild der Lokbaureihe vorhanden, sodass man darauf verzichten könnte. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. The picture probably comes from a private collection. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep das Foto wurde schon früher veröffentlicht, und der jetzige Veröffentlicher hat nur die Aufnahme verwendet, die heute gemeinfrei istRainerhaufe (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. Nobody claims that the photo was taken in modern times. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollen nicht mehrmals hintereinander Keep oder Delete verwenden. Die Aufnahme stammt aber aus dem Jahr 1950 und da hat man solche Aufnahmen nur erstellt, wenn man auch einen Zweck dafür hatte. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Das Foto stellt keine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar, weil die Rahmenbedingungen für ein gemeinfreies Bild stimmen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wir sollen nicht mehrmals hintereinander
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 2017. --Wdwd (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in unknown time. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Hans-Dieter Häuber, Dierk Lawrenz, Schwartzkopff-Lokomotiven 1867−1945, Steiger-Verlag, Moers, ISBN 3-921564-75-1. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Dies ist eine Werkfotografie von Schwartzkopff und stammt aus dem Jahr 1932. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das Foto wurde schon viel früher veröffentlicht und der jetzige Veröffentlicher hat sich einer Aufnahme bedient, die jetzt auf jedem Fall gemeinfrei istRainerhaufe (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Völlischer Blödsinn. Man sieht doch die schlechte Qualität des Scans vom Buch. Es ist außerdem kein namentlich vorhandener Urheber angegeben, nach dem man sich richten könnte. Somit bleibt nur die Aufnahme um 1932. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no conclusive evidence that the photo was published earlier than the book. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no conclusive evidence that the photo was published earlier than the book. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Völlischer Blödsinn. Man sieht doch die schlechte Qualität des Scans vom Buch. Es ist außerdem kein namentlich vorhandener Urheber angegeben, nach dem man sich richten könnte. Somit bleibt nur die Aufnahme um 1932. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Publication date for Häuber/Lawrenz is 1987. --Wdwd (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. Licence is invalid. As long as there's no evidence that the photograph was published before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting the law is not about advancing treatment without treatment. is a photo from an external collection. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. It can be assumed that the photo is from many years later. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. He can never immediately receive an assessment that a given photo is given immediately after it has been taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Klaus-Joachim Schrader, Dampflokomotiven bei Werksbahnen, Verlag Wolfgang Zeunert, Gifhorn, 1977, ISBN 392123705X. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep das ist eine Werkfotografie aus dem Jahr 1941. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Das ist falsch. Der Veröffentlicher hat ein Foto verwendet, was heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehr Keep bzw. Delete verwenden. Das Foto stammt von Schrader "Werklokomotiven auf Reichsbahngleisen" ein Fotograf wurde nicht genannt. Es ist also Milchmädchenrechnung, von dem Veröffentlichungsdatum des Buches aleine auszugehen. Ich gehe von Erstveröffentlichung 1941 aus, damals wurden Werkfotografien nur mit Auftrag erstellt und garantiert irgendwo veröffentlicht. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehr
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 1977. --Wdwd (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from unknown source. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Foto ist 1936 entstanden. Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Der Veröffentlicher hat ein Foto verwendet was heute gemeinfrei ist.Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Die Aufnahme stammt aber aus dem Jahr 1936 und da hat man solche Aufnahmen nur erstellt, wenn man auch einen Zweck dafür hatte. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Die Aufnahme stammt aber aus dem Jahr 1936 und da hat man solche Aufnahmen nur erstellt, wenn man auch einen Zweck dafür hatte. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um Scans vom Buch. Der Urheber heutzutage hat andere Möglichkeiten mit dem Scannen vom Negativ das bringt viel bessere Abbildungen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough, unknown publication date/source - COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2006. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Friedrich Risse, Günther Krause, "Die Dampflokomotiven der WLE", DGEG Medien, Hövelhof, 2006, ISBN 3-937189-25-4. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Foto ist zur Probefahrt der Lok um 1940 entstanden.Rainerhaufe (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The date the photo was taken doesn't matter. The date of publication of the photo is more important. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Falsch. Der Veröffentlicher hat ein Foto verwendet, was heute gemeinfrei ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete An incomprehensible argument. Conjuring reality is pointless. The age of the photo in this case does not matter. The only complaint is the lack of evidence that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. It is possible that the picture comes from a private collection. The only documented case of the publication of this photo is the aforementioned book. Picture is not public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrfach Keep bzw. Delete hintereinander verwenden. Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall vor dem 2. Weltkrieg entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was vor 1945 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- wir sollen nicht mehrfach
Deleted: Evidence missing that this photograph was published early enough. Given publication date is 2006. --Wdwd (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haberservisi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots per metadata, no source, no permission.
- File:Recep güler.png
- File:Recep güler türkiye kupası recep güler.jpg
- File:Recep güler eskişehirspor.jpg
- File:Recep güler 77 numara.jpg
- File:Recep güler galatasaray.jpg
- File:Recep güler golünü attı.jpg
- File:Recep güler transfer haberlerini doğruladı.jpg
- File:Recep güler recep güler.jpg
- File:Gençlerbirliği oyuncusu Recep güler.jpg
- File:Recep güler.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- What problem? Haberservisi (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yazar, Kaynak Yükleyenin kendi çalışması, Kullanıcı yorumları Screenshot --Achim55 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be from a fan account on Flickr? It's a professional modeling shot at a very low resolution with no credit given to photographer, likely to be flickrwashed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not a fan account. In the header of the biographer's official website (www.brunosantos.com) there is a link forwarding to his linktr.ee and this Flickr page is informed in his linktr.ee Duduzimm (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The flickr account belongs to the person pictured. We need OTRS from the photographer for each photo on that flickr account. --Gbawden (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The file is not licensed nor created by the uploader 111.82.134.224 08:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete I don't think it's a copyvio, but seems to be excluded educational content (COM:SCOPE). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope nonsense flag. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probably copyrighted, somewhat per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment These are art or crafts, not toys, but they appear to be inside the library. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 18:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. Alternate photo (not in Public Domain or under free license) overwritten over an original photo by Dmitry Borko which is in free license. Bookish Worm (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 08:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Lu Tianjiao died in 2021, which means that their works are still under copyright protection until Jan 1, 2072. Ditto for File:Te14, 3-3, Celebrate the opening of the highways, 1956.jpg and File:Te14, Xikang-Tibet & Qinghai-Tibet Highway, 1956.jpg. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep：根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》规定，邮票属于设计者职务作品，应当于首次发表50年后，进入公有领域。因此，1956年发行的邮票，已于2006年起进入公有领域，不违反相关版权保护条例。-千里走单骑 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- @千里走单骑 请提供具体理据，原法文并未提及邮票是“职务作品”（甚至可以说，著作权法中压根就没有“邮票”一词），另外第十八条现时条款为：自然人为完成法人或者非法人组织工作任务所创作的作品是职务作品，除本条第二款的规定以外，著作权由作者享有，但法人或者非法人组织有权在其业务范围内优先使用。作品完成两年内，未经单位同意，作者不得许可第三人以与单位使用的相同方式使用该作品。(Please explain details, as checked the original legal code, there's no mention of "stamps are works made for hire", or eventually, the word "stamp(s)", also the Article 18th currently rules: A work created by a natural person in the fulfillment of tasks assigned to him by a legal person or unincorporated organization is a work for hire. Unless otherwise provided in the second paragraph of this Article, the copyright in such a work shall be enjoyed by the author; but the legal person or unincorporated organization shall have priority to use the work within the scope of its professional activities. Within two years after the completion of the work, the author shall not, without the consent of the legal person or unincorporated organization, authorize a third party to use the work in the same manner as the legal person or unincorporated organization does.)Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- 另请阁下注意《仿印邮票图案监督管理办法》（中华人民共和国交通运输部令2021年第4号）：
| “ | 第四条 依法设立的企业或者其他组织（以下统称单位）可以仿印邮票图案。 禁止个人仿印邮票图案。 |
” |
- (lit. Also please let your excellency know that, Supervision and Management Measures of Imitation of Stamp Patterns (Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China Order No. 2021-4):
| “ | Article 4 Enterprises or other organisations (called units below) that are established in accordance with law, are allowed to imitate the stamp patterns. Personal imitation of stamp patterns are prohibited. |
” |
Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This file's copyright information is probably false, and it is likely not free use. The uploader has explained that they were uncertain of the copyright status of this photo in a talk page. Furthermore, this is the official portrait of a Michigan state representative. This a work by the Michigan state government, and that state government retains copyright over their works. RoundSquare (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but the depicted statue/monument is obviously recent and thereby still in copyright. Unfortunately, Ukraine has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the sculptor is necessary or the image needs to be deleted, as it violates the sculptor's copyright. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- The sculptor is Ельданіз Гурбанов. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Student Zaporizhya Blazhko.jpg — sculptor: Блажко Роман (born 1982)
- File:Герой з кінофільму "Весна на Заречной улице" Саша Савченко.jpg — sculptor: Nikolai Rybnikov (1930-1990)
- File:Запорізький муніципалітет, вигляд з місця монумента до фільму "Весна на Зарічній вулиці".JPG — sculptor: Nina Georgiyevna Ivanova (19334-2020)
- File:Памятник Феліксу Дзержинському (Chakramka, 2015).jpg — sculptor: Соболь Микола Сергійович (1937-2002)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
this is the second Shibuya station statue of Hachiko, whose author died recently. undelete in 2090, as no FoP in Japan 2804:388:A029:DE04:D057:D492:D901:4555 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This file's copyright information is probably false, and it is likely not free use. The uploader has explained that they were uncertain of the copyright status of another, similar photo in a talk page. I have discussed this with them and helped them understand Wikimedia Commons copyright policy. Furthermore, this is the official portrait of a Michigan state representative. This a work by the Michigan state government, and that state government retains copyright over their works. RoundSquare (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probably copyrighted, somewhat per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Even though the cathedral is—permanently—publicly displayed, this representation doesn’t seem to be as well, and therefore isn’t covered by Brazilian FoP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probably copyrighted, somewhat per com:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Probably non-free buddhist illustrations
[edit]- File:Ascetic Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha.jpg
- File:Prince Rahula and Buddha.jpg
- File:Tapussa and Bhallika.jpg
- File:King Bimbisara and the Buddha.jpg
- File:Prince Siddhattha and Princess Yasodhara's marriage.jpg
- File:Buddha preaching Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa.jpg
- File:Mara demon nat and Buddha.JPG
The uploader @Hintha: had claimed own work but has not responded on their talk page when asked for confirmation. The claim of own work is doubtful. The last one is a wall painting and all the others look like illustrations from a book a few decades year old. They are signed and apparently all the signatures are different, although they are hard to parse. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- pls don't delete it. It is a beautiful pic— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.189.4 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 18. Mar. 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is almosta duplicate of this image I took on the same day (see File:The Grave Stele of Panaitios (4th cent. B.C.) at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens on 4 June 2018.jpg). I think it should be deleted but it is your call. My apologioes for the inconvenience. George E. Koronaios (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by User1042 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 Kadı Message 20:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence the card is freely licensed. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This image appears to be cropped from this video, but the source is not YouTube CC-BY. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
logo for a residential college at the w:University of Queensland. Unclear which year this was published/first used, so may still be copyrighted. Also exceeds Australian TOO, so ineligible for PD FASTILY 08:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also (c) at source. --Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hjart as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as IMO image is well in scope as a stock-image "boy with cat". If kept, filename could be "de-personalized". -- Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Turelio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Piastu as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: obviously copyrighted. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: below COM:TOO US. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Quasi duplicate of ТриСестры.jpg in a wrong file format, no use thinkable. Ras67 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. As long as there's no evidence that the schema was created before 1953, we're talking about a fake license and illegal copying of photos from the book. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. These railcars were produced for the Luxembourg railways. German vehichle numbers clearly indicate that this is not a factory scheme. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. © Eisenbahn Kurier. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz Ed Federmeyer: Schmalspurbahnen in Luxemburg, 1991, ISBN 978-3-921980-46-0 Uoijm77 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: 1937 schematic from Germany. Undelete in 2058 120 years from creation, 1991 was a republication. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
No FOP Iran. MehdiTalk 11:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which building is copyrighted? HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The middle one under construction? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 2005. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: "Eisenbahnen im Oberbergischen", Martina Galunder-Verlag, Wiehl, 2005, ISBN 3-89909-050-0 Uoijm77 (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This schema is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep man hat mir gesagt, die Schöpfungshöhe macht die Skizze gemeinfrei, weil kein Mensch weiß, wann sie entstanden ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Drawings created before July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. There is no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago. It is not known when this drawing was first published. It's hard to say how long it's still protected. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Since we don't know who the author is when they died. I'm not really sure what the level of creation has to do with when it was made either. I assume your talking about the threshold of originality. If so, you could argue it doesn't meet it since it's a fairly generic train design, but there have been court cases in Germany where people were sued for using fairly generic images of trains. So it's probably better to air on the side of caution by deleting the image, at least in absence of any evidence of who the author is and when the design was published. BTW, I think the uploader probably could have avoided a lot of this if they had of found out all that information before uploading the images. While it sucks for someone to have their uploads deleted, it's also on them to do the necessary research before uploading the images to make sure that doesn't happen. Otherwise, this will eventually be the outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: 1936 schema. Undelete in 2057. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). PD-China? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- From the description, this appears to be from the late 1940s. I'd say Weak delete since it appears to be something restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The model is in the picture, most likely not own work, Possible as, No proven notability https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANA_MARIA_ORTIZ_SANCHEZ Not a clear copyvio case. BrightRaven (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The Spanish article was deleted, putting this out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The model is in the picture, most likely not own work, Possible as, No proven notability https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANA_MARIA_ORTIZ_SANCHEZ Not a clear copyvio case. BrightRaven (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The Spanish article was deleted, putting this out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz, Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bild PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Delete This schema is not in the public domain. Please provide your signature and timestamp! --Uoijm77 (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Man hat mir gesagt, die Schöpfungshöhe macht eine Zeichnung gemeinfrei, weil man nicht weiß, wann sie erstellt wurde. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Drawings created before July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. There is no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago. It is not known when this drawing was first published. It's hard to say how long it's still protected. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepIch habe in den 1990er Jahren mehrfach solche Skizzen bei der Bearbeitung von Lokomotiven der Tschechischen Eisenbahnen mit dieser Schöpfungshöhe verwendet , sie existieren jetzt noch alle. Warum 2023 nicht mehr? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Die Zeichnung wird ja wohl bestimmt aus den 1930er Jahren entstanden, als das Fahrzeug entstand. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no clear indications for keeping the drawing. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Die Zeichnung wird ja wohl bestimmt aus den 1930er Jahren entstanden, als das Fahrzeug entstand. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: there is no proof that this illustration was created/published more than 70 years ago. Unless it says specifically in the source book, it's entirely possible that this was created in 1988. —holly {chat} 18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz, Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt. Rainerhaufe (talk)
- Delete This schema is not in the public domain. Please provide your signature and timestamp! --Uoijm77 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Man hat mir gesagt, die Schöpfungshöhe macht eine Zeichnung gemeinfrei. Rainerhaufe (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Drawings created before July 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. There is no evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago. It is not known when this drawing was first published. It's hard to say how long it's still protected. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Ich habe in den 1990er Jahren mehrfach solche Skizzen bei der Bearbeitung von Lokomotiven der Tschechischen Eisenbahnen mit dieser Schöpfungshöhe verwendet , sie existieren jetzt noch alle. Warum 2023 nicht mehr?Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep die Zeichnung stammt aus den 1930er Jahren, als das Fahrzeug entstand. Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no clear indications for keeping the drawing. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: there is no proof that this illustration was created/published more than 70 years ago. Unless it says specifically in the source book, it's entirely possible that this was created in 1988. —holly {chat} 18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. The drawing would be in the public domain in Germany only if that person had died in 1952 or before, but we don't know that. In this book is clause - All rights reserved. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 1991. In addition, the entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Heinz R. Kurz, Die Triebwagen der Reichsbahn-Bauarten, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1988, ISBN 3-88255-803-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Ich habe in den 1990er Jahren mehrfach solche Skizzen bei der Bearbeitung von Lokomotiven der Tschechischen Eisenbahnen mit dieser Schöpfungshöhe verwendet , sie existieren jetzt noch alle. Warum 2023 nicht mehr? Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep die Zeichnung wird um 1930 entstanden sein, als das Fahrzeug entstand.Rainerhaufe (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no clear indications for keeping the drawing. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: there is no proof that this illustration was created/published more than 70 years ago. Unless it says specifically in the source book, it's entirely possible that this was created in 1988. —holly {chat} 18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://www.cidade-brasil.com.br/municipio-morada-nova.html Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, the listed website is showing an image with smaller resolution then the image on Commons, which is present here from 2017. No reason to think the uploader has not made this photo. --Ellywa (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted revised decision based on other sources showing the photo was published in 2016 and on a later date with increased resolution - after evidence by Adeletron on my talk page. Ellywa (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- ↑ a b c (February 1974). "A Closed-Form Expression for the Energy Dissipation in a Low-Loss Transmission Line". IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 21 (1): 1006-1008. DOI:10.1109/TNS.1974.4327594.
- ↑ (February 1974). "Copyright Page". IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 21 (1): c2. DOI:10.1109/TNS.1974.4327432.