Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/16
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
|
|
Reasons for deletion request -Chiangeles (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Realized that the upload was not in tune w/ original copyright so deleting just to be safe.
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded it as my own work instead of recognising the copyright. ElfmanWriter (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Unwanted upload BI496Editor (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
i did this by accident and would like it removed Poojatripathij (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC){subst:delete2|image=File:CASA NOIR HOTEL.jpg|reason=i did this by accident and would like it removed}} Poojatripathij (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Нет потребности Timur.akbarov (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 12:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Bonnjalal00 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
ট্রানসেলভেনিয়ার অভিশাপ Uday9668 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Own user space. --Achim55 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall CareAll IMG 7671 (29740512577).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall CareAll IMG 8474 (32879735968).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall carousel IMG 7009 (42868380320).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall clearance IMG 8711 (45840051425).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall escalators IMG 7010 (30807866108).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall escalator IMG 7674 (42868390760).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall exterior IMG 8629 (39789908273).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall exterior IMG 8630 (46702498122).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall exterior IMG 8631 (39789912213).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall fountain IMG 8637 (31813672797).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Holiday scene IMG 8714 (39789928633).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall food court IMG 8486 (51137067179).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Christmas tree IMG 8529 (31813660197).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Christmas tree IMG 8536 (45840040985).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Christmas tree IMG 8633 (39789915473).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall escalator IMG 8712 (51137069069).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall second level IMG 7008 (51136504103).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 7990 (43959984884).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 8473 (45840022255).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 8477 (39789890883).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 8478 (31813655097).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 8479 (45840027245).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior IMG 8480 (45840028055).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior and escalators IMG 8483 (46030296804).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall interior and skylight IMG 7007 (44629315172).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Loard's IMG 8710 (46755334651).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Mark's Barber Shop IMG 7988 (44678306371).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Mon Cheri IMG 8632 (45840046485).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall offices IMG 8713 (31813675677).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall photo studio IMG 8488 (32879746668).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Santa throne IMG 8715 (51137400235).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Santa inflatable IMG 8476 (51137066569).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall sunken seating IMG 7991 (51136504918).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Sears IMG 7006 (44629313452).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Sears IMG 8475 (46755310631).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Sears IMG 8532 (31813662477).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall skylight & Christmas tree IMG 8535 (39789904643).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall second level IMG 7011 (30807867278).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall spirals IMG 8481 (51137397985).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall skylights IMG 8482 (46702478712).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall spirals IMG 8484 (46702481812).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall sunken seating IMG 7989 (29740523487).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall sunken seating IMG 8530 (45840033815).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall stage IMG 7672 (51135612712).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall The Steps IMG 8634 (46755331871).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Tokyo Grill IMG 7992 (43769092695).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Hilltop Mall Tokyo Grill IMG 7987 (51137397145).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:IMG E1865 (51136298546).jpg. Both files were uploaded during a mass import from a flickr photoset without realizing these were duplicates. Mliu92 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted as copyvio. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Mauvais fichier Hellyjaeh (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Foto de capa do Album 181.203.137.202 01:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted. --Kadı Message 20:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
1957 Lithuanian photograph. Not public domain yet in country of origin. Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
1937 movie poster. Has a copyright notice that basically says "copyright symbol W.D.P." Undelete in 2033. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen is subject to copyright because the creator Edvard Eriksen (* 1876; † 1959) died less than 70 years ago. Dannebrog Spy (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious case, deleted like all the others in Category:Danish FOP cases/Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). --Rosenzweig τ 13:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen is subject to copyright because the creator Edvard Eriksen (* 1876; † 1959) died less than 70 years ago. Dannebrog Spy (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious case, deleted like all the others in Category:Danish FOP cases/Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). And this is not de minimis. --Rosenzweig τ 12:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free content AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by AntiCompositeNumber. --Rosenzweig τ 12:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Copyvio|there is no permission for use from the singer}} Vulpo (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deletd by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 10:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep A daguerreotype probably from the 1840ies, should be PD. Sure, a better description from the uploader's side might be helpful. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Public domain photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Mys_721tx (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a German film; Germany is life+70. If Albin Grau counts as an author (which is questionable; German Wikipedia credits him for the idea only), it's under copyright until 1971+70 => 2042. If it's just Rudolf Schneider, whose position as screenwriter seems unassailable, it's 1956 + 70 => 2027. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete My uploader's bad. — Racconish 💬 20:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete delete now and undelete 2027. Hekerui (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright. Higher resolution can be found here. Wouter (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and extend to all uploads by Kennyupper (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Mys_721tx (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Larger versions of this image (like here) reveal that this appears to be a photo of a painting. This becomes apparent when the waves are considered where the strokes can be easily seen. Hence, {{PD-Denmark50}} does not appear to apply. In addition, we have no information about its first publication and its author. AFBorchert (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There are no sources that indicate that this is a painting. All sources refer to this as a photo. Including the Danish museum that got the photo from MAN in 1946. Also on https://web.archive.org/web/20150712164053/https://selandia100.dk//gallery-new it is called a photo (a page created by MAN). I do not see why MAN and a museum should think that it is a photo if it is a painting. They hold the original that they scanned.
- It is correct that there is no author (the museum state that photographer is unknown). But that is not relevant for {{PD-Denmark50}}. --MGA73 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not dispute that this is a photo. But a photo of a painting, making the photo a derived work of a painting with an unknown copyright status. This is the problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes if it is a photo of a painting it would be a DW. I have checked again if the museum knows the difference between paintings and photos and they do. For example they call this one a painting.
- Sadly this discovery made me notice the word "Tegning" on the first page and that word means drawing. Either I missed it the first time or the museum added the info the same time they updated the information about when they got it from MAN based on my correspondance with them. But still the museum does not mention an artist as they do on other works. In that case {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} as mentioned below) will apply because author is unknown. Only question is when "made available to the public" was. We know the museum got it in 1946. In 1962 ØK used it on postcards. So both MAN and ØK had copies of the drawing/photo (without copyright notice or creator).
- The museum stated on https://dk.creativecommons.net/2014/07/09/fri-adgang-til-den-maritime-billedrigdom/ that they release them as Creative Commons (sadly for us NC) but that indicate that the museum either think the copyright expired or that they have the copyright. On the painting the museum marked it with red and state that they do not hold the copyright. (We do not think that scanning a PD work gives you any copyright per {{PD-art}} so se do not really care)
- But I also wrote to dieselhouse.dk and asked them if they can help with further info. --MGA73 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not dispute that this is a photo. But a photo of a painting, making the photo a derived work of a painting with an unknown copyright status. This is the problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I have no opinion on whether photo or painting, I added the license "PD-EU-no author disclosure" which would apply if a painting or photo. I would assume a painting is displayed at creation for a client, so made public. Some paintings remain with the creator and only end up displayed, made public, at their death, but that is rare and no evidence is presented. --RAN (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think now that I got it wrong. While I am still convinced that this image is a painting with an unclarified copyright status it is possible that the painting has been done after a photo and not the other way around. If we look at the bow in this low-resolution image, we recognize neither the anchor nor the ship's name on the starboard side as this area is quite dark. In the painting, this area is much lighter and thereby allows to highlight the anchor and in particular the ship's name. Please note that {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} does not apply as such templates cannot be used without proof of publication more than 70 years ago. {{PD-Denmark50}} is not without problems either as that works only for photos that are not considered to display artistic merit or originality. I do not think that this applies here. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Mys_721tx (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Source is Facebook. No reason to believe it’s copyright-free. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
ordinary person Mateus2019 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
copyvio: films or tv screenshot are protected by german UrhG, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__2.html § 2 (1) 6. Alabasterstein (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by User:Krd. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
user's own signature COM:OOS Nutshinou Talk! 07:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
doesn't appear to be own work; see watermark + better quality image can be found here https://www.costaricadriver.net/2017/01/18/974/ Nutshinou Talk! 07:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
uploader's selfie, unused, inactive user, COM:OOS Nutshinou Talk! 07:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work with unclear copyright status Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Grossly overexposed, better image is File:Gladesville Hospital 005. Sardaka (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Are you sure your screen is well calibrated? The other photo is way too dark; this one is blown in the near right corner, but otherwise quite usable. Besides, the two photos are not the same views. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Spam, probably Dronebogus (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Very small size, better alternatives in Category:Bedaquiline. Leyo 09:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. It is essentially useless because relevant details cannot be discerned. Marbletan (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Lukas-Test 2.png (that is not much better). Leyo 09:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Category:Lucas test is the topic. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Kaizenify (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Violation of copyright. Metadata sites original photographer. This is an image of Northwestern University Feinberg school of medicine and not the work of BozmanDima. 165.124.150.183 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Profile picture, Unrecognizable person, No proven notbility https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDHg1O79f10uPa5_c4fITcg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Unrecognisable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage of unsourced images -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage, unsourced elements Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yubieldominguez (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but the content on the depicted board suggests that it's an only temporary display and thereby is not covered by Germany's freedom-of-panorama exception. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
out of com:PS Hanooz 15:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Late 1960s or early 1970s German photograph. Has a named photographer that I cannot find information on. Not public domain in Germany yet. Abzeronow (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
personal photo of very low quality Jan Myšák (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
personal photo of very low quality Jan Myšák (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: un-used: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: un-used: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: un-used: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
F10 OOS personal photo Dronebogus (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploader claims own work while crediting the image to someone else. Mbinebri (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused text document, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused "proposed flag" by uploader, seems OOS Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused "proposed flag" by uploader; seems OOS Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused "proposed flag" by uploader. Seems OOS. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cai Jin Lian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of project scope.
- File:Thai kimlien.jpg
- File:Cai jinlian.jpg
- File:Cai jin lian.jpg
- File:Thaikimlien01.jpg
- File:Thai kim lien.jpg
- File:Thaikimlien.jpg
- File:Thái Kim Liên.jpg
- File:CaiJinLian.jpg
- File:CaiJinLian .jpg
- File:MTXX 20210206162245 mr1612629087814 mh1612629137584.jpg
Taavi (talk!) 09:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MrShakh888 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional photos with no exif and album covers etc. Unlikely to be own work and probably out of scope too
- File:LOGO MELISA.png
- File:Melisa 06.jpg
- File:Melisa 05.jpg
- File:Melisa 04.jpg
- File:Melisa 03.jpg
- File:Melisa 02.jpg
- File:Melisa 01.jpg
- File:Melisa will carry on.jpg
- File:Melisa I'm alone.jpg
- File:Сбор 2021.jpg
- File:Участники автоклуба.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gabriel Slavu (talk · contribs)
[edit]I strongly doubt these images are own work given the lack of EXIF, the size, the professional quality, the subject and the copyvio record of the uploader.
- File:Stephen Carroll.jpg
- File:Arthur P. Paterson.png
- File:Enrique Duran.jpg
- File:Brendan Burke.jpg
- File:Stephen Glass as Atlanta United Head Coach.jpg
- File:Isidro Sanchez and his father, Chélis.jpg
- File:Trevor James 2.jpg
- File:New Stadium in Phoenix, AZ.jpg
- File:Cardinale Stadium.jpg
- File:Patriots Point Soccer Complex.jpg
- File:Juan Guerra as Phoenix Rising Head CoachJuan Guerra as Phoenix Rising Head Coach.jpg
- File:Nate Miller as Lansing Ignite Head Coach.jpg
- File:Richard Chaplow.jpg
- File:Noah Delgado.jpg
- File:Ryan Martin.jpg
- File:Mark Lowry.jpg
- File:Blair Gavin at FC Tulsa.png
- File:Ben Pirmann as Head Coach for Memphis 901 FC.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This user has uploaded a variety of photos from different cameras and photographers. Permission via COM:VRT is required.
- File:X-raid MINI ALL4 Racing Dakar.jpg
- File:X-raid Service Camp Rally Dakar 3.jpg
- File:X-raid Service Camp Rally Dakar 4.jpg
- File:X-raid MINI ALL4 Racing.jpg
- File:X-raid Service Camp Rally Dakar 2.jpg
- File:X-raid Service Camp Rally Dakar.jpg
- File:MINI ALL4 Racing onboard.jpg
- File:Dakar Service Camp.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
This image isn't very useful as a PDF file. The uploader has already extracted the image and uploaded it as a separate file: File:Hcp TiS2.png. The PDF is therefore unneeded and should be deleted. Marbletan (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's no need to keep a file in wrong format when there's a corrected version available. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This image isn't very useful as a PDF file. The uploader has already extracted the image and uploaded it as a separate file: File:CdI2 structure of TiS2.png. The PDF is therefore unneeded and should be deleted. Marbletan (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's no need to keep a file in wrong format when there's a corrected version available. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:3-Furanmethanol-2D-skeletal.svg as high-quality vector replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal file (homework assignment) outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not own work -- historical advertising; proper source and copyright is needed Renata3 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not own work -- from Ukrainian military? Proper source and copyright tag is needed. Renata3 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. The building was built after 1990. No Permission from the sculptor / architect. Delete first version. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023031710009705 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 12:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Чортків, Катедральний храм верховних апостолів Петра і Павла, 2020.jpg” under ticket:2023031710009705. --Andriy.v (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as IMO the image is suitable as a stock-image of a man wearing a facemask and gloves. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Turelio. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Promotional B25es (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. EXIF says all rights reserved and claimed copyright holder is in photograph which is not a selfie. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the metadata that says "all rights reserved 2009". Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Early 1920s Irish mugshot. There is a name of "B. Stuart" on the bottom of the photographs and I cannot find any information on Stuart. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I changed the license to "PD-EU-no author disclosure", I have no opinion whether the name is the sitter, or the photographer. --RAN (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, the name "B Stuart" (recte "B [Bernard] Stewart"] is the alias Ernie O'Malley used when he was taken prisoner by the British in December 1920. He gave them that name to avoid his identity becoming known and likely execution as a known IRA officer. At no stage did the British realise they had "O'Malley", not "Stewart/Stuart" in their hands. That fact can be confirmed by the Ernie O'Malley article itself under "Revolutionary career"... "Irish Republican Army"... "Capture and escape". Hence this image is a prison mugshot taken by an unknown person but highly likely to have been put into public circulation from early 1921, when O'Malley escaped from prison. I hope this is a help and that the image can be kept. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- In other words, the person pictured is Ernie O'Malley, under an alias, and the name of the photographer is unknown. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for the information. I withdraw my nomination Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- In other words, the person pictured is Ernie O'Malley, under an alias, and the name of the photographer is unknown. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement, unused, no notability Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Promotional: "exclusive app" "welcome to the future" B25es (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Promotional: "exclusive app" "welcome to the future" B25es (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused photo of non-notable person, out of scope. And likely not own work: source "friend". P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No CC license on the website A1Cafel (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
No CC license on the website A1Cafel (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Author is Stefan Rousseau/Press Association Images, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Author is Stefan Rousseau/Press Association Images, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Countess of Wessex UK in NL Embassy 2023.jpg
- File:Countess of Wessex UK in NL Embassy 2023 (cropped).jpg
No indication that OGL applies to the Twitter account of UK in the Netherlands A1Cafel (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tweets are also covered by copyright as long as they are original. This photo is original, therefore copyright applies. Since it is from a government account, Open Government License applies. There is no need to delete this image. It is used on nearly every article about the Duchess of Edinburgh. DDMS123 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not all the images on Twitter are with Open Government License. Please provide a link that direct it to the OGL. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DDMS123 is correct and this issue comes up every time a Twitter image is used and is reflects a fundamnental misunderstanding of not only how copyright law works but also photo technology. Almost all Number 10 images are used under the same idea. Point is, images published by the FCDO are almost always OGl unless specified otherwise - not the other way around. Twitter does not provide a way to do this. Cliffmore (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not all the images on Twitter are with Open Government License. Please provide a link that direct it to the OGL. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Officially listed as their twitter account on the sidebar, the UKGov rule has always been all images are crown and OGL unless specifically specified that ITS NOTwith a credit to another source..the Picture has the countess with the Ambassador, thats as official as it can get, lets set a precedent here..since UK Embassies abroad don't carry an offical site apart from that one page listing their official social media sites, those social media sites become their official sites and carry the same privacy and copyright laws as the UKGovt, i find it sad that there are still too many people on commons who really just can't get that through their thick heads..--Stemoc 18:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - As per Stemoc. DDMS123 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Countess of Wessex UK in NL Embassy 2023 (cropped).jpg
- File:Countess of Wessex UK in NL Embassy 2023.jpg
- File:Countess of Wessex UK in NL Embassy 2023 (cropped).jpg
No indication that OGL applies to the Twitter account of UK in the Netherlands A1Cafel (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tweets are also covered by copyright as long as they are original. This photo is original, therefore copyright applies. Since it is from a government account, Open Government License applies. There is no need to delete this image. It is used on nearly every article about the Duchess of Edinburgh. DDMS123 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not all the images on Twitter are with Open Government License. Please provide a link that direct it to the OGL. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DDMS123 is correct and this issue comes up every time a Twitter image is used and is reflects a fundamnental misunderstanding of not only how copyright law works but also photo technology. Almost all Number 10 images are used under the same idea. Point is, images published by the FCDO are almost always OGl unless specified otherwise - not the other way around. Twitter does not provide a way to do this. Cliffmore (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not all the images on Twitter are with Open Government License. Please provide a link that direct it to the OGL. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Officially listed as their twitter account on the sidebar, the UKGov rule has always been all images are crown and OGL unless specifically specified that ITS NOTwith a credit to another source..the Picture has the countess with the Ambassador, thats as official as it can get, lets set a precedent here..since UK Embassies abroad don't carry an offical site apart from that one page listing their official social media sites, those social media sites become their official sites and carry the same privacy and copyright laws as the UKGovt, i find it sad that there are still too many people on commons who really just can't get that through their thick heads..--Stemoc 18:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - As per Stemoc. DDMS123 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be PD. Author unknown, most likely a modern drawing Ориенталист (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No license since 2023-02-26. --Wdwd (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DSGVO, Der Eigentümer 84.118.155.84 09:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Kein de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alle Bilder von Pustenbach 6 wurden außerhalb des Privatgrundes von der öffentlichen Straße aus angefertigt, wo grundsätzlich das Recht auf Panoramafreiheit besteht. Lediglich abgebildete Personen - ist hier nicht der Fall - können ein Recht am Bild einfordern. --DiAuras (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort! Das mag rechtlich in Bezug auf die Bilder allein korrekt sein. Es geht jedoch darum das Fotos meines Hauses in einer solchen Auflistung zusammen mit der Anschrift veröffentlicht werden. Dies fällt wiederum unter die DSGVO. Zusätzlich handelt sich hierbei um eine Bitte! 84.118.155.84 10:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die DSGVO schützt nur personenbezogene Daten. Personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der DSGVO sind (nur) solche, anhand derer sich konkrete Personen zumindest mittelbar identifizieren lassen. Aus der Adresse und den Bildern lässt sich keine Person identifizieren. Und Adressen ohne Namen sind laut LG Berlin Az.: 26 O 177/21 keine personenbezogenen Daten. XxakixX (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- An allen Baudenkmäler besteht ein öffentliches Interesse und sie werden grundsätzlich in einer amtlichen, öffentlich zugänglichen Denkmalliste mit Adressangabe (jedoch ohne Namen des Eigentümers) veröffentlicht (Verordnung zur Führung der Denkmalliste v. 13.3.2015). Dadurch wird den öffentliches Informationsbedürfnis über die Baudenkmäler als auch dem Personenschutz der Eigentümer Rechnung getragen.
- Gruß DiAuras (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DSGVO, Der Eigentümer 84.118.155.84 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Kein de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alle Bilder von Pustenbach 6 wurden außerhalb des Privatgrundes von der öffentlichen Straße aus angefertigt, wo grundsätzlich das Recht auf Panoramafreiheit besteht. Lediglich abgebildete Personen - ist hier nicht der Fall - können ein Recht am Bild einfordern. --DiAuras (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort! Das mag rechtlich in Bezug auf die Bilder allein korrekt sein. Es geht jedoch darum das Fotos meines Hauses in einer solchen Auflistung zusammen mit der Anschrift veröffentlicht werden. Dies fällt wiederum unter die DSGVO. Zusätzlich handelt sich hierbei um eine Bitte! 84.118.155.84 10:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die DSGVO schützt nur personenbezogene Daten. Personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der DSGVO sind (nur) solche, anhand derer sich konkrete Personen zumindest mittelbar identifizieren lassen. Aus der Adresse und den Bildern lässt sich keine Person identifizieren. Und Adressen ohne Namen sind laut LG Berlin Az.: 26 O 177/21 keine personenbezogenen Daten. XxakixX (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DSGVO, Der Eigentümer 84.118.155.84 09:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Kein de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alle Bilder von Pustenbach 6 wurden außerhalb des Privatgrundes von der öffentlichen Straße aus angefertigt, wo grundsätzlich das Recht auf Panoramafreiheit besteht. Lediglich abgebildete Personen - ist hier nicht der Fall - können ein Recht am Bild einfordern. --DiAuras (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort! Das mag rechtlich in Bezug auf die Bilder allein korrekt sein. Es geht jedoch darum das Fotos meines Hauses in einer solchen Auflistung zusammen mit der Anschrift veröffentlicht werden. Dies fällt wiederum unter die DSGVO. Zusätzlich handelt sich hierbei um eine Bitte! 84.118.155.84 10:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die DSGVO schützt nur personenbezogene Daten. Personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der DSGVO sind (nur) solche, anhand derer sich konkrete Personen zumindest mittelbar identifizieren lassen. Aus der Adresse und den Bildern lässt sich keine Person identifizieren. Und Adressen ohne Namen sind laut LG Berlin Az.: 26 O 177/21 keine personenbezogenen Daten. XxakixX (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DSGVO, Der Eigentümer 84.118.155.84 09:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Kein de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die DSGVO schützt nur personenbezogene Daten. Personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der DSGVO sind (nur) solche, anhand derer sich konkrete Personen zumindest mittelbar identifizieren lassen. Aus der Adresse und den Bildern lässt sich keine Person identifizieren. Und Adressen ohne Namen sind laut LG Berlin Az.: 26 O 177/21 keine personenbezogenen Daten. XxakixX (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DSGVO, Der Eigentümer 84.118.155.84 09:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Kein Löschgrund. --Rosenzweig τ 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Kein de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Alle Bilder von Pustenbach 6 wurden außerhalb des Privatgrundes von der öffentlichen Straße aus angefertigt, wo grundsätzlich das Recht auf Panoramafreiheit besteht. Lediglich abgebildete Personen - ist hier nicht der Fall - können ein Recht am Bild einfordern. --DiAuras (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort! Das mag rechtlich in Bezug auf die Bilder allein korrekt sein. Es geht jedoch darum das Fotos meines Hauses in einer solchen Auflistung zusammen mit der Anschrift veröffentlicht werden. Dies fällt wiederum unter die DSGVO. Zusätzlich handelt sich hierbei um eine Bitte! 84.118.155.84 10:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die DSGVO schützt nur personenbezogene Daten. Personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der DSGVO sind (nur) solche, anhand derer sich konkrete Personen zumindest mittelbar identifizieren lassen. Aus der Adresse und den Bildern lässt sich keine Person identifizieren. Und Adressen ohne Namen sind laut LG Berlin Az.: 26 O 177/21 keine personenbezogenen Daten. XxakixX (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion; no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
OOS spam movie posters. File:“ Mujhe School nahi jaana “ Hindi feature film , Story & Directed by Nipon Dholua.jpg is a COM:DW of https://image.tebyan.net/Image/63956 by Tebyan Institute with no free license.
- File:“ Mujhe School nahi jaana “ Hindi feature film , Story & Directed by Nipon Dholua.jpg
- File:Mujhe school nahi jaana.jpg
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Promotional B25es (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and redirected as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. The background is so low quality that it cannot be stablished if it's Nashville or not B25es (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. The background is so low quality that it cannot be stablished if it's Nashville or not B25es (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
no encyclopedic use Darrelljon (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Es un archivo personal en el que aparezco. No es de uso público. Me gustaría que fuese eliminado. Gracias. Emr3run (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
No es de uso público. Emr3run (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Logos should be uploaded locally HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, above TOO, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
doubtful to be own work - low resolution, low quality 68.134.5.142 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Upload by new user - doubtful to be own work 68.134.5.142 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
no evidence of claimed lisense 68.134.5.142 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Searches can't find a notable journalist with this name. Notability is not a concern for Commons, yes. If the person comes with a picture that shows a journalist (working at her desk, making an interview etc) I will defend her right to be here as a journalist. Not with her beach pose though. She is not Ch. Amanpour. 181.43.4.47 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
copyvio of pictures used on official website https://www.jjsavani.com/ and twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/jjsavanibarber AngusWOOF (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Apparently, the uploader still has not learned about the purpose of Commons, cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 18und7 Schniggendiller (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Behemoth1985 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Metadata says author is someone called Martynas Ambrazas. I don’t see any reasons to believe uploader is Ambrazas, so I think either permission should be required, or uploader should prove his identity on VRT.
RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Original uploader is not the copyright holder. Image should not be shown in current format due to data protection concerns. 185.22.224.96 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
unused file of very low quality Jan Myšák (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
unused file of very low quality Jan Myšák (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and copyvio, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Does not seem like this is free use. From a news article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded for nonsense (w:de:Benutzer:Cocrllysmall/Cocrllysmall, already deleted) Schniggendiller (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Serves no educational purpose? Enyavar (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope: self-promotion of non-notable person
George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Evident the typical resolution of image scanned or worse photographed from a screen, I doubt it could be one's own work Threecharlie (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Per the file description, this is based on a still from Ryan's Mystery Playdate, an all-rights-reserved work; this is further borne out by Kaji's outfit and the set background, which match various stills seen on IMDb. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I uploaded this long ago to my user page on enwiki, and didn't realize I uploaded this to Commons! As the original uploader I don't mind if they deleted this Gouleg (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No obvious use Dronebogus (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
unused image of low quality Jan Myšák (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Out-of-scope test image without explanation Pierre cb (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
لا يوجد ترخيص Dr.Abellah alghalib (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: fictional flag, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This file does not belong to the uploader and is from the images available on the Internet CaesarIran (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Jackpot369
[edit]- File:Lucale.jpg
- File:Lucale en Villa madero.jpg
- File:Lucale Villa Madero.jpg
- File:Lucale lucale.jpg
- File:Lucale en estudio.jpg
- File:Cristian Alexander Devincenzi Lemos 01.jpg
- File:Cristian Alexander Devincenzi Lemos 03.jpg
- File:Cristian Alexander Devincenzi Lemos 02.jpg
- File:Cristian Alexander Devincenzi Lemos 04.jpg
Bunch of possible copyvio from the authors Grisel and Martin Biaggini, No proven notability --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploader's contributions are all vandalistic: authorship is very doubtful. Olybrius (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 12:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
créer lors d'une formation Wiki Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
duplicate (File:グルメシティ京極店.JPG) and, author request . eien20 (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: not a duplicate and file from 2008 - doesn't qualify for courtesy deletion (and nominator is not same as photo uploader). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Toy pictures by Mododge16
[edit]- File:Light Blue Yoshi plush.png
- File:Pluto from Mickey Mouse Disney on table figurine crop.png
- File:Black yoshi Nintendo plush on dresser.jpg
- File:Pluto from Mickey Mouse Disney figurine looking at black yoshi Nintendo plush on table.jpg
- File:Light blue yoshi Nintendo plush with Pluto from Mickey Mouse Disney figurine.jpg
- File:El Chip plush whispering to black yoshi Nintendo plush on table.jpg
- File:Pluto from Mickey Mouse Disney on table figurine.jpg
- File:Light blue yoshi Nintendo plush looking at El Chip plush on table.jpg
- File:El Chip plush on table full portrait.jpg
- File:El Chip plush on table full portrait 2.jpg
- File:El Chip plush on table.jpg
Per COM:TOYS: "When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country." --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Baturyn - «Getmans»
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Recent statues from 2009 (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Батурин -«Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну». Скульптурна група-1.jpg).
- File:"Гетьмани.Молитва за Україну",м.Батурин.jpg
- File:Baturyn - Hetmas.JPG
- File:«Pray for Ukraine» monument.jpg
- File:«Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну».jpg
- File:Батурин 7314.jpg
- File:Батурин Гетьмани 1.jpg
- File:Батурин Гетьмани 2.jpg
- File:Батурин Гетьмани 3.jpg
- File:Батурин Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну» 1.jpg
- File:Батурин. Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну».jpg
- File:Батурин7313.jpg
- File:Верх пам'ятника «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну».jpg
- File:Вигляд загальний пам’ятника Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну в Батурині.jpg
- File:Гетьмани Молитва у Батурині.jpg
- File:Гетьмани у Батурині.jpg
- File:Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну.jpg
- File:Гетьмани. Стіл. Батурин.jpg
- File:Меморіал Гетьманської слави Батурин.JPG
- File:Молитва за Україну.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник "Гетьмани.Молитва за Україну" скульптори Микола та Богдан Мазури.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник гетьманам у Батурині.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник гетьманам.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Молитва за Україну.jpg
- File:Памятник Гетьмани Молитва за Україну у Батурині.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник "Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну".jpg
- File:Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну» 74-203-0043.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну» в Батурині.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну». м.Батурин.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну».jpg
- File:Пам’ятник «Молитва за Україну».jpg
- File:Початок будівництва пам’ятника Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну в Батурині.jpg
- File:Фігури пам’ятника «Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну» в Батурині.jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”, фрагмент.jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”. Скульптурна група, Батурин.jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”.(1).jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”....jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”...jpg
- File:„Гетьмани. Молитва за Україну”..jpg
IronGargoyle (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.231.21 as no permission (no permission) Krd 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: This user is a sockpuppet of @Giorgio Pallavicini, who, since 2020, has also an amount of warnings by various users who attempted to explain this issue to him. 83.61.231.21 00:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Coolguyjerry25 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All redundant to and superseded by the respective flags already on Commons. Unneeded duplicates.
- File:Flag of India in ms paint.png
- File:Flag of Turkey in ms paint.png
- File:Flag of Japan in ms paint.png
- File:Flag of the People's Republic of China in ms paint.png
- File:Flag of the United Kingdom in ms paint.png
- File:Flag of the Philippines in Ms paint.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Usina Santa Terezinha metre gauge Luttermöller 0-10-0 number 14, built by Orenstein & Koppel (9468 of 1921) stands on a curve outside the mill near Agua Preta, Brazil on 10 Dec 1974.jpg
[edit]It is unclear why copyright law of Mauritius applies here: I see no evidence of initial publication in Mauritius in the image description. It is created in Brazil and likely copyrighted per URAA (even if indeed published in Mauritius). Per ticket:2023031610009949 the photographer, Jeremy Wiseman, died in 2022. Ankry (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your vigilance. I have, thus, changed the licence to {{PD-Brazil-Photo}}. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- We still have no evidence that it was published in Brazil. Being created in Brazil is not enough to apply the mentioned license template. Ankry (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, we make assumptions all the time that creation=publication. --RAN (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per information from the abovementioned ticket this photo by Jeremy Wiseman was never published before creation of the https://www.gwrarchive.org/site/sitel2ph/jjw.php webpage in August 2021. In my opinion the photo is copyrighted till 1.1.2093 (70 pma) and copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- As one of the heirs I can endorse your suggestion re copyright. Prior to his death Jeremy agreed and wrote in his will that my brother and I (his nephews - he never married and has no direct decendants) would manage his extensive image & book collections in conjunction with two well known railway image archives. We are actively working in conjunction with the Railway and Archiving Trust Toddington UK and AGMT Geneva Switzerland to do this. 216.213.190.205 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per information from the abovementioned ticket this photo by Jeremy Wiseman was never published before creation of the https://www.gwrarchive.org/site/sitel2ph/jjw.php webpage in August 2021. In my opinion the photo is copyrighted till 1.1.2093 (70 pma) and copyright belongs to the photographer's heirs. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Italic text
Copyvio no PD-Art because of 3 dimensual frame Oursana (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Come on! Gothic paintings can be deleted because of the frame? How old do you think the frame is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support we may not tolerate copyvios.
- There are generally two possibilities to upload fotos of artworks and subjects in public domain:
1) uploading one's own photograph
2) or uploading another photographers work of a 2-dimensional object, because by taking a photo of a 3-dimensional object the photographer could possibly create a copyrighted artwork; regardless the frame's age.
- This is commons policy for long and stated in the PD-art-tag User:Maltaper is using for his file: stating expressively, that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art.", which it is not. By photographing also the frame it is 3-dimensional, and therefore another photographer's photograph possibly a creation of an artwork and copyrighted, and has nothing to do with the age of the frame, as the focus is on the protection of another photographer's (here from the Uffizi) copyrighted photos.
- The copyright violation is more obvious with this file with a more elaborated frame.
- It was not necessary to upload the infringing photo, as this (another user's own photo) and this (without frame) do fulfill requirements of copyright law.Oursana (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll see whether the closing admin agrees with you that the fact that a presumably PD frame is included makes this a copyrighted photo like a photo of a statue. Thanks for fleshing out your views more fully. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: : see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used? -3: When the photograph shows a 2D work of art within a 3D frame Oursana (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: : see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used? -3: When the photograph shows a 2D work of art within a 3D frame Oursana (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll see whether the closing admin agrees with you that the fact that a presumably PD frame is included makes this a copyrighted photo like a photo of a statue. Thanks for fleshing out your views more fully. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not own work and certainly not a 1780 map of Oceania, photoshopped image with modern text - so not possible to determine copyright status. Moreover, illegible, unusable anyway. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment That sure looks like a very old map to me, and it's usable, but it has a modern watermark that would have to be removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full camera Metadata, also the user's only uploads make the "own work" claim dubious A1Cafel (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full camera Metadata, also the user's only uploads make the "own work" claim dubious A1Cafel (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Unused illegible map, unusable. And missing all essential info to determine original author, source, date, and copyright status. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Too small to be usable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW. A photo of a doll of copyrighted character.See guideline(pdf) LudwigSK (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
COM:COSTUME eien20 (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The statue of The Little Mermaid in Copenhagen is subject to copyright because the creator Edvard Eriksen (* 1876; † 1959) died less than 70 years ago. Dannebrog Spy (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The artist died in 1976. Very unlikely own work. Most probably it's a digitalized photo of an older one (derivated work). Adding also File:Wifredo Viladrich.jpg to the DR.) Ganímedes (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gyrostat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted by Lina Arnautova
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as uploading account's name suggests it might be the photographer. -- Túrelio (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Túrelio: I missed the match between the username and the name in the metadata. I was a little bit trigger-happy when reviewing this file, my bad. Gyrostat (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Tdoran2911
[edit]This photo would have been taken in March 2017 during the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament. In fact, a higher quality version of this image was posted on the Princeton Tigers men's basketball Twitter account in March 2017. In spite of that, Tdoran2911 writes that it is his own work created in January 2023. His version seems to be stolen from the coach's own Twitter avatar.
Although Tdoran2911 claims this is his own work from 2023, the metadata shows that it was copyrighted by a "Beverly Schaefer" in 2011. The photo is credited in this article as "Courtesy of Princeton University Office of Communications." A LinkedIn for Beverly Schaefer shows that she was "Photographer-Office of Athletic Communications" between 1997 and 2020. All of those concerns aside, this file is a photograph of a man holding a photograph which is almost 50% of the work itself. The latter photograph is likely not properly licensed either.
This is an Associated Press file photo from 1997. A reverse image search turns up a ton of results that confirm that.
The dates on File:London bball classic.png and File:Mitch Henderson.png also seemingly don't match the dates those works were created. In light of the above copyvios, I think these two are probably also copyvios. --Denniscabrams (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Noncommercial (cc-by-nc-nd-3.0). 1917 photo, PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:UK#Known author (Walter Stoneman). ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - poratrait by Walter Stoneman (1876-1958). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Bamberg
[edit]IMO it's a violation of Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany. The photos seem (see EXIF data) to be taken from longer distance with a telephoto lens, all the persons are random people, are not looking at viewer and so apparently all or uttermost of them don't even notice to be photographed (not surprising, given long distance). Among them, there are even two photos of minors, where consent of parents would be necessary. I don't see an "event of public relevance" as possible exemption, either. I don't think that the COVID-pandemic had made all of us persons of public relevance at times where we had to wear protective masks in public. I don't see a "a higher artistic interest" either. That means, taking the pictures was OK (from Commons' point of view), but publishing was not. Sorry.
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-161201.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-162225.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-162319.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-163611.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-155644.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-155748.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-160857.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-161418.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-162539.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-162700.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-162812.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163034.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163304.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163306.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163419.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163511.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163952.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-164923.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-165422.jpg
- File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-170824.jpg
File:Man corona mask-20200505-RM-160216.jpg- File:Men corona masks-20200505-RM-163216.jpg
A.Savin 03:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question Do we know User:Ermell didn't get consent? Let's hear from him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In this case, in my opinion, a permit is not required because the people behind the masks cannot be identified. That is why wearing masks in public is not allowed during normal times. Furthermore, the pictures are not about the people, but about documenting the different individually designed masks that were only allowed for a short period of time before a uniform masking was ordered. The deletion of this image was already rejected for a similar reason. I would see it the same way for the other pictures. --Ermell (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- On Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 01 2023#File:Corona_Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163306.jpg, there already was agreement that the person is identifiable. Same is obvious for most other images from the series, some few (such as this) are at least borderline case. I don't understand why we should discuss it again and again, but OK let's go, every RfD is open for discussion at least 7 days. The other Deletion request you are referring to, was obviously invalid and thus it has rightly been closed as kept. --A.Savin 11:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Of course you are allowed to wear masks in public, just not if you are in a public gathering, e.g. a demonstration. XxakixX (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- But we are not here to discuss who and when is (dis)allowed to wear masks, XxakixX. --A.Savin 17:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The example given was about whether it is a QI or not. Deriving a vote from this to determine whether the person should be identified or not misuses the comments. The central question of whether a person can be recognized behind the mask is certainly of legal interest, but cannot be a private opinion. As already emphasized, this is about documenting different masks and not about portraying strangers who had to wear them inevitably. --Ermell (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- The following photos are all borderline: File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-162225.jpg, File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200505-RM-162319.jpg, File:Man corona mask-20200505-RM-160216.jpg and File:Corona Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-170824.jpg. The rest show clearly identifiable individuals. I would trust the decision of the closing admin if it's based on a knowledge of applicable German law. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see a clear “higher artistic interest” at least in File:Man corona mask-20200505-RM-160216.jpg. This is street photography at its best; it is the best photo I have ever seen regarding the Corona pandemic in Germany; it summarizes many aspects and problems in a single photo. It would be a shame to delete it. We should keep it, and if anybody takes legal actions against it/the photographer/Wikimedia, Wikimedia should use their money to defend street photography. If photos like this one are deleted, street photography is dead. --Aristeas (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I hereby strike this one. Thanks --A.Savin 14:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see any reason to assume an actual personality rights violation. --Krd 11:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of nudity photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Infusions with saline water to the scrotum are common sexual habit to some men. To my knowledge this is the first and by now only image showing the result of such an infusion. I would have preferred a closeup in focus, but as this is the first image of that kind, it should not be deleted before there is a better one. TheGermanGuyFromHamburg (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we might actually have some better ones, will have to check Dronebogus (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem licensed under a free license. RisingTzar (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. This seems fairly simple and would be under COM:TOO USA, but I can't find any information on TOO in Liberia. Is this copyrightable in its source country? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- When I uploaded it I falsely assumed that the uploading a logo like this would be fair use, but I soon realized the laws in Lebanon (not Liberia) aren't as lenient or clear as the US; which is why I made this request. I doubt you'd face any issues with this anyway but better safe than sorry. RisingTzar (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also please check Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo OGERO Líbano.jpg. It's the same image as this one, basically File:Logo OGERO L% C3% ADbano.png was uploaded as a transparent version of File:Logo OGERO Líbano.jpg before I realized that it is legally questionable in Lebanon. RisingTzar (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem licensed under a free license. RisingTzar (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
No proof of CC license release 68.134.5.142 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Здравствуйте! Асир Сандлер умер в 1996 году на 79-м году жизни. После его ареста в 41-м сына они с женой потеряли, неизвестно где он сейчас и что с ним. О жене - Тамаре Соломоновне Каричадзе - ничего не известно, жива ли она еще, скорее всего нет, если они были примерно одного возраста. Так что спрашивать разрешения просто не у кого. Фотографии взяты не из Интернета, формат А4, лежали в отдельной папке у нас в библиотеке, были подписаны как сандлеровские, вот вся информация о них. Больше ничего нет. MagYouthLib (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- So it's not under a free license. Thank you for admitting that the license claim is false. This should be deleted ASAP.--68.134.5.142 21:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Revisionist14 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Couple of concerns: these are all sourced to a Japanese historical revisionist site but it seems implausible that the site owns the historical photographs or the underlying works, although the historical photographs are likely in the public domain. The bigger concern is that these images, ostensibly used as examples of holocaust denialism, are actually amplifying the conspiracy theories because of the volume of images, and they appear to be sourced to a website whose goal is to present a non-neutral point of view.
- File:ビルケナウ収容所の記念碑の変遷.jpg
- File:メンゲレ博士の偽写真.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツの戦後に捏造された「ガス室」.jpg
- File:アインザッツグルッペンの偽写真.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツの「殺人ガス室」とアメリカの「処刑用ガス室」の比較.jpg
- File:ユダヤがドイツに宣戦布告.jpg
- File:Die Auschwitz-Lüge.jpg
- File:モノヴィツとビルケナウの比較.jpg
- File:ビルケナウの「ガス室」の設計図.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の航空写真.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の屋根の写真2.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の写真分析2.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の写真分析.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の屋根の写真.jpg
- File:ビルケナウ「ガス室」の屋根の航空写真.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツ・ビルケナウの「ガス室」と害虫駆除室の壁のシアン化合物濃度.jpg
- File:バビ・ヤールの航空写真の解説.jpg
- File:ビルケナウの「ガス室」の屋根には1944年に穴が存在しないという証拠.jpg
- File:バビ・ヤールの血の間欠泉.jpg
- File:バビ・ヤールの航空写真.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツ収容所の水泳プール.jpg
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- 突然の削除要求に驚きました。
- 「陰謀論を増幅」、「中立的でない視点を提示することを目的とする Web サイト」それはあなたの主観ですよね?
- あなたには、真摯な学術研究を「陰謀論」と弾圧する権利はあるのですか?
- 歴史修正主義者の学説を「陰謀論」と見なしていながら、 一方ではその学説の普及を抑圧しようとするあなたたち、ホロコースト肯定派の姿勢は、 ガリレオ・ガリレイの「地動説」を抑圧しようとした中世のキリスト教会の姿勢を想起させます。 R Revisionist14 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep While I'm not a fan of the uploaders attitude in how they responded to the DRs, I think they make a valid point that it would be hard to educate people on revision without including research on the topic. In this case, the images seem educational. Historically inaccurate, probably. But that goes for a lot of images on Commons and can be dealt with through other means then deleting the images. This is supposedly a censorship free project after all and there is no bright line between what is revisionism and what isn't. We aren't here to litigate it either. In the meantime, one mans revisionism is anothers way to find out the talking points being put out by the Holocaust deniers so they can be countered. At least that's how I look at it. So I think these images should be kept, just as long as we make it clear that they are revisionist and don't represent the currently agreed on truth of the Holocaust. Again though, that's not something to be dealt with through censorship through deleting the images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: most images were deleted before, deleted what was left because it are derivative works of possibly copyrighted images, evidence is missing the source files are in PD, per COM:EVID. --Ellywa (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Revisionist14 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same as above - poorly sourced files that appear to be promoting revisionist history.
- File:1944年7月21日付のアウシュヴィッツ・ビルケナウ収容所からの釈放証書.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツ収容所のオーケストラ.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツ収容所の中の劇場.jpg
- File:アウシュヴィッツ収容所の水泳プール.gif
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- 突然の削除要求に驚きました。
- 「陰謀論を増幅」、「中立的でない視点を提示することを目的とする Web サイト」それはあなたの主観ですよね?
- あなたには、真摯な学術研究を「陰謀論」と弾圧する権利はあるのですか?
- 歴史修正主義者の学説を「陰謀論」と見なしていながら、 一方ではその学説の普及を抑圧しようとするあなたたち、ホロコースト肯定派の姿勢は、 ガリレオ・ガリレイの「地動説」を抑圧しようとした中世のキリスト教会の姿勢を想起させます。 Revisionist14 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep While I'm not a fan of the uploaders attitude in how they responded to the DRs, I think they make a valid point that it would be hard to educate people on revision without including research on the topic. In this case, the images seem educational. Historically inaccurate, probably. But that goes for a lot of images on Commons and can be dealt with through other means then deleting the images. This is supposedly a censorship free project after all and there is no bright line between what is revisionism and what isn't. We aren't here to litigate it either. In the meantime, one mans revisionism is anothers way to find out the talking points being put out by the Holocaust deniers so they can be countered. At least that's how I look at it. So I think these images should be kept, just as long as we make it clear that they are revisionist and don't represent the currently agreed on truth of the Holocaust. Again though, that's not something to be dealt with through censorship through deleting the images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all files were already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Minimaxnms (talk · contribs)
[edit]All these seems to be a random nude selfies, I don't see any realistic educational use nor scientific purpose
- File:Reverse-Prinz-Albert Piercing und Cockring.jpg
- File:Reverse-Prinz-Albert Piercing und Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Reverse-Prinz-Albert Piercing.jpg
- File:Reverse Prinz-Albert Piercing.jpg
- File:Nackt mit Prinz-Albert Piercing und Cockring.jpg
- File:BDSM Nacktwanderung.jpg
- File:Mit steifem Penis während der Nacktwanderung.jpg
- File:Mit steifem Penis ohne Prinz-Albert Piercing.jpg
- File:Mit steifem Penis.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung und dabei Erektion.jpg
- File:Intimrasiert und davor mit Schamhaaren.jpg
- File:Nackt und gefesselt im Wald.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung Undeloh.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung.jpg
- File:Steifer Penis mit Prinz-Albert Piercing.jpg
- File:Nackt am Andreaskreuz gefesselt.jpg
- File:Nackt am Andreaskreuz.jpg
- File:Steifer Penis mit Prinz-Albert Piercing und Cockring und Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung mit PA und Cockring.jpg
- File:Intimrasur und Prinz-Albert-Piercing.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert-Piering und Cockring und Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Cockring und Prinz-Albert-Piercing.jpg
- File:Intimrasur und Intimpiercing.jpg
- File:Ballstretcher an den Hoden.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert piercing.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing TDR.jpg
- File:Freikörperkultur im Sommer an der Ostsee.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert piercing und Cockring und Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piering und steifer Penis.jpg
- File:Penis erigiert mit Cockring.jpg
- File:Penis erigiert mit breiterem Cockring.jpg
- File:Penis erigiert ohne Intimpiercing.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung bei Undeloh mit kurzer Pause.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing nackt am Badesee.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und enger Cockring.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und Cockring.jpg
- File:Intimrasiert.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und breiter Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und Ballstretcher.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und ohne Intimrasur.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing und mit Schambehaarung.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing als Tribal Dream Ring aus Titan.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung bei Undeloh.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung bei Undeloh in der Lüneburger Heide.jpg
- File:Zu Beginn der Wanderung auf dem kleinen Waldparkplatz vor der Hinweistafel der Wanderregion und der Markierung des offiziellen Nacktwanderweges.jpg
- File:Nacktwanderung in der Lüneburger Heide bei Undeloh.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Ring.jpg
- File:Prinz-Albert Piercing.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Weird piercings, high quality. If you don't like nude images, don't look at them. --RAN (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I looked at a couple of the photos. Do we not have higher-quality images of such piercings? These photos are small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. Mainly because they are selfies and lowish quality ones at that. I'm sure there are better quality, non-selfie images of the subject matter on here. Probably loads of it. So there's zero reason to keep these images. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete we have pictures of this piercing Dronebogus (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above arguments Юрий Д.К 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free space invader; taken from a stream of space invaders, therefore not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- The focus is the sign, looks de minimis to me. Keep Fry1989 eh? 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Slovenia: the space invader is clearly not de minimis. The image contains 'space invader' in the title, it has been taken from a stream of space invaders and it is used in an article due to this space invader. The DR should be reviewed. TadejM (t/p) 08:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would also tend to Delete, no de minimis. Following the guidelines from Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines: (X means: The sticker "Space Inavders against Homophobia" on the traffic sign)
- the file is categorized in relation to X (fulfills)
- X is referenced in the filename (fulfills)
- X is referenced in the description (fulfills)
- So, we've met three points against de minimis.--Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
No CC license on the website A1Cafel (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence of a free license at source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't seem licensed under a free license. RisingTzar (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Source is no longer there, but archive of source gives it as "all rights reserved". No evidence of a free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Bigotudo 181.203.137.202 01:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Spam and personal photo. See also Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_All_sc_st_federation. SCP-2000 05:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and remark of SCP-2000. --Ellywa (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Low quality still images from a Flickr video, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Images from the aftermath of an extremely noteworthy crime. Historically important and usable despite low quality. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per IronGargoyle. Historically important despite its low quality. Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I'm going to go the contrarian route here and say that if the video is freely licensed then someone should upload it instead of us only having a low quality screen grab that in itself tells us nothing about the event. That image could be from literally any event in the United States involving the police at this point. There's zero context or way to know that it's related to the Ft. Hood shooting without the file name and description. While that might not matter in some other less controversial and noteworthy cases, I think it's important here. Compare that to other images related to the shooting, like File:Defense.gov photo essay 091110-D-7203C-003.jpg. Sure it's generic, but way less so. At least in an image like someone can figure out who the people standing by the bed are and go from there. What's in this image, a white SVU? OK. There's absolutely nothing to take away or learn from the event with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I would also say keep if this was the only image of the event. But there are many better and more meaningful images already in its category. Agree with User:Adamant1. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: on itself, this photo would be of no educational use and out of scope. In the context of Category:2009 Fort Hood shooting it can be usefull imho. Therefore decided to keep as there are no copyright issues. --Ellywa (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The PDF is error and cannot be proofread. Please delete and we will re-upload the file again. Bennylin (yes?) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- As the uploader, I would like to ask for this file to be deleted Thersetya2021 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The pdf is error when I tried to delete one of the duplicate pages. Please delete this file. Natsukusha (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I have no difficulty to download the last version. However no information about publication data/copyright is listed, so probbably a copyright violation and cannot be kept on WIkipedia. --Ellywa (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no suitable FOP in Slovenia. I propose deletion per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozolec toplar Bistrica.jpg. I'm renominating the file as it's not clear why it has been undeleted. It is a copyrighted work by Janez (Janko) Gregorčič (d. 1984). @HJ Mitchell: , @Fastily: TadejM (t/p) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Seemingly this haystack is original enough for protection. Undelete in 2055. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Francesco Cavalli - Ercole amante - act 3, scene 1 - stage setting by Carlo Vigarani - 1662.png
[edit]Plik jest źle opisany. Ilustracja przedstawia scenografię do drugiego aktu Andromède Pierre'a Corneille'a z maszynami teatralnymi Giacomo Torellego. 212.87.0.99 11:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is no valid reason for deletion. A description could be corrected. But I don't believe, that it is incorrect. The source (Beaussant) states clearly: „Décor de Carlo Vigarani pour Ercole amante représenté aux Tuileries en 1662. Acte III, scène I : jardins. Décor ayant servi pour les représentations de Psyché.“ --Rodomonte (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Descriptions can be changed. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Photograph from approx. 1916. Hence, {{Own}} is impossible. Might be in the PD though. Leyo 13:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" is the correct license. --RAN (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Can be undeleted in 2037. We have no evidence this was an anonymous photo. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No copyright, no source Lowdown (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: A screencap of a video, no source, too young to be public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
no source, no copyright Lowdown (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Video screencap, no source, too young to be public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by B25es as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Trade marked image. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --VIGNERON (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Misleading description and poor quality image, see Discussion. Alammana (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: but marked the file as "no permission". --JuTa 00:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
False information (see page talk) Ospeleo (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keepNot a deletion reason. COM:INUSE. Just edit the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)- This image is originnally a hoax (or misinformation). The author didn't give permission to use it. Isn't it better to delete it to remove all misleading links, and use the original open access image with accurate description? Ospeleo (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about that. How long ago was the image created? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- please read the talk page of the file (at the end)
- File talk:Piktograf1.png
- to summarize:
- - I did rigorous research on the hoax, explained here File talk:Piktograf1.png, which has been disseminated outside wikipedia, especially in Haiti. That's why My proposal is to remove the image
- - I contacted the original uploader of the image, who agreed with my proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotrus&oldid=1136512417#Source_of_the_pictogram_image
- - I found the original author (Dr Carolyn S Dean) of this image, a drawing based on a book, which is not public domain, and she agrees with my proposal (email) Ospeleo (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there is really a permission problem, it can and should be deleted. I'll leave this to the discretion of the closing admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the relevant evidence is in the email, please ask for permission to publish it here or use OTRS. If the image is not historical but modern, and if the original author wants to have it deleted, that's fine, but we need proof further than vague reference to some email. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- PS. Talk page states that " she redrew it from a Testarian manuscript: Libro de oraciones, 16th century, available in the library of the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico". In this case, isn't this a derivative of the public domain image (File:Testerian Catechism.jpg - thanks for uploading that one), hence, public domain itself? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about that. How long ago was the image created? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --VIGNERON (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
License Error: Logo of a organization, therefore cannot be own work Aspere (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep obviously not own work -that said the user account has the same name as the organisation,so maybe own) but simple logo (under COM:TOO) so acceptable on Commons. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, the symbol at the left hand side is imho copyrighted per COM:TOO South Korea. The image could be cropped to delete that part, but imho the logo has also no educational value and is therefore out of COM:SCOPE. Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Ellywa as out of scope (unused, unidentified logo). —holly {chat} 15:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)