Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![29 File:RiverWalk. The "THRIVE" statue.jpg](#File:RiverWalk._The_"THRIVE"_statue.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![148 File:Atlantis AVM ve Batımerkez İstasyonunun önünde, "allah yok" grafitisi, modern primat dondurmasıyla poz veriyor.jpg](#File:Atlantis_AVM_ve_Batımerkez_İstasyonunun_önünde,_"allah_yok"_grafitisi,_modern_primat_dondurmasıyla_poz_veriyor.jpg){kind=link}
![149 File:Atlantis AVM ve Batımerkez İstasyonunun önünde, "allah yok" grafitisi, modern primat.jpg](#File:Atlantis_AVM_ve_Batımerkez_İstasyonunun_önünde,_"allah_yok"_grafitisi,_modern_primat.jpg){kind=link}
_GH35182_(8002209288).jpg){kind=link}
_by_Mihailo_Grbic.jpg){kind=link}
![186 File:Banksy's original art "Guard with balloon dog".jpg](#File:Banksy's_original_art_"Guard_with_balloon_dog".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
for data privacy Nikolodeon06123 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
ต้องการแก้ไข ภาพเป็นภาพอื่น เมธิน ปิงสุทธิวงศ์ (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
เป็นภาพทดลองการ upload ข้อมูล จึงขอให้ทางระบบช่วยทำการลบภาพนี้ออก ขอบคุณมากครับ เมธิน ปิงสุทธิวงศ์ (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Das Werk stammt nicht von mir. 1905 lebte ich noch nicht auf dieser Welt Plutowiki (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. False license claim; source clearly marked as NC. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hoax. The es:Cortes de Aragón only have 67 seats. The file was uploaded by a long-term abuser. -sasha- (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not that work of the Flickr user, actual source information can be found at https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/british-singer-songwriter-and-actor-john-lennon-on-the-set-news-photo/607401940?phrase=john%20lennon%20how%20i%20won%20the%20war Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jim Bakker
[edit]From a blacklisted Flickr account, description clearly indicates the actual copyright owner.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom (unfortunately file has been on Commons since 2018 and is in use in multiple projects). Flickr user clearly just takes images from many sources and puts claim of free license on the m without authorization; justly blacklisted. No information on who the actual photographer is nor actual license status. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above; reverse image search for occurances predating Flickr upload show the photo author is Lou Krasky of the Associated Press; not free licensed. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
print screen of copyrighted image from Google Street View André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- PS: printed of https://www.google.com/maps/@-12.9945467,-38.5211987,3a,90y,226.29h,94.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBI_1yLsfTS57jNIyFZN3nQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This copyright violation was reported in pt-wiki. Tks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Same file already exists: File:Censorship of Tik Tok.svg Axadem (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: DR converted to {{Duplicate}}--A09 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate, author found a way to overwrite images RHD-45 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Needs to be uploaded with Salad and Go copyright, accidental upload as "my own" Src1066 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. @Src1066: If you want to upload this again "with Salad and Go copyright", please upload it directly to the English Wikipedia (as a fair use image); Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use files. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This file contains my private information. Also, there is a problem with the preview resolution of this file, I plan to upload it in png or other format instead. AdrianLaw0330 (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No COM:FOP Kazakhstan, see the full-res version ru:Файл:Мечеть «Жаримбет ата» (Вид от КПП Байконур).JPG, stating a warning not upload to Commons due to FoP. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment He's an Associate Professor at w:Berklee College of Music's campus in Valencia, Spain. The profile I linked makes it seem like he has some notability. And what makes a photo of a composer with a sheet of music an ad? Ad for what? More like a candid photo of a composer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I flagged this picture for deletion because I did not find a proof of its notability. I agree that it is not given to everyone to be an associate professor, but I do not see what can be entered in the encyclopedia. For the ad, it is about the draft of the article. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia. Did you read the link? It's not merely that he's a professor, but what he's done and what awards he's gotten. And this deletion request is not about a Wikipedia draft but a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, then I will not oppose the picture being kept on Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Commons is not Wikipedia. Did you read the link? It's not merely that he's a professor, but what he's done and what awards he's gotten. And this deletion request is not about a Wikipedia draft but a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: 1-There is no evidence that the author of the photograph died before 1953|source=Friedrich Risse, Günter Krause, Die Dampflokomotiven der WLE, DGEG Medien, Hövelhof, 2006, 978-3-937189-25-3 1950 German photograph with a known author. Converting to DR for discussion where the true copyright status could be found. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find any biographical data for Hermann Ott but he published some books in the 1980ies. Therefore PD 70 is impossible. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Delete since the author lived as least until the 1980s. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
1934 illustration by an author who died in 1973. Undelete in 2044 when it becomes public domain in the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation: Found on the internet without a free license. TilmannR (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone who is not a Wikipedian Osama Eid (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
photography of copyrighted artwork Carl Ha (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Intermerker (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete, copyvio RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 10:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
uploadedfrom Instagram without permissions Dacoucou (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Sadly no FOP for artistic works in the US Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
![06:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/17#c-Gbawden-20230317064200-File:RiverWalk._The_"THRIVE"_statue.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
![04:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/17#c-Krd-20230324042500-File:RiverWalk._The_"THRIVE"_statue.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE, as image is hardly usable. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
used for spam on xh.wiki --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Spanish photograph that was probably taken between 1917 and 1922. Looks like it was taken by a professional photographer. Spain is 80 PMA for authors who died before 1987 and this doesn't appear to be a simple photograph. So this may have to wait until the 2050s to be here. Abzeronow (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
1977 photograph whose author died in 2006. Undelete in 2077. Abzeronow (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
1910s photograph. I cannot find the full photograph at the source listed. It could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1980 coat of arms for a municipality in Colombia. Per COM:Colombia, government created works are protected for a term of publication + 70 years and the Flickr account doesn't not appear to be that of the municipality so we'd need VRT confirmation from Sonsón itself to host it on Commons now. Otherwise, undelete in 2051. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW - Photo of a painting, with no indication of country of location nor information on artist needed to determine copyright status of original painting. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per usage in en:w, artist is not the uploader as claimed, but rather Eleanor Vere Boyle - died more than 100 years ago so would be PD, but needs factual information Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Does not look to be a 2022 photo. Might or might not be PD for some reason, but needs factual source info. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Not a 2022 photo as claimed. Needs factual source info. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW Picture of page of a book. Needs info on copyright/authorship of original source. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution photograph that's sourced from a website. Possible netcopyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Very low resolution; better alternatives in Category:Safrole. Leyo 23:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal picture by uploader Enyavar (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal image, missing author, missing permission. TilmannR (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Alaa :)..! 13:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for US - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Partners Statue at Magic Kingdom Whpq (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination since en:Partners (statue) was installed in 1993 and thus would automatically be protected by copyright per COM:FOP US even without a visible copyright notice. Moreover, given that the statue is the focus of the photo (at least it seems that way to me), I don't see it how COM:DM might be possible here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as mentioned above. Adding category to deletion request. Elisfkc (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
budhuras mala 103.21.164.212 02:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No deletion reason given, but FBMD is in the metadata. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. This photo from museum - contains multiple copyrighted or potentially copyrighted works. Museum exposition - protected Ukrainian copyright law. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. This photo from museum - contains multiple copyrighted or potentially copyrighted works. Museum exposition - protected Ukrainian copyright law. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And also
- File:Taras Shevchenko Monument in Illintsi (1970) July 2020.jpg
- File:Іллінці P1790093.jpg
- File:Іллінці P1790099 Пам'ятник Т. Г. Шевченку.jpg
- File:Іллінці, Пам'ятник Шевченку Т.Г.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Т. Г. Шевченку Іллінці.JPG
_July_2020.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1970. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. This photo from museum - contains multiple copyrighted or potentially copyrighted works. Museum exposition - protected Ukrainian copyright law. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. This photo from museum - contains multiple copyrighted or potentially copyrighted works. Museum exposition - protected Ukrainian copyright law. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Микола Василечко as no permission (No permission since). COM:DW photo is clearly own work, converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Advertising poster - contains multiple copyrighted or potentially copyrighted works, protected Ukrainian copyright law. --Микола Василечко (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded to promote on wikipedia. The associated article is nominated for speedy deletion. Not in wikipedia scope. Nahid Hossain (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Careful: this is not Wikipedia, and that is not a bad photo. However, it's from Facebook and not a selfie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, permission from the artist(s) is/are required/
- File:Bornes IMG 1230 2.jpg
- File:Canne IMG 1229 2.jpg
- File:Lutte continue IMG 1231 2.jpg
- File:Macron IMG 1218 2.jpg
- File:Tete de mort IMG 1228 2.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jackmambo5 (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope, also unlikely to be own work
- File:Despised kids Artur Żurawik.jpg
- File:Despised kids Artur Żurawik show.jpg
- File:Artur Żurawik during concert.jpg
- File:Artur Żurawik show.png
- File:Despised Kids radio.jpg
- File:Artur Żurawik vienna.jpg
- File:Artur Żurawik.png
- File:Artur Żurawik concert.png
- File:Despised Kids Artur Żurawik.jpg
- File:Artur Żurawik.jpg
- File:Stay with me Artur Żurawik.jpg
Didym (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Klaus-Joachim Schrader, "Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen", Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Dieter Höltge died in 2015: [1]. Not PD. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
File:South African pilots pose for a picture before takeoff on another killer sortie in Hargeisa, 1988.png
[edit]
Per en:Talk:Isaaq genocide#'South African' pilots photo, this image isn't what it purports to be. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. The filename and file description can be changed, but the photo cannot be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)- Delete. I see no instance in which the file, given it's actual subject, can be relevantly used. UncleBourbon (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's in use in 2 Wikipedia articles, so what lack of seeing are you talking about? COM:INUSE supersedes the judgments of individuals on Commons. Read the policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's used falsely on both articles; as mentioned in the Isaaq genocide Talk page, these men are not South African mercenaries as portrayed both in the filename and the file's existing usage on other articles. Without the false context, it wouldn't be on these or any other articles since RAF pilots on a visit to Hargeisa in the '90s holds no relevancy. I would happily delete them from the Russian, Portuguese, and Somali wikipedia articles, but I'm not versed in any of the languages, and thus any contestations would be met with needless confusion. It shouldn't be necessary to get a Somali language speaker in order to delete a completely irrelevant photograph that only exists due to it's false information. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Change the file description and request a filename change, but in the meantime, false information is not a reason to delete a photo that's in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image holds no relevance and has no usability with it's accurate information known. UncleBourbon (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I gave you advice on what you can do, and I have nothing more to add. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's in use in 2 Wikipedia articles, so what lack of seeing are you talking about? COM:INUSE supersedes the judgments of individuals on Commons. Read the policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- What do you think would be an accurate and appropriate filename, UncleBourbon? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Something akin to "C-130K crew of No. 30 Squadron RAF pose in front of the tower at Hargeisa Airport in the aftermath of Operation Vigour." UncleBourbon (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've made that request. Once it's renamed, I'll see to getting it removed from the articles, where appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Something akin to "C-130K crew of No. 30 Squadron RAF pose in front of the tower at Hargeisa Airport in the aftermath of Operation Vigour." UncleBourbon (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No obvious reason given, file will be renamed.--A09 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Logo of a band CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- 2.2 million followers on Instagram, 15.5M followers on Tiktok, so he's famous online. However, Delete because it's not a selfie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, he has some notability. I did not look for his name. He might be getting an article in the future, but a you say, it is not a selfie, thus possible copyvio. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: A watermark with a name different from the uploader's appears on the picture CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
?o proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/@FISBANGA CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/@FoltranABN CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFNRUJ3t6MDCXKwiy7yv7xQ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Possible ad CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The picture isn't a violation it's a screenshot from a video under CC. Riad Salih (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed it is under YouTube CC-BY from a official press agency. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted https://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/client/guz-khan Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Copyvio. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a photo of another person's portrait photo, uploaded to Flickr with a less than clear description: Guz Khan, BAFTA Nominee Portrait, 2020 by Rankin National Portrait Gallery means that this is a portrait by an artist who goes by the name Rankin, which was displayed at the National Portrait Gallery (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw304563/Guz-Khan). The original portrait was not taken by Flickr user Amanda Slater and cannot be released under a CC-licence by her.
Crop of the same image at File:Guz Khan (cropped).jpg should also be removed. Belbury (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Il ne s'agit que d'affiches qui sont reproduites à l'infini, ce ne sont pas des œuvres d'art uniques (elles ne sont pas plus soumises à copyright qu'une bagnole) --François GOGLINS (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: the poster is subject to copyright absent a license. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Il s'agit d'affiche syndicale non soumise à copyright. --François GOGLINS (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. the poster is subject to copyright absent a license. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Il s'agit d'une affichette syndicale reproduite à l'infini & qui n'est soumise à aucun copyright. --François GOGLINS (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Yes, the poster is subject to copyright absent a license. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Il s'agit d'affiches syndicales non soumises à copyright. --François GOGLINS (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Yes, the poster is subject to copyright absent a license. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. There is no evidence that the photo was taken in 1953. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it probably comes from: Heinz Kurz, "Die Baureihe VT 10.5. Die Gliedertriebzüge "Senator" und "Komet" der Deutschen Bundesbahn", EK-Verlag, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2016, ISBN 978-3-8446-6025-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no proof of publication 70 years ago. specifically not per nom, which is a wall of barely semi-intelligible text. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Versehentlich von mir hochgeladen Babewyn (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion 2015 upload. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Auf Wunsch des Autors Babewyn (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Versehentlich von mir hochgeladen Babewyn (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion 2015 upload. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Auf Wunsch des Urhebers Babewyn (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Versehentlich von mir hochgeladen Babewyn (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. 7 years is a bit long for a courtesy deletion absent special circumstances. --Xover (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Xover. --Rosenzweig τ 12:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Auf Wunsch des Urhebers Babewyn (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Useful and kept last month. And don't request deletion again in April. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Own own? 186.172.173.70 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. And I am not clear as to why this file has been nominated for deletion. And what does 'own own?' mean? Kindly be specific. MildGovernor (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't know what it means, why did you claim this was your own work? "Own work" means you shot the photo. Did you? If you didn't, who did? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did and I sent the mail to VRT just after uploading the file. MildGovernor (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, cool. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo should presumably be kept, and hopefully, VRT approval will come soon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah man, it is approved now and 'free use' is available. Thank You. MildGovernor (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep. Keep. IP user, will you withdraw this request now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep.
- Yeah man, it is approved now and 'free use' is available. Thank You. MildGovernor (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo should presumably be kept, and hopefully, VRT approval will come soon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK, cool. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did and I sent the mail to VRT just after uploading the file. MildGovernor (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't know what it means, why did you claim this was your own work? "Own work" means you shot the photo. Did you? If you didn't, who did? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Credited to Wolcott Henry: https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/zooxanthellae-and-coral-bleaching, maybe PD because it's published by the Smithsonian, but unclear from the link Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This logo, while under the threshold of originality in the United States, is probably above COM:TOO UK. This is the logo of a U.K.-based band and, per COM:LICENSING, we need the file to be in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work (or content available under a free license). But, in this case, the file is not in the public domain in the United Kingdom due to its extremely low TOO, and there is no evidence of a free license presented here. For that reason, this should be deleted as a file that is non-free in its country of origin for which there is no evidence that the copyright holder issued a free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Even for UK standards this logo is too simple. Read the court decision in COM:TOO UK, we have en:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg as a benchmark there: "The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the "E". What is required for artistic originality is the expenditure of more than negligible or trivial effort or relevant skill in the creation of the work. [...] The claimant's logo is original within this test".
- But in this logo here there is just a very simple standard lettering. This is not comparable to the much more complex lettering in the Edge logo. -- Chaddy (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- We've got some very wide kerning and very intentional alignment of the various letters to make a lattice structure. I worry about the copyright of the arrangement in the UK, more than the copyright associated with the font itself. The U.K. is not limited to looking at "originality", but instead is also concerned Sweat of the brow when looking at these sorts of things; if there was (more than trivial) effort in making the logo, it would be likely copyrighted in the UK. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Getting a lattice structure is very trivial. I can do this with Word or even with Wiki syntax in a short time. You just need a very common monospaced font like i. e. Courier.
- Code:
- <span style="font-family:courier;"> T H E S L O<br /> W R E A D E<br /> R S C L U B </span>
- Result:
T H E S L O
W R E A D E
R S C L U B
- Behalten, der Löschantrag ist einfach nur Nonsens. Ralf Roletschek 14:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Translation: “ Keep, the deletion request is nothing but nonsense.” --Curryfranke (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting find, since it was only used on a user subpage. Wonder how that happened? But somewhat irrelevant anyway now, as the band are using a different logo anyway. Black Kite (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
unlikely under CC BY-SA 2400:4053:9480:7200:5537:A77E:4CAC:C4D9 21:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work - low res, strange exif ("Paweł Zdziech") and recidivism in copyvios by this user in the past Matlin (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Low res, strange exif and recidive in copyvios. Matlin (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work - photo of display Matlin (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
University logo that exceeds COM:TOO. Uploader claims "Own Work" and states "Not own work", then attempts to release it under CC license as "Copyright holder." BigrTex (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Contains a mistake (missing hydroxy group in the bottom right structure); replaced by File:Biosynthesis of flavonoids.svg. Leyo 23:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Furthermore, it's not the Malonyl-CoA anion which is relevant here; more precisely it's the L-Phenylalanine; and the enzyme "Chalcon-Synthase" is missing as well. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No evidence of this commercial logo being licensed CC-BY-SA by the source (Classical Performer) Jonathanischoice (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: simple fonts, PD-textlogo. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Transientwellnesscoach (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PACKAGING issues - labels appear to be above threshold of orginality
Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marco giornalieri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused images with questionable notability and potential copyvio.
TilmannR (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Specifically Skeggia is a relatively small YouTube channel, Robby is a YouTuber with a total of 11 views and La villa del diavolo.jpg is a derivative work (photo of a screen). TilmannR (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Is this single contribution of the user "own work"? Higher resolution can be found here. Copyright. Wouter (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Doubtful if these were taken by the uploader or not. Noticeable description claim is "Spotted magazine photoshoot" in both instances. On top of that, the non-enhanced version ("File:FumiyaSankaiSpottedShoot.jpg") bears a very incomplete metadata that states a user comment: "Screenshot". Doubtful own work as a result for both images.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Probable not self-photographed by Witchturtle (talk · contribs), who had one issue of photo licensing. For this photo, no metadata and apparent degraded photo quality. As no hits were made in Google Lens (reverse image searching) and TinEye, a regular deletion request is commenced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
PD-textlogo doesn't apply Magnus (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Invalid template. Photo was taken in 1958 The picture could not have been published 70 years ago.|source= Stefan Lauscher, Gerhard Moll, Jung-Lokomotiven, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2012 ISBN 978-3-88255-798-5. 1958 German photograph, converting to DR for discussion Abzeronow (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme stammt aus einem Buch von dem EK-Verlag, der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Es gibt also niemanden, den man um eine Erlaubnis fragen könnte. Leider existiert auch keine Aufnahme auf der Eisenbahnstiftung, sodass man mit der Aufnahme vielleicht eine bessere Darstellung des Fahrzeuges erhält. Es handelt sich um einen Scan vom Buch. Eine Aufnahme vom Originalfoto würde schon ganz anders aussehen, von einem Scan vom Negativ ganz zu schweigen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Invalid template. Photo was taken in 1963 The picture could not have been published 70 years ago.|source= Wolfgang Theurich, 160 Jahre Waggonbau in Görlitz 1849 - 2009, Freiburg, EK-Verlag, 1999, ISBN 9783882555646 1963 photograph, converting to DR for discussion Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: 1-https://digitaltmuseum.no/011012598027/ole-winther-laursen-pa-lokomotivet - Ole Winther Laursen died in December 1991. |source= Ingo Hütter, Thorsten Bretschneider, Die Osthannoverschen Eisenbahnen, EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2010, ISBN 9783882557305 Undelete in 2062. Converting to DR for discussion and easier undeletion when this becomes public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme stammt aus einem Buch von OHE, der Fotograf ist mir nicht bekannt. Es gibt also niemanden, den man um eine Erlaubnis fragen könnte. Leider existiert auch keine Aufnahme auf der Eisenbahnstiftung, sodass man mit der Aufnahme vielleicht eine bessere Darstellung des Fahrzeuges erhält. Es handelt sich um einen Scan vom Buch. Eine Aufnahme vom Originalfoto würde schon ganz anders aussehen, von einem Scan vom Negativ ganz zu schweigen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is a named photographer. The only way this could be hosted here before 2062 is for Laursen's heir to contact VRT. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Mass dissemination of a false statement. Information about the author of the photo was provided by the uploader. The photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Invalid template. Photo was taken in 1955 The picture could not have been published 70 years ago.|source= Lothar Hülsmann, Die Georgsmarienhütter Eisenbahnen, Lokrundschau, Gülzow, 2000, ISBN 9783931647117
1955 photograph. Converting to DR for discussion Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1955 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Ein Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht vorhanden. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's possible the photograph was released to the public around 1955. However, 1955 is still after 1952 so it's not public domain in Germany yet. Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1955 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Ein Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht vorhanden. Also könnte man die Aufnahme vielleicht aufheben, da man ja auch niemand hat, den man fragen könnte wegen einer Veröffentlichung. Ein Fotograf würde heute kaum eine Verweigerung geben, da man ganz deutlich den Scan vom Buch sieht, ein Scan vom Originalbild würde ganz anders aussehen, von einem Scan vom Negativ ganz zu schweigen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can't do anything beyond putting this in the Undelete in 2026 category since that would be the soonest this could be hosted on Commons without knowing who the photographer or their heirs were. Commons cares about copyright (which can be a pain sometimes) COM:CARES. I sympathize but 1955 + 70 = the end of 2025. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- It cannot be assumed that the photo was published immediately after it was taken. Copyright is based on irrefutable evidence. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no clear evidence that the photo was published immediately after its publication. Making assumptions is not a valid argument for keeping the picture. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can't do anything beyond putting this in the Undelete in 2026 category since that would be the soonest this could be hosted on Commons without knowing who the photographer or their heirs were. Commons cares about copyright (which can be a pain sometimes) COM:CARES. I sympathize but 1955 + 70 = the end of 2025. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no conclusive evidence that the photo was published earlier than the afromentioned book. Copyright is not about making assumptions. It cannot be assumed without evidence that the photo was published immediately after it was taken. The photograph is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1955 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Ein Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht vorhanden. Also könnte man die Aufnahme vielleicht aufheben, da man ja auch niemand hat, den man fragen könnte wegen einer Veröffentlichung. Ein Fotograf würde heute kaum eine Verweigerung geben, da man ganz deutlich den Scan vom Buch sieht, ein Scan vom Originalbild würde ganz anders aussehen, von einem Scan vom Negativ ganz zu schweigen. Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There is no clear evidence that the photo was published immediately after its publication. Making assumptions is not a valid argument for keeping the picture. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's possible the photograph was released to the public around 1955. However, 1955 is still after 1952 so it's not public domain in Germany yet. Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Invalid template. Photo was taken in August 1953. The picture could not have been published 70 years ago.|source= Klaus-Joachim Schrader, Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen, Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021.
1953 photograph, the soonest this possibly could be undeleted is next year. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1952 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Ein Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht vorhanden. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The date on the file says "25 August 1953" which is after 1952. This was definitely published, whether or not 1979 is the first publication is something that should be found out. Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- es gibt auch leider kein Scan in der Eisenbahnstiftung, des halb kämpfe ich auch für die Aufnahme, obwohl sie von der Qualität her auch nicht die beste ist. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no conclusive evidence that the photo was published earlier than the afromentioned book. Copyright is not about making assumptions. It cannot be assumed without evidence that the photo was published immediately after it was taken. The photograph is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The date on the file says "25 August 1953" which is after 1952. This was definitely published, whether or not 1979 is the first publication is something that should be found out. Abzeronow (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Uoijm77 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Invalid template. Photo was taken in August 1953. The picture could not have been published 70 years ago.|source= Klaus-Joachim Schrader, Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen, Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021
1955 photograph, converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1953 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Ein Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht vorhanden. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Date on the file says 1955. But whether it was taken in 1953 or 1955, the photograph is not public domain in Germany yet. Additionally, we would need evidence that 1979 was not the first publication. If this was a photographic print, I'd argue 1955 was the first publication. Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
no source no permission used for advertising on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://portfolio-collective.com/profile/steven-s-reader-8/activity/2461/#acomment-2464 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://www.digitalpeople.online/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Forrrtunaa files
[edit]
Promo photos of a non-notable person. --Ignatus (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be out of copyright: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/raoul-dufy-latelier-de-impasse-guelma Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Selfie of non-notable person. Even if he were notable, barely no one would be able to identify him on this photo. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio. Magazine Cover, no proof of free license. One of only two contributions of uploader. Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio. Magazine Cover, no proof of free license. One of only two contributions of uploader. Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused selfies by single-time contributor Enyavar (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie Intermerker (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is A selfie, Blurry Intermerker (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
What, who? 186.172.173.70 16:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: see COM:L. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Already exists: File:Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen - Portret van Augustijn van Teylingen - 1625 (OK) - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen.jpg Encycloon (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
_-_Museum_Boijmans_Van_Beuningen.jpg){kind=link}
Oppose This looks like a crop, and is therefore not a duplicate. aismallard (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This is Discord logo, it is unlikely that this is self-work and under CC BY-SA 2400:4053:9480:7200:5537:A77E:4CAC:C4D9 20:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
High school logo scanned by uploader as "own work" and released "as Copyright holder" under CC license. Exceeds COM:TOO. BigrTex (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unencyclopedic image of a 14/15-year old, described as "Prime-minister of the Republic of Awx". Uploaded, as all other uploads of this user, to illustrate a draft in his Sandbox about a fictious country, called a "JOKE" by himself. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- File:Portrait of the President of the Republic of Awx 2023.png
- File:Act of Augusts surrender.png
- File:Viktor Ivanov inauguration.jpg
- File:Laurynas Ivanov inauguration.jpg
- File:Ivanov Antalya Operation signing.png
- File:Flag Republic of Awx Coup.png
- File:Laurynas Ivanov 2019 cropped.jpg
- File:Opinion poll map Awx 2022 December.png
- File:Ivan Rodionov 2022.jpg
- File:Viktor Ivanov Official Portrait.png
- File:Arnold Kristul.jpg
- File:Laurynas's signature.png
- File:Laurynas Ivanov KASH Photo.png
- File:Aris The First.jpg
- File:Coat of arms of the Republic of Awx.png
- File:Flag Republic of Awx.png
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Dodong Goryo
[edit]Appears to be license laundering via YouTube, copyrighted footage from a tan account.
- File:Daniela Alvarez c 03.png
- File:Daniela Alvarez b.png
- File:Daniela Alvarez a 01.png
- File:Daniela Alvarez a 02.png
- File:Daniela Alvarez c 02.png
- File:Daniela Alvarez c 01.png
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- YouTubeにCC BYの条件のもとアップロードされていたので著作権については問題なかろうと判断したまでです。I cannot write English. --ねこの森には帰れない (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright infringement; looks to be a scan from a photo set (https://www.suruga-ya.jp/product/detail/G4220016) from a release event by DABA related to this: DABA～Memorial Year Party～午年だよ☆ほぼ全員集合!! 2601:643:C100:2610:F866:62DE:DCBD:A579 20:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1994. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Wolfgang Herdam, "Die Köln-Bonner Eisenbahnen". EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1994, ISBN 3-88255-540-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1910 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Wenn man zu faul dazu ist, nach dem Ausmusterungsdatum der Lok zu schauen, ein Löschantrag zu stellen ist einfacher? Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep ein Foto was vor über 100 Jahren entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is obviously an old picture published long ago, as halftone is visible. --Yann (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Unidentified person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 02:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is unlikely to be the photographer, No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Book cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- You may find the CC attribution just right in the book. SergioOren (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to have non-commercial restrictions: "Публикуется под лицензией Creative Commons Разрешается любое некоммерческое воспроизведение со ссылкой на источник" translates to "Published under a Creative Commons license Any non-commercial reproduction is permitted with reference to the source" per Google. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Potential seizure trigger, out of scope, only in use on a single inactive user’s page Dronebogus (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Derogatory filename. Probably vandalism. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Attack image not used on a Wiki project, likely fails COM:SCOPE. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope? Lukas Beck (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - If preferred I'll crop the image but either way I assume we don't have as many night images of Big Ben as we do daytime ones so on that basis keep. –Davey2010Talk 16:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- disagree, even if we crop the image, the tower is still very blurry. It is true, that we have more images of daytime, than nicht shots, but there are still more than 250 files, showing the Big Ben at night. And most of them would have a better quality than this file. It's to blurry to be useful in my opinion. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies I didn't look at what cats this was in at the time of writing of my !vote - As this is in Category:Elizabeth Tower at night and indeed as there's 250 better images there is obviously no valid reason to keep, I do think the image is pretty cool but is it useable ? .... Not really. Delete. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies I didn't look at what cats this was in at the time of writing of my !vote - As this is in Category:Elizabeth Tower at night and indeed as there's 250 better images there is obviously no valid reason to keep, I do think the image is pretty cool but is it useable ? .... Not really.
- disagree, even if we crop the image, the tower is still very blurry. It is true, that we have more images of daytime, than nicht shots, but there are still more than 250 files, showing the Big Ben at night. And most of them would have a better quality than this file. It's to blurry to be useful in my opinion. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I'd keep it as a photo with deliberate camera motion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Sociedade vaqueira e do couro, ciclo do couro, civilização do couro, sertões de dentro.png
[edit]
Cropped image from https://brainly.com.br/tarefa/42630036 - "acervo Augusto Junior", in 2021 site. André Koehne TALK TO ME 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Need It? 186.175.117.188 18:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Can you clarify what you mean? aismallard (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File with a better quality needs to be uploaded Warmglow (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like a screenshot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per user:Ikan, taken from Whatsapp. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
A formal PR picture and the photographer is mentioned in the file's details (in Hebrew). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (Google Translate of credit: "Given by Or Parboznik"). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Does not look like own work. Would you mind uploading the source SVG? Syced (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no copyrightable elements (see File:Flag of Portugal.svg). Maybe redundant. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I no longer own the rights to the image. IKPlusOne (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: coutesy deletion of personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I no longer own the rights to the image. IKPlusOne (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Question What happened? You sold them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @IKPlusOne please see above question. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: You never owned the rights: this is just a crop of another freely licensed image on Commons. In use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I no longer own the rights to the image. IKPlusOne (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: You never owned the rights: this is just a crop of another freely licensed image on Commons. In use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abu Dhabi Racing (talk · contribs)
[edit]If these were uploaded by an official representative on behalf of Abu Dhabi Racing and Abu Dhabi Racing is the copyright holder of these images, then they will need to email COM:VRT from an official account to confirm.
- File:Amna F4 test.jpg
- File:KHALED AL QUBAISI Le Mans tes 2016.jpg
- File:Sheikh Khalid Al Qassimi - WINNER - Abu Dhabi Desert Challenge 2017.jpg
- File:Sheikh Khalid Al Qassimi - WRC Rally Finland 2017.jpg
- File:Sheikh Khalid bin Faisal Al Qassimi.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Inconsistent credits in EXIF data. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a private picture. Vyolltsa (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Request by uploader more than a year after upload. In use in their user page. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of easily replacable image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Atlantis AVM ve Batımerkez İstasyonunun önünde, "allah yok" grafitisi, modern primat dondurmasıyla poz veriyor.jpg
[edit]
Out of scope: Self-promotion or vandalism/attack Emreoyun (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is vandalism?: it is literally not.
- how it is self promotion?: there is no promotion?
- how it is out of project scope?: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara%27daki_al%C4%B1%C5%9Fveri%C5%9F_merkezleri_listesi take a look "atlantis", it is notable. also im using this in my userpage. @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, it is literally me. there is no reason to delete it. i wonder why you put this in nomination @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful
- The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on.
- You clearly admitted you in the photo which falls under photos of yourself and your friends criteria. Emreoyun (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is self promotion?: Photo name includes your username. Emreoyun (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- for example: File:Frown (4379487517).jpg this photo is nothing really diffrent with the nominated photo. man showing himself "at the exit gate of Wollaton Park.". i just over-censored myself and posted it.
- man, there is tons of photos that shows users themself(look: Category:Portraits at Wikimedia Summit 2022) . also nominated photo is not "photos of yourself and your friends" because there is only me and nothing else. take a look at "and", your claim would be true if there is "or". (p.s.: i have no friends :( ..) . also, i live in ankara, how can i do vacation in my own city?
- my purpose to put my name into file name is to specify that is diffrent from other file, look: File:"nmc" "allah yok", graifiti batımerkez istasyonu önünde.jpg(interestingly you edited this file and didnt put it in nomination, why?). also look: File:Basak and Sakhalinio at Aptullah Kuran Library.jpg. so, you should understand: users can put their name in file name with no aim to promote anything.
- -
- and...... where is vandalism/attack? write it please. @Emreoyun . oh, is it "allah yok"? if there is really "vandalism/attack" you should contact an admin "and/or" report. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 13:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also look: File:WondaBoi EricGeso Rockash.jpg this is the real "photos of yourself and your friends"
- other discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis AVM ve Batımerkez İstasyonunun önünde, "allah yok" grafitisi, modern primat.jpg . @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- This topic called self-promo / vandalism together. I can't say you are vandalise something. This is not the case. The thing I'm saying is it might contain self-promotion by the name. This conversation is opened just for talking about, not attacking or vandalism. I inspected your case and I have no other objections. Thanks for your time. Emreoyun (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is self promotion?: Photo name includes your username. Emreoyun (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, it is literally me. there is no reason to delete it. i wonder why you put this in nomination @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: in use on userpage of active contributor. A few personal images are allowed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Self-promotion or vandalism/attack Emreoyun (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is vandalism?: it is literally not.
- how it is self promotion?: there is no promotion?
- how it is out of project scope?: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara%27daki_al%C4%B1%C5%9Fveri%C5%9F_merkezleri_listesi take a look "atlantis", it is notable. also im using this in my userpage. @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, it is literally me. there is no reason to delete it. i wonder why you put this in nomination @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful
- The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include:
- Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on.
- You clearly admitted you in the photo which falls under photos of yourself and your friends criteria. Emreoyun (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is self promotion?: Photo name includes your username. Emreoyun (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- for example: File:Frown (4379487517).jpg this photo is nothing really diffrent with the nominated photo. man showing himself "at the exit gate of Wollaton Park.". i just over-censored myself and posted it.
- man, there is tons of photos that shows users themself(look: Category:Portraits at Wikimedia Summit 2022) . also nominated photo is not "photos of yourself and your friends" because there is only me and nothing else. take a look at "and", your claim would be true if there is "or". (p.s.: i have no friends :( ..) . also, i live in ankara, how can i do vacation in my own city?
- my purpose to put my name into file name is to specify that is diffrent from other file, look: File:"nmc" "allah yok", graifiti batımerkez istasyonu önünde.jpg(interestingly you edited this file and didnt put it in nomination, why?). also look: File:Basak and Sakhalinio at Aptullah Kuran Library.jpg. so, you should understand: users can put their name in file name with no aim to promote anything.
- -
- and...... where is vandalism/attack? write it please. @Emreoyun . oh, is it "allah yok"? if there is really "vandalism/attack" you should contact an admin "and/or" report. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 13:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also look: File:WondaBoi EricGeso Rockash.jpg this is the real "photos of yourself and your friends"
- other discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis AVM ve Batımerkez İstasyonunun önünde, "allah yok" grafitisi, modern primat dondurmasıyla poz veriyor.jpg . @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- This topic called self-promo / vandalism together. I can't say you are vandalise something. This is not the case. The thing I'm saying is it might contain self-promotion by the name. This conversation is opened just for talking about, not attacking or vandalism. I inspected your case and I have no other objections. Thanks for your time. Emreoyun (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- how it is self promotion?: Photo name includes your username. Emreoyun (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- also, it is literally me. there is no reason to delete it. i wonder why you put this in nomination @Emreoyun ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use on userpage of active contributor. A few personal images are allowed. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Could not detect notability of the person (w:ru:Гукасян, Арман), likely placed here fkr self-promotion, out of project scope Ignatus (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Mapa da Capitania da Bahia, Mapa da Capitania da Bahia de todos os Santos, 1715, 1718, 1700.png
[edit]
copyrighted image from IBGE (see legend in own image). False author André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yamato15
[edit]- File:OIP (120).jpg
- File:OIP (7).jpg
- File:Download (549).jpg
- File:OIPA (6).jpg
- File:OIPA (5).jpg
- File:OIP (58).jpg
- File:0911f8b087c82f3033a29478f146cd00--wwii-military-weapons (1).jpg
- File:Download_(120).jpg
- File:5CA (45).jpg
- File:Download (58).jpg
- File:OIP (35).jpg
- File:OIP (45).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Images not own work:
- OIP 120 is PD, as indicated here, but it is nonetheless in very poor resolution
- Download 120 is a frame from Space Battleship Yamato
- All the other images are colourisations, which as shown by this album, are from someone named Irotooko Jr, and are copyright violations.
--Loafiewa (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- If OIP 120 is PD, let's keep it until we get a better res version to replace it. It is used in mainspace. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept one: PD as stated. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Blogspot 186.172.173.70 16:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, fails WP:LR. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation from Celso Lopes. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Image can be found at the site The Caribbean Camera Inc, here & here. PascalHD (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: uploaded to Commons on Jan. 3 in full resolution c/w metadata. Webpages above are dated Jan. 5 and images there are mere thumbnails - likely copied the other way around. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Self promotion. See other files by the same person please. 186.173.253.229 20:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No need. There's nothing promotional in the file description or categories, and it's in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Even if this was "self promotion" (though I can't see any evidence to support that view) Commons does not have any major concerns with promotional material. We want creators to release the rights of in-scope images and we don't have any particular hang ups over their reasons (as long as the licence is valid). You may be trying to apply the thought process of one of the Wikipedias (or other Wikimedia project) that has problems caused by self-promotion activity breaching their own policies. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution images with unusual proportions and Facebook EXIF, and unclear references to a Victoria Newman. User's third image of this person (File:Default (2).jpg) was similar, and turned out to be a piece of news footage with the headline cropped out.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:The Millionair Rudy Kousbroek,Victoria Newman.jpg
- File:Victoria Newman Rudy Kousbroek The Millionair Arnhem.jpg
Belbury (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Likely not own works as per same reasons above. 2 of these are crops of the previously deleted files. BTW, they look like stalking pics, taken without knowledge or consent.
- File:Victoria Newman Rudy Kousbroek The Millionair Arnhem (2).jpg
- File:42384f83f003099b537f92f6999133e0 (1).jpg
- File:Victoria Newnan Rudy Kousbroek The Millionair.jpg
- File:Rudy Kousbroek,Victoria Newman.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete given the history of heavily cropping news screenshots. I'd assume they were stills of a documentary about Kousbroek that only contains a few candid shots of the subject. Belbury (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope as COM:TEXT, possibly libellous claim being made about a named person finding another named person dead in 2022.
Belbury (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a stock photo from her 2015 album, not an original work. It says by Lee Walker and I found it listed online at https://www.saintfrancisumc.org/blog/claire-holley and at Los Angeles Magazine. So "own image" looks bogus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
-20230317062600-File:Claire_Holley_in_Hattiesburg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Building is a modern one. There is no Freedom of Panorama in Greece. Texniths (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Building is a modern one. There is no Freedom of Panorama in Greece Texniths (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Violation of artist's copyright. This commercially-licensed photo infringes on the artwork author's copyright; the artwork was made in 1990 and authored by w:fr:Raymond Moretti who died in 2005. French copyright law prohibits free uses of public works and art still under artists' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 09:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed the license. Riad Salih (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Seems OK? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- yes Riad Salih (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek can you please remove the nomination tag. Riad Salih (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- yes Riad Salih (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. I have no authority to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: This is not a halftone, so there is no evidence that it was published prior to its upload here. The copyright clock in Algeria does not start until publication. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SKD TKO 將軍澳南 Tseung Kwan O South Promenade Waterfront construction site n banner January 2023 Px3.jpg
[edit]
Copyrighted poster in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kano Tchapi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most of their uploads deleted for copyvio. These four are possibly copyvio. No metadata. Low resolution.
- File:Lady Sonia.jpg
- File:Modeste mopa fatoing.jpg
- File:Ghislaine Tessa Ketcha.png
- File:ROM-SQUARE.jpg
—Yahya (talk • contribs.) 11:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Mon compte avait été manipuler par une personne de mauvais foie. Cet acte ne se refera plus Kano Tchapi (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- [google translation]: ‘My account had been manipulated by a bad person. This act will never happen again’ —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Evotista
[edit]- File:SB19 Member STELL Signature.jpg
- File:SB19 Member PABLO Signature.jpg
- File:SB19 Member KEN Signature.jpg
- File:SB19 Member JUSTIN Signature.jpg
- File:SB19 Member JOSH Signature.jpg
Uploaded by sockpuppet per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gobautista, incorrect licensing, and per COM:PHILIPPINES and COM:SIG. — Paper9oll 05:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Matisse has not been dead for 70 years. His work will enter the public domain next year. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)
[edit]These YouTube channels quite clearly take media from celebrities' social media so it is very unlikely that the Creative Commons license is valid.
Dylsss (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - They've clearly been taken from the respective celebrities social medias. –Davey2010Talk 21:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Bidgee (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely own work. Small file sizes, poor quality, and no one has own work on record albums.
- File:Iloveyoulive.jpg
- File:Themanwhosoldtheworldbowie.png
- File:Gattoin2010.png
- File:Vulcanoin2010.png
- File:Quinnin2010.png
- File:Chris Isaak 2017.png
- File:Lulu-the-man-who-sold-the-world-polydor-s.jpg
- File:Chris issak performing.PNG
- File:Chris issak 2018.PNG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ellin Beltz You have to be kidding me. The Billie Eilish photo belongs to my OWN SISTER! She took the photo and gave me permission to use it! Meaning I can upload wherever the hell I want! The impractical joker photos were uploaded by James Murray (comedian). One of the main four of the show. The Chris Issac one is perfect quality and was uploaded by someone else. And the music ones provide coverage to "primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". This is so ridiculous. I am taking this to an admin ASAP. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - Clearly copyrighted images. Also the images are so tiny they're effectively useless, Images should be deleted and uploader above should be blocked for this theatrical performance. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- 1 image was linked to Ebay, Another was to Flickr with a CC licence (not sure if this is legit but to be safe it should be deleted) and the rest being from the uploader themselves. Bar Flickr the rest are copyrighted it's obvious. –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Even by admission File:Iloveyoulive.jpg isn't the uploader's own work, doesn't matter if it was a still from a video that a family member filmed, it doesn't make it your own work. However I have serious doubts that is the case. I also find it interesting that the uploader uses png for photographs, File:Chris Isaak 2017.png for example should've been cropped from the original jpg as a jpg (Commons has a tool for that type of thing). Bidgee (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The description for File:Chris Isaak 2017.png states it's extracted from File:Hall And Oates with Chris Isaak - The O2 - Saturday 28th October 2017 HallOatesO2281017-26 (24446890518).jpg; so, unless this isn't the case or the source image is also a copyvio, a crop can't be a copyvio, can it? If the only problem is the format, then it seems that a new crop could be created in the same format as the original. It doesn't, however, make sense to delete the crop as a copyvio unless the original is also deleted for the same reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um, actually no, we're not kidding you. According to COM:L, the images we host for free have to have certain kinds of licenses. "My sister" and "my friend" is not "own work." If you can get the actual photographer's permission, please have them fill in the really simple email form at COM:OTRS. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC) PS: I am an admin
. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC) - Comment: Shoot for the Stars' version of "File:Themanwhosoldtheworldbowie.png" was unsourced and missing a status tag, although the image itself would probably have been fine if it had been sourced and tagged. Anyway, it was overwritten by another user with a different image (about the same topic) with a source and status tags. Not sure what to do with that. The usurpation of a filename (instead of uploading under a different filemane) is not a good move. But maybe it can be acceptable if the previous unsourced version is deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)
[edit]Originally tagged as "no permission", as the uploader assigned {{PD-USGov}} as the license and the photos were sourced to the Fairfield (CT) Police Department, which is not a part of the federal government. The uploader has since changed the license to File:Stephen Buchanan Mugshot.webp to {{PD-author}} citing https://www.nj.gov/nj/legal.html, which doesn't work, because it's for the state government of New Jersey, not Connecticut.
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep It states that in the US state of Connecticut, "mugshots are considered public record, there are no exemptions in the Act that prohibits public access and anyone can retrieve them." Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Shoot for the Stars I think you had the correct link that dealt with mugshots in Connecticut (https://connecticut.staterecords.org/criminal.php) but changed to an incorrect link that deals with accident reports. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - A public record is not usually PD -- Everything on the web is public, but very little of it is free of copyright restrictions. Connecticut is not one of the limited number of states that does not claim copyright in its works. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I am the original uploader of this file. At the time of photography (several years ago), the property was a small business (bed & breakfast) listed on Google Maps and other public listings. I took the photograph after visiting that establishment. Since then it seems to have been sold, as quick searches on sites such as Zillow indicate.
I received an email asking if this published file could be removed, citing privacy/security concerns. The message explains it was purchased and is now used as a private residence (as opposed to a business), and that the residents are receiving threats. Notably, the house appears to be blurred on Google Maps, likely at the request of the residents.
While the file is obviously still CC-BY-SA legally, I feel that it would be reasonable to grant a courtesy deletion in this case. aismallard (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm OK with a courtesy deletion, but why are the residents receiving threats? WTF? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Unclear, that was not specified in the email. What was noted was that the Commons image was linked to them in an attempt to intimidate. aismallard (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - This could be deleted if the actual property owner(s) make a formal request using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The source image of this derivative work was deleted from Commons in 2011 (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cicely Mary Baker memorialplaquette.jpg). The core image is by Cicely Mary Barker (Q2272617) who was a British artist that died in 1973. Life +70 years would mean the source work for this derivative will still be protected until at least 1 January 2044. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also File:CMB-memorial-pl-mod-lavender.jpg which is stated as being another derivative from the same source file that was deleted in the discussion above. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The reason of deletion of the memorial plate is that the plate is the copyrighted material. The pictures and messages on the memorial plate surface are the copyrighted material in total. But the partial photo of the memorial plate surface is an outdoors landscape, which is non-copyrighted material. Photo of something located in public place and outdoors (that is, open place) does not violate copyrights. (But the total plate surface is the constituted material by the Croydon society and copyrighted material. Therefore, the photo of total scene of the memorial plate was deleted. But partial figure of the plate was not deleted, since it is not copyright violation. --Flora fon Esth (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please see COM:FOP UK. Freedom of panorama in the UK does not cover 2D "graphic works." Specifically, "Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder." From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- They are not photos of independent 2D drawings, nor artworks. There are copyright holders in 2D artworks, posters or murals. The memorial plate contains several images and photos and letters, which constitute the total image of the memorial plate. The Croydon society might not have the copyrights of those element 2D images and photos, but they got licenses from the copyright holders of them to use them in their memorial plate. Therefore, the figure of total memorial plate is copyrighted material, and the Croydon society is the copyright-holder of it. The memorial plate is not itself 2D drawing nor 2D artwork. It is the constitution of images and photos (of Cicely etc.) and letters. Total figure of the plate is the copyrighted stuff. But it is a kind of building, not a kind of murals nor posters. Originally the photo was that of memorial plate. Not photo of 2D drawing, nor mural, nor poster.
- Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.
- The memorial plate does not meet with this definition. It is not 2D artworks, nor graphic works. It is the work which describes the life and figure of the artist, Cicely Mary Barker, using copy of her artworks and photos of her. Two partial images contain the apparent proofs that they are really part of memorial plate. If you view these proofs, you should think these are part of photo of memorial plate, but not photo of each artistic work. And the memorial plate is no doubt a building or kind of fixed structure to memorize the artist Cicely. As a result of cropping, they look like photo of artistic work, but they are originally not photo of graphic artwork. The images by Cicely are used as, in a sense, graphic citation, not showing independent artwork. And cropping seems to have been done to keep these graphic citation conditions. If you disagree, show the clear guidelines meeting with these cases/situations. (This guideline doesn't seem to mention or explain these cases. --Flora fon Esth (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I am not an administrator, I am unable to see the images in their original context. I can therefore only make a nomination based on the information recorded on the remaining files and that these images are derived from a work that breached our copyright rules. I am willing to consider any additional information you or other editors provide in this discussion but we will be partially reliant on the closing administrator checking the deleted source file to verify the situation.
- Now, getting to your points here, you say that this is not a 2D "graphic work" nor a 2D "work of artistic craftsmanship" but instead is a 3D work. Is that correct? One of the comments in the 2010/2011 discussion says it is a 2D work though.
- You say that the overall work included copyrighted works belonging to various copyright holders but that the "Croydon society" obtained licences to recreate those copyrighted works in their plate. That makes the plate itself a derivative work containing various copyrighted elements.
- The fact that licences were required to create the plate lends weight to the fact that the image here is of a copyrightable element. We would need a licence either from the current copyright owner of the original work or (if the Croydon society was given a right to sublicence the work under terms that Commons can accept) a licence from the Croydon society.
- To retain the image there are a few possible routes:
- We are able to demonstrate this is either a 2D "work of artistic craftsmanship" or a 3D work. As the original deletion discussion says it wasn't, I don't think this option will be successful.
- We demonstrate that the particular images used in these derivative works are somehow in the public domain. If they are copies/derivatives of work by Cicely Mary Barker then they are unlikely to be PD before 2044.
- We obtain a suitable licence from the current copyright owner (possibly the estate of Cicely Mary Barker).
- We obtain a suitable licence from the Croydon society (assuming they had been granted the right to sublicence on terms we can accept). From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- They are not photos of independent 2D drawings, nor artworks. There are copyright holders in 2D artworks, posters or murals. The memorial plate contains several images and photos and letters, which constitute the total image of the memorial plate. The Croydon society might not have the copyrights of those element 2D images and photos, but they got licenses from the copyright holders of them to use them in their memorial plate. Therefore, the figure of total memorial plate is copyrighted material, and the Croydon society is the copyright-holder of it. The memorial plate is not itself 2D drawing nor 2D artwork. It is the constitution of images and photos (of Cicely etc.) and letters. Total figure of the plate is the copyrighted stuff. But it is a kind of building, not a kind of murals nor posters. Originally the photo was that of memorial plate. Not photo of 2D drawing, nor mural, nor poster.
- I understand what you say and your points. I know the genuine derivative artworks of the original artworks of Cicely Barker will be PD only after 2044 (that is, 70 years after the death of the artist). However, I have some opinion or interpretation of this situation. I'm very glad and thankful for you, please listen to my personal opinion.
- I think you and other people may consider that these two photo images (Poppy and Lavender) are the photos of flower fairy pictures drawn by Cicely Mary Barker. It is right in the one view point. But there may be the other view point, though strangely sounded. The memorial plate is the 3D structure, while the graphic pattern on the surface of the plate is the 2D compiled work. 1) In the first photo, it was photo of 3D object (deleted). 2) In the modified, processed picture, it was 2D image (deleted as well). The Croydon society established the 3D object in a public place, on which surface there are the graphic pattern and English statement. The problem of whether 3D work or 2D work may be due to these two now deleted images.
- The important point is that 2D work on the surface is a derivative work or not. I think there is the possibility that 2D work is not derivative work. The 2D work consists of 3 type materials, 1) English statement or explanation, 2) several images of flower fairy and Christian related scene, 3) several Cicely related photos. The major purpose of this 2D content is to state and explain the life and activities of Cicely Mary Barker for her memorial. Images and photos are auxiliary materials for this purpose. The statement of the life of the artist is the most large part in the plate. For instance, it starts as follows:
This garden commemorates the highly acclaimed local artist and writer Cicely Mary Barker, who is known throughout the world for her delightful Flower Fairies[TM] paintings. ...Cicely Mary Barker was born in Croydon on the 28 June 1895 and lived most of her life in The Waldrons, South Croydon. ...
— from the Memorial Plaquette (Quotation)
- English sentences are major content of the plate. In addition to this statement:
- At the left side - two photos (young Cicely and house), one fairy image (Lavender).
- At the middle - one small fairy image, and a bit large fairy image (Poppy) and Croydon society logo.
- At the right side - one photo and two Christian related pictures, and one image of two fairies.
- On the plate, there are four flower fairy images, three photos, and two religious pictures. Most of images and photos are pretty small. Poppy fairy image is relatively large. The two images in question are those of Lavender fairy and Poppy fairy. In the total view, I think it is difficult to say this is derivative work of Cicely's works. Major content is the statement and scripts.
- ... it (evidence of the intentions of the maker) is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art.
- ... typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, .. (what is "work of artistic craftsmanship") from the Guideline
- I think the maker (creator) of this plate possibly had not the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. The purpose of creating the plate is possibly stating commemoration of Cicely Mary Barker, and describing her life and activities, not creating artistic tableu. So it is questionable that plate is derivative work. The plate is rather like a kind of stained glass with long statement. It is rather "work of artistic craftsmanship". Cropping process strengthened the impression of flower fairy images, but in the original plate, they were colorful ornament.
- The memorial plate is 3D object, fixed structure. 2D work on the surface of it does not look like graphic work, nor 2D artwork. The memorial plate is substantially 3D work. It contains long statement, and the Croydon society might possess the copyrights of this message and arrangement of the plate. Total image was deleted by this reason.
- At the bottom of the plate, there is the copyrights info. It says:
- Copyright (C) The Estate of Cicely Mary Barker 1944, 1990. By permission of Frederick Warne.
- Cicely Mary Barker as a young woman. Courtesy of Martin Barker.
- The copyright holder of fairy images is Frederick Warne, according to this info. Is permission of Frederick Warne required here? I don't think it is required. Because it is the 3D object in the public place, and not 2D graphic artwork. Permission of Frederick Warne was given to the memorial plate which is thought to have been planned to be placed in the public place from the first. We may think the permission was given to the 3D object. We may also think the Section 62 freedom is effective in this case. One problem is that the surface pattern of plate itself copyrighted, so the total photo of plate is not allowed without permission of the Estate of CMB here, but for the partial images of flower fairy, the permission isn't required in this case.
- Conclusions:
- The plate is the 3D work with fairy images on its surface. Frederick Warne had given permission of fairy images for this 3D work which would be decided to be placed in the public place. (The fairy images are ornamental element, not the main subject element, differing from a mural or poster).
- In addition, the 2D work on the surface is rather "work of artistic craftsmanship". -- Flora fon Esth (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- English sentences are major content of the plate. In addition to this statement:
Deleted: per nomination - While it is likely that the makers of the plate have a license to display the works, it is very unlikely that they have a license which allows them to freely license the work to others. This cannot be kept unless someone can convince VRT that the heirs of the artist have granted a free license to the works. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is the evidence that this is a copyright violation? It doesn't show up on a TinEye search. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep no proof with TinEye.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely own work: compare to [2] + this user cannot be trusted per their deleted uploads. Cc. @From Hill To Shore, Panam2014, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: from previous discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
University alternate logo. Image source was never archived. No evidence of CC license. Branding Toolkit on University Site does not claim copyright, but appears to exceed COM:TOO. BigrTex (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
University alternate logo. If uploader created image, then it is a derivative and would require license from original. No evidence of CC license. Branding Toolkit on University Site does not claim copyright, but appears to exceed COM:TOO. BigrTex (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
_GH35182_(8002209288).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_GH35182_(8002209288).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Flickr account says "This account is part of an effort to make available a collection of about 16,000 images of botanical specimens relevant to botany in the Philippines. The images were mostly taken by the late Leonardo Co, a leading Filipino Botanist. Prior to his death, I studied under him briefly at the University of the Philippines- Diliman. Sir Leonard used these images when identifying new specimens and shared them widely. I am hoping to continue his mission of education and awareness by making them more accessible to students and researchers online" There's no indication that the Flickr user inherited Leonard Co's copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
_GH35182_(8002209288).jpg){kind=link}
- Did you ask him to provide a VRT? --RAN (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I guess rereading it, I should have worded that as the About page for the Flickr account said. https://www.flickr.com/people/85725978@N07 I don't have a Flickr account, but I suppose creating one and asking the Flickr user would save some trouble. Abzeronow (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Greetings. Wouldn't this be considered a "scan" of the original content from 1919? Does taking a picture of the content create a separate work? Also interesting to consider that the purpose of the work is to aid identification. I see this as Leonardo Co having shared copies of the material that was produced from 1919. Thanks for checking into this. Terrickisaiah555 (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the object photographed were considered a 2D artwork from the 1910s, it could be public domain. We'd have to consider when this plant specimen was revealed to the public, but I was only considering the photograph itself because I thought the plant wouldn't be considered original enough. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Interestingly, since herbarium sheets are often created in a standardized way, they may lack the criteria that qualify them as being creative works and may not qualify for copyright protection. Scans and photos of them do not appear to be protected either. I also believe the creation date of the item would take precedence over its presentment to the public. This article ([3]https://riojournal.com/article/12502/) goes in depth on the subject and seems to indicate that unless there is a creative aspect to the presentation which gives it individually (which would be in opposition to the standard sample submission) that it would not likely be eligible. Terrickisaiah555 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the object photographed were considered a 2D artwork from the 1910s, it could be public domain. We'd have to consider when this plant specimen was revealed to the public, but I was only considering the photograph itself because I thought the plant wouldn't be considered original enough. Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted:
- There are two potential copyright here. One for the arrangement of the specimen on the sheet and the other for the photograph of the sheet. I accept the argument that the arrangement on the sheet is standardized and therefore below the ToO. However, Bridgeman does not apply here as this is not a 2D item. The photograph has a copyright. We are told that Leonard Co (1953-2010) was the photographer so the photograph will have a Filipino copyright until 50 years from publication and a US copyright until 95 years from publication.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
_GH35182_(8002209288).jpg){kind=link}
_by_Mihailo_Grbic.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Mihailo_Grbic.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I am sceptical of the uploader's claim to be the artist, as they have uploaded a number of other artworks with false authorship claims. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
_by_Mihailo_Grbic.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
_by_Mihailo_Grbic.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this being a copyright violation? It doesn't show up on a TinEye search. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep no proof with TinEye.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Appears elesewhere on the web in a Google search. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"Lucas da Feira" was died in 1849: it's impossible this user to do the "author". In pt-wiki https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_da_Feira this photo have as legend: "imagem de um livro" ("image from a book"). Sorry my bad English André Koehne TALK TO ME 13:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Crop of a Tajikistani stamp. Although the original stamp artwork is marked PD, but because the underlying work is a copyrighted film, cropping to focus on Bruce Lee infringes on the filmmaker's copyright, as the use here is not de minimis. The intent of this crop isn't to show the stamp, but to show the film still. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Sad to say that these portraits can't be hosted on Commons per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Drawings_based_on_photographs, as they all appear to be hand-drawn copies of specific photographs. There's some creative alterations to the hair and clothing, but the poses are identical when superimposed over the original.
- File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg = https://i.pinimg.com/474x/3a/f5/e5/3af5e5bd20cda0485b2a9128895213d1.jpg
- File:Portrait Sam Bourcier pcw.jpg = https://www.canal-u.tv/sites/default/files/import/ancien_site/media/images/photo/bourcier1.jpg
- Permission asked 02/06/2023 Sam Bourcier Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Galyn Görg (1964-2020).jpg = https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/howtogetawaywithmurderabc/images/9/97/Galyn_G%C3%B6rg.png
- Ref site : https://fr.e-talenta.eu/members/profile/galyn-gorg
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 Transfered to recipient by e-talenta Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Lily Pastré.jpg = https://www.archives13.fr/cms/thumb/generate/800x600/lily_pastre_dr_1.jpg
- File:Claude Grison.jpg = https://www.industries-cosmetiques.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/inno-2014-grison.jpg
- Ref site: https://www.cnrs.fr/fr/personne/claude-grison
- Permission asked 02/06/2023 Thibaut Vergoz, answer 02/06/2023 : yes - transfered to VRTS Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, I confirm: Permission given by the photographer on 2023-02-19 per Ticket:2022102810010733. --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Nicole Catala.jpg = https://gw.geneanet.org/public/img/media/deposits/40/cc/11333374/medium.jpg
- Ref site : https://www.geneanet.org/media/public/catala-nicole-1936-11256371
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 https://www.geneanet.org/profil/wikifrat Waltercolor (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ref site: https://www.linfo.re/france/politique/nicole-catala-l-ancienne-ministre-de-jacques-chirac-est-morte
- Permission asked 02/07/2023 SIPA Waltercolor (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- File:Laxmi Vijay Gautam.jpg = https://indianews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Dr-Laxmi-Gautam.jpg
- File:Marguerite Perey - portrait.jpg = https://wp2.rinconeducativo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/perey_marguerite_profesora.jpg
- File:Yuki Okoda.jpg = https://apps.adm.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/WEB_info/p/pub/4037/okoda.jpg
- File:Susie Cooper.jpg = https://bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.brighton.ac.uk/dist/f/7326/files/2020/07/Susie-Cooper-RDI-%C2%A9Wedgwood-MuseumWWRD.jpg Permission asked mail 02/08/2023
- File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg = https://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/chem/images/media/carol-robinson2.jpg
- File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg = https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao9I9c8tFhg/maxresdefault.jpg
- File:Matilde Urrutia.png = https://cdn.en.citaliarestauro.com/q:i/r:0/wp:1/w:1/u:https://en.citaliarestauro.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/matilde-y-pablo.jpg
- File:Marthe Gautier.jpg = http://www.pcuc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marthe-gautier.jpg
_-_portrait.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Belbury (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Abusive accusation. It's inspired and there are enough alterations. In all cases, it's hard to determine a unique conclusion about ALL files, so each file should be treated separately. What's more, this one might be in the public domain. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely, these should be reviewed case by case and each one kept or deleted as appropriate.
- If the Lily Pastré portrait is based on a public domain photograph, we should keep the drawing, and also upload the original. In context on the host site, https://www.archives13.fr/n/cycle-les-provencaux-dans-l-histoire/n:178 says © Photo Lily Pastré - DR - it also appears at https://acjp.fr/uploads/articles/5ac17894a8dff76e150b359b65a20423.pdf credited to Coll. Famille Pastré, in neither case with any year for the first date of publication.
- I disagree that there are "enough alterations", for the images listed above. The Commons copyright summary I link to says that If you yourself have made a drawing based on a copyrighted photo, you need the permission of the photographer before uploading your drawing here - if the underlying depiction of a person's face is a tracing or close copy of a single specific copyrighted image, redrawing the hair or depicting different clothing doesn't change the derivative aspect of the face.
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Stephencdickson was a similar case from 2018 where a Commons artist had apparently been given the (bad) advice that tracing and redrawing copyrighted 20th century portraits was sufficient to remove the copyright from them. Belbury (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury : Tracing is not a derivative work, it's a new work, cause there do not exist any tracings in a photography. There are no lines separating spaces. There are only values of contrast and color and it's human being who interpret some tresholds as limits of a form and synthetise the information of a human face by a lot of parameter (yes natural intelligence existed before the artificial one).
- The drawing by lines to render graphically a perceived limit of contrast or color is only a subjective decision of the person which draws. I recommend you try yourself to redraw a photography and you will see that you can get a poor result. The only derivative works that could be applied to a photography are filters or AI applied on images. These actions can be reproduced and will always give the same result. They also cannot be applied without the model.
- When I make a portrait, I first look at all the documents I have from a person to see what are the specific patterns of the face, this first analyze is somewhere the same mechanism that allows face Ident softwares to identify your face to unlock you phone.
- I generally superimpose several photographies from the same person made by different photographers at different times and places to see if the patterns of the face match. And guess what ? They generally do, because it's the same person and the features of the face remain the same, whatever light, accessories, clothes, haircut... That manual face Ident done, I reproduce it on my drawing and, in fact, these features will nearly be the same on the photography and on the drawing, because they characterize the person.
- What happens next ? I usually spend hours to draw and color the portrait, choosing carefully which kind of tool and colors I use to render the way I perceive the person. I also read carefully the text of the biography to know who is the person, why is she notable, what is or was her life. Sometimes, I do not grasp the person and I'm not able to render the portrait. Sometimes I restart completely the drawing on another day. Sometimes, I finish the drawing but do not publish it cause I'm not satisfied.
- My drawings look like the person and are based on a primary source which is a photography ? Yes, because I believe portraits on an encyclopedia should represent that precise person, not represent another person and not represent any average person. The graphical portrait should give the proof that it is somewhere based, either on my personal meeting of this person or based on an objective document produced by a witness (a photography by the photographer).
- Your main argument is : photographers express a big personal artistic value on their photographies and artist make objective copies with poor artistic value by only changing details.
- I believe the contrary. I believe in most cases, photographers make objective copies of the visible world and artists completely reinterpret what they see by drawing and painting.
- What does the photograph bring as specific features that any other photographer could not have brought by photographying the same person with the same device in the same position ? Generally few, and I usually see that specificities and do not retain these details in my drawing or change that personal part brought by the photographer to replace it by my point of view. As an illustrator, I can select which forms I will treat graphically with the suitable technique of tracing and crawing a line is a way to connect forms which simply does not exist in photography.
- That's because, how said G. K. Chesterton, art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
- My portraits are not obtained by means that are reproductible like filters, photo editing software, AI, but by a graphic mean that is personal, not reproductible and that renders the correct pattern of a face with accentuations on some parts of the face like eyes, mouth, (I believed you do not see such details but I do), so I claim that there is no "copyright" infringement for a reality that is common to all of us and not specifically produced by the photographer (I'm a daily photographer too and like photographying a lot).
- The traits of a person do not belong to the photographer but to the person itself and a photographer cannot claim he added something to the pattern of a face.
- The expression of the person on the drawing comes from the artistic arrangement of the lines (and lines do not exist in a photography) and give a personal point of view about the person which is not in the photography used as a primary source.
- Concerning your strict rules to draw a portrait for Commons that are : it should not refer to a photography, or if based on a photography it should operate enough changes (which kind of changes ? deformations ?), I do not recommend to create chimeras for an encyclopedia which is factual and based on a good sourcing.
- In fact, and given the numerous attempts to do well for drawing missing portraits for biographies on Wikipedia, should we not conclude that it's simply impossible to satisfy to such demandings (and I believe it's also written to make our projects of illustrating biographies impossible to realize) ?
- Should your severe resquests be realisable, would they render people's look in graphic design ? I believe it's only possible with AI applied to images. But changing and angle or calculating a statistical portrait can only be based on information that feeds the AI and the photographies will still be used as a basis. It's simply the sensation of infringing or not the copyright which is different if you trust in machines you feel creative and not in persons like artists you feel as servile reproductors.
- I am a natural intelligence and I bring you the best for these portraits without harming anyone.
- In fact, please quote me with at least ten examples of drawings rendering correctly a portrait by following your rules, and I will learn from them how to draw correctly for Commons and redraw all my portraits in that way.
- But I doubt you'll find them. I'm waiting for these examples.
- Waltercolor (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs sets out Commons' view on such works: a drawing based on multiple photographs requires a judgment call to be made on whether the work is derivative (File:KGerstein.jpg is given as an example of one that was considered not to infringe any copyrights), but a drawing based on a single photograph is automatically considered to be a derivative of that work.
- The only drawings of yours that I've raised for discussion here are those which (to my eye) appear to be based on a single specific and copyrighted photograph. Some more than others, though, and you are welcome to correct me if some of these in fact draw from multiple sources as their inspiration.
- It's possible that French law for such derivative works is different from the US law that Commons follows. Belbury (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep I understand the interrogation but following this way, every new piece of art can be considered as inspired by a former one. Indeed, art is matter of inspiration. In the present case, you can't consider the creation as simple copy without inspiration because the view seems similar, and of course, if the subject of the photo is the same, it's normal it has similarities. Moreover, each picture should be considered by individually, and for example, the first one you present as a proof (Barbara Martin) is too different to be considered as copy. --Lupin~fr (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- This appears to be a straightforward case of COM:DW. If you think Commons policy does not accurately reflect the law about derivative works, or that the way our rules are applied creates a slippery slope to the deletion of all artworks, a good place to make that argument would be at Commons talk:Derivative works or one of the village pumps. As it stands, an illustration that appears to reproduce another copyrighted artwork (such as a photo), is considered a DW. Remember, we're not just talking about use on Commons or Wikipedia -- these images must be licensed for any use or modification by anyone at any time, forever. These images simply don't have that license because the original artist hasn't released them. It's a huge disappointment, I know; if I put in the effort to produce these in good faith, I'd be frustrated, too (as I have been when some of my photographs were deleted before I understood things like freedom of panorama). I commend your work, but unfortunately we just can't host the ones that are clear derivatives. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- No worry. I'm a professional and bins of artists, graphic designers and especially architects are full of dead projects for any reasons.
- What I'm asking for @Rhododendrites is: do you have at least 10 examples of graphic portraits designed for illustrating WP biographies that you accepted ? I want to have a look on them and see if I can do the same.
- If it appears that nobody can create portraits with such restrictive rules, we must change the rules or abandon the participation to wikiunseen like projects. It's not only about a couple of drawings deleted, it's about how the articles look and if we can do something or not.
- For me a graphic portrait must represent the person itself, not another person, and not any person. It must be backed on the proof that the person has been seen by the artist (live drawing) or photographied by the artist (but then of course, I would rather upload my photo) or drawn from an existing photo. If the last solution is considered at 99,5% copyright infringement, it should not be proposed. It's not a solution.
- One option could be to draw police sketches, identikit pictures, but frankly, I will not loose time for this.
- Concerning the permission asked to the author of the photography, do you have somewhere tips about how to ask the permission ? Do you propose to ask permission before deletion ?
- I also desperately search the precise rules about when the drawings are considered to be not derivated. If the treshold of derivation/no derivation occurs at the level when the portrait doesn't look anymore to the person represented, don't keep the rules it would be illogical. We are not here to draw chimeras. It is not encyclopedic and people get enough information on Google about how the person looks without any copyright being infringed.
- Waltercolor (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I will add that, if I understand correctly, if there is a significant difference between French law and US law on this such that they are legal in France but cannot be hosted on Commons, you may be able to upload them locally to the French Wikipedia. I'd have to defer to frwiki regulars on that, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- What part of French law makes this legal? Non-commercial use in the U.S. is almost certainly legal due to fair use, but that is different than not being derivative at all. Not sure I've seen a strong reference for this claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- We are discussing that point on Les Sans PAges. French law is restrictive about reproduction and includes drawings in the processes to reproduce a work. This is an old law, and of course, encyclopedias and dictionaries existed far before photography was invented and they were all illustrated with drawings. One illustrator even asked for deletion of her own work because she feared about the legal problems. On the other hand, Wikipedia fr doesn't accept comic like portraits because... they don't look enough like the person. So all kinds of illustration are rejected and at the moment, we hardly find a line about how to achieve correct portraits that would look like the person but would not infringe a copyrighted photo. That's why I'm just asking myself if the solution really exists. I search proof of this, but anyway, if we find a correct way to draw the portrait I should be able to draw them. Waltercolor (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. It is definitely possible to have a drawing be derivative of a photograph. The copyrightable expression in a photograph is typically the framing, angle, timing, and elements like that under control of the photographer. If the photo is staged, such as a studio portrait, then the facial expression evoked may become part of it as well. For snapshot type photos, the actual subject of the photo is not part of the expression. If a drawing recreates the copyrightable aspects, i.e. copies that part of the expression, then it's derivative. If you can identify one particular photograph as the basis, then it may have copied the expression. On the other hand, if you use photos to just get an idea of what the subject looks like, but don't copy that expression, the drawing is fine. Photographers don't have a copyright on what a person looks like, but they might on the particular angle/expression that exists in their photo. There have been discussions on this before; one of them is at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11#Drawings_of_persons,_based_on_unfree_photos., and another DR was linked above.
- The photo there (and the DR mentioned above) were fairly blatantly drawings of a particular photograph, copying most of the expression. These are... more difficult. The few I looked at, seemed as though the angle was being copied from the photograph, but particular facial expressions and other details were not. I can understand disagreements in this area, as there aren't a ton of court cases on it (though there are a couple). I may lean Keep on these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are the facial features that allow the recognition of a person and these features allow face ident software to unlock phones, etc... The expression of a person is either a mood, or the general average way the person behaves in the life. As the features of the face must be present in the drawing or it would no be the portrait of that person, the expression is given in a drawing by the lines, which are not present at all in a photography. Tht's not something that is stolen to the photography as there is no real bridge from a continuous contrast and color plan like in a photography and a drawing obtained by lines that are selected by the artist to represent some contrasts and differentiate the form from the background (what the photo doesn't do. It's only we, as human, that deduce that from our perception which makes sopphisticated calculations to understand : this is a face, these parts are eyes, nose, mouth, hair... Of course there is no copyright on the way we interpret a planar sheet of paper or a screen as a face and not an abstract painting. Waltercolor (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I'm surprised. Let's take just one example, say: File:Yuki Okoda.jpg and this image. Let's say the big hypothetical happens: someone finds an illustration on Commons and turns it into a poster/book that makes lots of money (and putting aside personality rights). The illustration is credited to Waltercolor only, because we're not acknowledging that it's a derivative work. Are you saying you don't think the original photographer would have a good case? The expression, light -- it's all identical other than the background. Perhaps the sort of thing you're talking about is like File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg, where it's appears copied from this image, but could be argued to be "just how she looks when she's looking at the camera and smiling"? In that case, it still appears borderline to me, but I could see an argument that, because it omits the clothes, necklace, background, etc., it could be kept. Trying to understand your point, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: fixing ping — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, those two give me pause. I looked at some near the top; File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg seems far enough away from this that I think it's OK. Those two you mention look too close to me. But yes, replicating the small details of a particular photograph might be problematic. If it's just a snapshot, then any particular facial expression is not under the photographer's control and therefore not copyrightable expression, but in a studio portrait, it can be (dating back to a landmark 1882 U.S. ruling which debated the copyrightability of an Oscar Wilde studio photo, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony). There is some guidance on the U.S. side of things in the Copyright Office circular; they reference "drawing based on a photograph" as one of the main examples of a derivative work. As a U.S. project, I don't think we can ignore the U.S. side of all this. France definitely has a different threshold of originality, but I didn't think their definition of derivative work differed all that much. Maybe the threshold for photographs is higher, but in general studio portraits have usually been considered full-on "works" in Europe, whereas many of those countries used to (and a few still do) have different rules for "simple photos", i.e. more like snapshots. It's possible that France, like Switzerland, often doesn't consider snapshot photos as copyrightable at all. Studio portraits likely always have been, though. French law, article 122-4, says Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. If the photograph was copyrightable, sure seems like a drawing adaptation, if it's too close to that photograph, would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Barbara Martin photo is not very similar, and is by far the least concerning of the examples here. For what it's worth my benchmark for inclusion in this DR was whether a Google search for the subject's name turned up a photo which looked superficially similar to the drawing, and which when superimposed revealed any specific and unlikely correspondences. In the case of the Barbara Martin photo, if you line up the eyes of the photo over the drawing, the unshaded curve drawn in her hair aligns exactly with the earring in the photograph, and the lighter section under the line of her chin in the drawing matches with where the photograph's chin actually ends. But there is clearly significant additional and original work here. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The second one too, was a different facial expression and I thought was fine. Third one closer, but still didn't see enough to think it was copying enough expression. I may not have gone much further. Obviously, all of these have significant additional and original work added to them. The question is if more than a de minimis amount of expression was copied from another work. That does tend to show copying of the angle, but if that's the only aspect copied, then maybe a little bit is de minimis. What qualifies as copyrightable expression can also be very different between a snapshot and a studio portrait. For snapshots, the facial expression etc. can not be part of the photographer's work. That is the case with the other DR mentioned below -- that looks more like a snapshot. None of this is easy, for sure, as there are no bright lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that Barbara Martin photo is not very similar, and is by far the least concerning of the examples here. For what it's worth my benchmark for inclusion in this DR was whether a Google search for the subject's name turned up a photo which looked superficially similar to the drawing, and which when superimposed revealed any specific and unlikely correspondences. In the case of the Barbara Martin photo, if you line up the eyes of the photo over the drawing, the unshaded curve drawn in her hair aligns exactly with the earring in the photograph, and the lighter section under the line of her chin in the drawing matches with where the photograph's chin actually ends. But there is clearly significant additional and original work here. Belbury (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, those two give me pause. I looked at some near the top; File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg seems far enough away from this that I think it's OK. Those two you mention look too close to me. But yes, replicating the small details of a particular photograph might be problematic. If it's just a snapshot, then any particular facial expression is not under the photographer's control and therefore not copyrightable expression, but in a studio portrait, it can be (dating back to a landmark 1882 U.S. ruling which debated the copyrightability of an Oscar Wilde studio photo, Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony). There is some guidance on the U.S. side of things in the Copyright Office circular; they reference "drawing based on a photograph" as one of the main examples of a derivative work. As a U.S. project, I don't think we can ignore the U.S. side of all this. France definitely has a different threshold of originality, but I didn't think their definition of derivative work differed all that much. Maybe the threshold for photographs is higher, but in general studio portraits have usually been considered full-on "works" in Europe, whereas many of those countries used to (and a few still do) have different rules for "simple photos", i.e. more like snapshots. It's possible that France, like Switzerland, often doesn't consider snapshot photos as copyrightable at all. Studio portraits likely always have been, though. French law, article 122-4, says Any complete or partial performance or reproduction made without the consent of the author or of his successors in title or assigns shall be unlawful. The same shall apply to translation, adaptation or transformation, arrangement or reproduction by any technique or process whatsoever. If the photograph was copyrightable, sure seems like a drawing adaptation, if it's too close to that photograph, would be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- PS There is one other one, which I nominated before Belbury nominated this group: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Belbury and @Rhododendrites !
- For information, I'm currently asking to all the authors of the photographies that inspired me for my portraits the permission for my derivative art.
- And, ok, just #lol for your links which are not the sites I was looking for and do not give the right credit for the photographies :-).
- Especially for Claude Grison's drawing : this is the list of a part of the photographies that inspired me for this one drawing : CNRS, Pour la Science, Radio France, Bio Inspire, Dis-leur, EPO.
- As you can see, whatever the photographer and the photo, she always looked the same at this time. Same hair, same smile, same shirt. Waltercolor (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep these are original drawings representing the person, which means it necessarily will always ressemble a photograph. Have we allready deleted a photograph because it ressembled another previous photograph ? Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. ). If we follow too strictly this, we might end up having all drawn portraits and paintings deleted on our projects. Hyruspex (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @all : Here is the first answer for my series of my mail requests of permission to photographers for my graphic portraits. It concerns the portrait of Claude Grison :
- "Bonjour,
- Très joli dessin
- Pas de problème pour l'utiliser
- Bien cordialement.
- Thibaut Vergoz"
- In english : "Hello ! Very nice drawing. No problem for using it. Yours kindly. Thibaut Vergoz"
- Waltercolor (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to do this. Can you also quote the question that you asked them, so that we can be sure what usage it is that they have no problem with? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've sent all the email thread with the photographer to my VRTS correspondent Otto Ottensen who gave me once the status of author for my drawings (Happy to know it). Waltercolor (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, for the moment we have only received permission from the photographer Thibaut Vergauz for File:Claude_Grison.jpg per Ticket:2022102810010733. See my keep vote above. The other cases remain open. – We should now give Waltercolor some time to get the other approvals from the photographers and refrain from a mass deletion. It would be a pity if we lost these beautiful drawings. Mussklprozz (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've sent all the email thread with the photographer to my VRTS correspondent Otto Ottensen who gave me once the status of author for my drawings (Happy to know it). Waltercolor (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to do this. Can you also quote the question that you asked them, so that we can be sure what usage it is that they have no problem with? Belbury (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore the example of Sam Bourcier above is not adequate, the drawing is relly very different from the photograph (the mouth is opened on the photo not on the drawing, there is no microphone in the drawing ect. If the drawing of Bourcier is scaled to the same size as the photograph and overlaid so that the glasses line up, the rest of the face falls into place, with her ear and teeth lining up perfectly, as well as the shadows of her glasses and nose. Yes, the mouth is a little more closed, the microphone omitted and the hair has been drawn freehand, but these are not major alterations. There is a lot of skill shown here in redrawing the photograph as an effective line drawing, but the overall shape of that drawing is fundamentally a tracing of one specific photograph. Belbury (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion on the French Wikipedia village pump. Thibaut (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep je soutiens Waltercolor dans sa démarche artistique originale. Ces fichiers sont ses oeuvres. - C'est moi (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Translation:
I support Waltercolor in her original artistic approach. These files are her work.
--Thibaut (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)- Commons 100% regards these uploads as being Waltercolor's work. The question being asked by Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs is whether they should, under US copyright law, also be regarded as the work of the original photographers, where a drawing has been based on one or two specific photographs. Belbury (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- This depends if the US Law can oblige one or several photographers to accept that their work gets really a part of the drawing or not. As far as I can see, in those kind of cases, photographers do not really want to claim being a part of the work of an artist. This creates a permanent link between their photography and a foreign and separate work they do not see as being really a "piece" of their own one (especially when they do not love the style of drawing).
- You know, it's heavy when you're a photographer and you get such "satellites" to your work you didn't expect or ask for.
- So they are several cases :
- - The photographer estimates his/her work has been "stollen" by the drawer -> they suit him/her and don't give the authorization.
- - The photographer is polite and answers to the request of Commons because he likes the artistic style of the drawing -> he/she answers that the drawing is "inspired from" (means it is not recognized as a derivative work and both works remain independant)
- - The photographer doesn't care and doesn't answer to the request of Commons because he simply does not get the point or does not want to loose time and energy for such difficult to define cases -> risk for having a legal issue for derivative work is low.
- So I believe none of these cases are really at high risk for Commons itself.
- Perhaps you could also explain more clearly which are exactly the legal risks for the Foundation and give me some examples.
- In my opinion, only the author can be suited for a counterfact and it's to the photographer to prove the counterfact, but I may be wrong.
- The platform must of course delete the files (do you delete them or only mask them on the server ?) but this should be enough, or is there really a high risk of getting a heavy sentence for the Foundation in such cases ? Do you have examples where the Foundation has been suited for derivative works on Commons ?
- Waltercolor (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly familiar with the legal details, I'm just raising the COM:CSM policy for discussion of how it applies. Regarding your third case, though, COM:PRP does discourage hosting a questioned image on the grounds that the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- This applies to the license problem, not the authorship.
- To determine if a drawing is true derivative work is not simple as you can see, the judgements are different from one to the other person.
- So the absolute necessity to ask permission for "using" features that are not protected by the copyright is not justified. it's an extension of the license problem to the authorship problem which is different;
- If someone would claim a copyright on a person's portrait on some features that are common to all given portraits of a person, then this copyright could also forbid to other photographers to photography the same subject with similar angles, framing, environement... Of course, this could not be applied. Authorship is general and not media related. It counts for all media, photos, drawings, etc...
- Is this very special idea of drawings as sub-products of photographies specific to US Law or is it specific to Commons ? Have these "permissions" a legal value ? 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Waltercolor (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly familiar with the legal details, I'm just raising the COM:CSM policy for discussion of how it applies. Regarding your third case, though, COM:PRP does discourage hosting a questioned image on the grounds that the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Commons 100% regards these uploads as being Waltercolor's work. The question being asked by Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Drawings based on photographs is whether they should, under US copyright law, also be regarded as the work of the original photographers, where a drawing has been based on one or two specific photographs. Belbury (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Translation:
- Keep all photos of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution (e.g. wrong assignment for Grison) : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Du même avis que Paul.schrepfer. Guil2027 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep These files are original works. Manacore (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural close in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion . I suggest renominations with a narrower scope. — Racconish 💬 17:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Waltercolor (talk · contribs)
[edit]This was closed a few weeks ago "in view of the heterogeneity of situations raised in the discussion" with a suggestion for "renominations with a narrower scope", but I couldn't get a clear explanation from the closing admin of what that scope should be, or any COM:AN advice.
While the original discussion was open, File:Claude Grison.jpg received the necessary permission from photographer Thibaut Vergoz to allow Commons to host a free derivative work without crediting them. There was no update on the other permission requests.
So this is a renomination of the 12 remaining images, with the same homogenous concern: that they all appear to have been closely based on single specific photographs, and there is not (yet) evidence that the various photographers have granted permission for derivatives version of their work to be freely licenced without crediting them. Links to apparent/confirmed source images are in the previous nomination above.
Respondents are reminded that there does seem to be a significant difference between French and American law on this issue. Wikimedia Commons does not automatically consider sketches of photographs to be completely original works, per COM:BASEDONPHOTO. I think this has to be case by case: either a photo has a freely licenced source, has permission from the photographer, is considered to be only somewhat inspired by its source, or cannot be hosted on Commons.
- File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg
- File:Portrait Sam Bourcier pcw.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Lily Pastré.jpg
- File:Nicole Catala.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Laxmi Vijay Gautam.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Marguerite Perey - portrait.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Yuki Okoda.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Susie Cooper.jpg - permission asked, waiting for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Carol V. Robinson.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Matilde Urrutia.png - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
- File:Marthe Gautier.jpg - New drawing. Inspired from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercolor (talk • contribs)
Belbury (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Belbury ! Are you sure you're doing the job correctly ? I for example was redrawing completely the portrait File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg and you stil say it's derivative work ? From which photography ? Waltercolor (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks like I selected that one by mistake, there's a separate discussion still open for it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ellinah Wamukoya.jpg. I've removed it from the list here. --Belbury (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- While somewhat homogenous, each drawing is going to be a separate decision, based on each photo, if we think it's derivative or not. I hate to clutter someone's page with individual DRs, but really they are all individual decisions. I stated in the previous DR that I did not think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg was derivative. The methodology you used to come up with the list is reasonable, but decisions are made by comparing each photo to each drawing. So there will likely be messy mixed votes, again. Not sure how to structure it, unless maybe having a sub-heading for each photo. Might also be good to note when the photographs expire, so we have some undelete year targets as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I figured it would be preferable to have all the discussion in one place, so that someone who felt that all the images should be kept or deleted wasn't expected to repeat their reasoning in 13 different DRs.
- I think File:Barbara Martin (singer) - portrait.jpg is derivative in the sense that it has almost certainly been drawn freehand while tracing a specific photo for reference, where a few details like the earring and eye wrinkles line up 100% when superimposed, but the neck, eyes and mouth seem entirely original. Perhaps that's enough for Commons not to consider it derivative, though, if little or none of the lighting and posing of the original portrait survives. Belbury (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury Would you accept a "first round" when you give the arguments for a derivative work and let me draw a new version that would be acceptable for an original work ? Thanks. Waltercolor (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Belbury : I uploaded new drawings for some files. So please have a look and tell me if it would be ok for you with such sort of changes. Thx. Waltercolor (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- So long as these new drawings aren't closely based on one single pre-existing photograph, sure, that seems fine. The only one among them that I'd question is File:Béatrice Vialle.jpg, where only the subject's hair has been redrawn. The face itself is still a relatively close tracing of the linked video thumbnail at https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao9I9c8tFhg/maxresdefault.jpg, with only small changes to the angles of the eyes and mouth Belbury (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Good evening everyone. One solution could be to assign the free art license to the drawings by crediting the photographers and original works in the description of the files whose deletion is requested. Would that make them acceptable on Commons ? --Olga Rithme (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Crediting the photographer is not enough -- if these qualify as derivative works, then we also need the photographer to allow the free art license (or CC-BY or any other free license) on the drawing. That did happen for one of the ones on the first PR. If we don't have that, then it becomes a question if these are derivative works (did they copy more than de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- It depends who is qualifying the works as derivative. If Commons goes further than the photographer would do (as it was the case for one of my work), then, it's not correct. The de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph may be overrated and the originality ot the drawing underestimated, so for me it has no legal value and is not acceptable.
- And for me, personnaly, as an illustrator, I will also never accept a derivative licence. I am ok to make changes in the drawings until they are no more considered as derivative. If no agreement occurs, or if I estimate that the requested changes make the drawing too far from the facial identity of the person represented, I prefer that my work is deleted from Commons. No problem.
- Waltercolor (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- We are trying to use the same criteria judges would use (i.e. what copyright law says). You can add as much originality to the drawing as you want, but if enough expression is copied it's still derivative -- it's more about removing any protectable aspects copied from the photo. And honestly, some of yours are close enough to that borderline that different judges may go different ways on the same one. Nothing about this is easy or obvious, unfortunately. If it is derivative, and the photographer decides he cares about a future use even if he doesn't think so now, you could have problems then. Giving a free license for the drawing is essentially permanently disclaiming that interest, which is what we would be after. We of course still need the license for the additional expression in the drawing, but that has been given.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Crediting the photographer is not enough -- if these qualify as derivative works, then we also need the photographer to allow the free art license (or CC-BY or any other free license) on the drawing. That did happen for one of the ones on the first PR. If we don't have that, then it becomes a question if these are derivative works (did they copy more than de minimis amount of expression from a particular photograph). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Same remarks than Carl Lindberg. And I can't help but globally repeat what I said in the previous thread : Keep all drawings of the identity photo type, and those whose origin is subject to caution : the lack of originality of this type of portrait, combined with the fact that any artistic choices due to the photographer (environment, framing unusual, specific lighting angle for example) are not reproduced sufficiently show that they are works inspired by one or more photos, and not derivative works. (Translation by google translate) --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. In France, an exception in the intellectual property code specifies that an author cannot prohibit the reproduction of his work when this reproduction is used for informational purposes (article L122-5). Drawings nominated for removal provide information about the people in the articles that readers wouldn't have without them, such as face shape, hair color, wearing glasses, et caetera. In fact, these drawings are informative content, since they provide information. Is there such an exception in american law ? Could it be applied to this specific case and allow the conservation of the drawings ? (Message translated with Google Translate.)--Olga Rithme (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- COM:BASEDONPHOTO does not mention such an exception in US law, although it may have overlooked it.
- However, "when this reproduction is used for informational purposes" does not sound compatible with Commons. Commons:Licensing explicitly requires that images uploaded here "are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose".
- French law may allow sketches of photographs to be used for informational purposes on the French Wikipedia, in the same way that US law allows fair use photographs to be used for information purposes on the English Wikipedia? But those US fair use photographs are never uploaded to Commons. Belbury (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Aside from the DW issue, these are out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Some files undeleted, where there is no copyright issue. See above and [4]. Yann (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Vaqueiro baiano antigo, ano de 1922, campos do Jacuípe, Bahia, vaqueiro nordestino, vaqueiro brasileiro.jpg
[edit]
False author of image: this file (in search) it's found in https://pt-static.z-dn.net/files/da4/af6ac5af28f934d26076773eb5869ea9.jpg (2020 file) André Koehne TALK TO ME 14:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel that the question of what copyright is applicable to this photo of a Banksy artwork - which was originally made by a UK citizen as graffiti on an outdoors wall in Canada in 2010, and then that section of wall was physically transported to the inside of a privately-owned building, still in Canada - is one that needs some discussing. DS (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
![15:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/17#c-DragonflySixtyseven-20230317152600-File:Banksy's_original_art_"Guard_with_balloon_dog".jpg){kind=link}
- And does it matter that Banksy has requested no commercial use of their images? DS (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This case may have much wider significance. If the disclaimer by Banksy linked above is considered legally binding, it may require deletion of all Banksy work from Wikimedia Commons. As I understand it, early Commons copyright determination was that graffiti (that is, placed illegally without consent of property owners) generates no copyright as being outside the law. We have many other images of graffiti in Canada on Commons; if this is not allowed all the rest might be in question? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Banksy has said 'fuck copyright', but Banksy has also trademarked his images and had lawyers fight against corporations that tried to use them on commercial products. (Per Steve Steinski, "I respect [copyright] in principle. I obviously don't respect it in fact.") DS (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
![13:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/17#c-Jameslwoodward-20230627135200-File:Banksy's_original_art_"Guard_with_balloon_dog".jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Redrose64 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo is subject to copyright and has been published in books and magazines since its construction in 1935. The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, since the locomotive was dismantled in 1952.
Converting to DR for discussion since this is from 1935. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, as is the use of CC BY-SA 4.0, a license which did not exist when this photo was first published. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Newbie uploader probably used default settings. The low resolution and no EXIF makes me think it's probably grabbed from the Internet but given that this file is over 70 years old, we'll have to determine if the photograph itself is public domain or still under copyright and we can always delete it under COM:PCP if the uploader cannot provide us with the information we need. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - URAA applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Redrose64 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo is subject to copyright and has been published previously. The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, since the photograph depicts the remains of a locomotive wrecked in 1952 and scrapped later that year.
Converting to DR for discussion since this photograph is from 1952. Abzeronow (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, as is the use of CC BY-SA 4.0, a license which did not exist when this photo was first published. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have identified the source of the photograph, it is photo 5 on page 26 of https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf#page=26 The author of the document is Lt-Col G.R.S. Wilson, Royal Engineers; there is no separate credit for the photograph. The document is Crown Copyright Reserved, published 1953 by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 11:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your through research, Redrose64 Keep as PD-UKGov. I'll edit the file accordingly so it's properly sourced. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your through research, Redrose64
- I have identified the source of the photograph, it is photo 5 on page 26 of https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Harrow001.pdf#page=26 The author of the document is Lt-Col G.R.S. Wilson, Royal Engineers; there is no separate credit for the photograph. The document is Crown Copyright Reserved, published 1953 by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 11:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I corrected the license to "PD-UK-unknown". When you scan an existing image, the scan is your "own work", even though it doesn't transfer the original copyright to you. Also your nomination is already your vote, so please do not double vote. --RAN (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "Own work" relates to who took the original photograph, not who scanned it, see Commons:Own work. Also, who has double-voted? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 15:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- RAN was merely trying to articulate what the newbie uploader might have been thinking. I have messaged the uploader about how we define "own work" since they had only been here a week and I didn't want the uploader to take the DRs are being BITEy. Abzeronow (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- That carries the weight of an essay. I agree uploaders should not declare a scan/photo/download as their own work, I want to see data on the original work. Nor should it be used as a rationale for deletion. The Bridgeman court case is not universally recognized outside the US. So far only the UK and Australia have similar case law. Our own template Template:Art Photo, used when you scan/rephotograph an artwork, lets you declare an image of an image, as your own work, because copyright jurisdictions outside of the US may demand credit to the scanner/photographer. --RAN (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - URAA applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Restored. Abzeronow pointed out that URAA does not apply to PD-UKGov. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Redrose64 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo is subject to copyright and has been published previously. The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, since the photograph depicts a locomotive as rebuilt during 1952 and scrapped later the same year.
1952 photograph, converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The claim of "own work" is blatantly false, as is the use of CC BY-SA 4.0, a license which did not exist when this photo was first published. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I corrected the license to "PD-UK-unknown". When you scan an existing image, the scan is your "own work", even though it doesn't transfer the original copyright to you. Also your nomination is already your vote, so please do not double vote. --RAN (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "Own work" relates to who took the original photograph, not who scanned it, see Commons:Own work. Also, who has double-voted? --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- See File:South Eastern and Chatham Railway.JPG --RAN (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- URAA applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this being a copyright violation? The uploader had access to a
veryhigh resolution version of this file, which is normally a good sign that they had access to the camera. Also, a Tineye search can't find a copy of the image online (Tineye searches aren't perfect but they are a good indicator for many files copied from internet sites). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- @From Hill To Shore this user is nominating all files related to Algeria for deletion. I would like the administrators to review this user's behavior. Riad Salih (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep no proof, I have not found the file with Google image search.
- Panam2014 (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore this user is nominating all files related to Algeria for deletion. I would like the administrators to review this user's behavior. Riad Salih (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per From Hill To Shore and Panam2014, plausible own work with Exif data. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Klaus-Joachim Schrader, "Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen", Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist 1954 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist eine Werkfotografie. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht.Ein Bild von der Baureihe aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht bekannt. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto aus dem Jahr 1954, was im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen noch privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto aus dem Jahr 1954, was im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen noch privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Klaus-Joachim Schrader, "Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen", Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist eine Werkfotografie von Hanomag. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auch kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was Um 1950 im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Klaus-Joachim Schrader, "Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen", Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Ein ähnliches Foto aus der Eisenbahnstiftung ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was CA. 1950 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1979. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Klaus-Joachim Schrader, "Dampflok auf Kleinbahngleisen", Zeunert Verlag, Gifhorn, 1979, ISBN 9783921237021. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist eine Werkfotografie von Krauss-Maffei. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auch kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep ein Foto was 1950 im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 2020. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Reinhard Laubsch, Harald Rockstuhl, "Die Geschichte Mühlhausen–Ebelebener Eisenbahn 1897–1997", Rockstuhl Verlag, Mühlhausen (Thür), 2020, ISBN 978-3-95966-460-8 Uoijm77 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist eine Werkfotografie von Krauss. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auch kein Beweis. Ein digitales Foto auf der Eisenbahnstiftung kenne ich nicht. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep ein Foto was 1950 im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in 1977. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Müller, Wolfgang Petznick, "Dampflokomotiven deutscher Eisenbahnen, Baureihe 41-59", transpress VEB Verlag für Verkehrswesen, Berlin, 1977, ISBN 3-87094-042-5. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um die 1930er Jahre entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. Also hat man es auch um die Zeit veröffentlicht. Warum pochst Du so auf das Veröffentlichungsdatum in dem Buch? Das ist auf kein Beweis. Außerdem handelt es sich lediglich um einen Scan vom Buch. Die Urheber heute haben mit dem Scan vom Negativ wesentlich mehr Möglichkeiten. Also sollte man vielleicht nicht so viel Geschrei um nichts machen? Rainerhaufe (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto was vor 1945 im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- ein Foto was vor 1945 im Rahmen einer Werkfotografie entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown author, no permission. --Krd 11:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation 83.200.84.69 23:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is the evidence for this being a copyright violation. It doesn't show up on a TinEye search. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep no proof with TinEye.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per this user's other uploads, cannot be trusted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is definitely not CC BY-SA 4.0 (the source is from 1997, which predates the license). I'm bringing the file here for discussion rather than speedying it, since the mark on the left side of the photo is somewhat reminiscent of File:Jamba logo.svg, which was denied registration by the U.S. copyright office. I'm hoping that this is in the public domain, but I'm bringing it up here on a precautionary basis. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per MDaniels. Below the ToO. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Falsely claimed as Own work with false date. Photo was made in 1865, but publication date and source are unclear. Красный wanna talk? 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment supposedly depicts 1865 event. If a genuine period photo, likely PD if truthful source information can be presented. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD. If it was taken in 1865, it doesn't matter when it was published, as it's more than 120 years old. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, this doen't work like that: copyright on anonimously publicated photos expires in 70 years after publication, same with photos published after the author's death. Also, any not-{{Own}} files should not be marked as Own work and should have proper dates and sources. In this case we can have multiple possible situatons when this picture will not be PD-old, the most common is that photo wasn't published immideately and unpublished negative image was found somewhere in archives in the last 30-70 years for some article on city history. Usually local community just passes on pictures based on issue date and reliable source of publication (even if it was published in 2000s), but here we have common case of not caring about Commons rules. Красный wanna talk? 16:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've been told in other threads that if an anonymous photo is over 120 years old, it is PD, period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (as stated, the artist is Timothy H. O'Sullivan (1840-1882). --VIGNERON (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This photo describes a very different place. It's definitely not Kandahar. The photo was published in the book "A visit to the Russians in central Asia (1899)". That is, the author traveled through the part of Central Asia conquered by Russia. Kashgar was not conquered. The book indicates that this is Bukhara, other authors indicate that these are prisoners after the Andijan uprising in 1890 against Russian colonialism. And this photo is already on Wikimedia. A detailed description and all sources are indicated in the description of the file. See more Rtfroot (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
_(14784394232).jpg){kind=link}
- Comment I'm in two minds on this one. On the one hand it is low quality and currently being used incorrectly by a couple of Wikipedias to present a false narrative; deleting the image will prevent it from being used falsely. On the other hand, the image is clearly PD as published 124 years ago, it is in black and white (as oposed to the yellowed high resolution version) and it is possible for us to rename it and correct the details (thereby reducing the ability for it to be used to support a false narrative either here or externally). From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use at Persian Wikipedia. Will add Facts disputed tag. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Fictitious emblem. This is not an official coat of arms of Aceh. 2001:448A:11A8:11DB:9035:D9A1:6DED:6B98 03:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use at Indonesian Wikipedia. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fma12 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment indeed the file needs a permission. The license indicates a {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} license (for the coat of arms of Carmen de Areco, depicted on this flag) but the source does not indicate when it was created. After a Google search with no successful results about the date of creation I consider this file should be deleted per precautionary principle.
- Since this discussion ({{PD-AR-Gov}} was deprecated), all the municipal symbols of Argentina needs a proper license. Fma12 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: We don't know when this coat of arms was created so it's copyright status is unknown, deleted per COM:PCP. If evidence that the CoA is public domain by age is found, I will undelete it. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
File:O&K-Lok von 1939 bei der PKP als Typ 1 693 in einem Ausbesserungswerk. Am Tragwagen befindet sich das letzte Revisionsdatum, 12. Juni 1950 (CAF Bildagentur, Warszawa).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from magazine published in 1983 in East Germany. Please refer to Commons:Publication. The picture was only published in an East German magazine. There is no evidence that it was published before 1989 in Poland. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. The template requires the uploader to prove that the photo was published in Poland. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. No one can assume right away that the photo was posted immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. --Uoijm77 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep. According to the licence box "all photographs by Polish photographers ... published without a clear copyright notice before ... 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland." As the photo was provided by "CAF Bildagentur, Warszawa", it is most likely that it has been taken by a Polish photographer. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo was only provided by the Polish agency. There is no unequivocal evidence that they were actually made by a Polish photographer. There is no evidence that the photo was published in Poland. Much information is unknown. Copyright is hard to determine. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: We don't know where this early 1950s photograph was published, Germany or Poland. Deleted per COM:PCP, undelete in 2076, 120 years from 1955. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This photo describes a very different place. It's definitely not Kandahar. The photo was published in the book "A visit to the Russians in central Asia (1899)". That is, the author traveled through the part of Central Asia conquered by Russia. Kashgar was not conquered. The book indicates that this is Bukhara, other authors indicate that these are prisoners after the Andijan uprising in 1890 against Russian colonialism. And this photo is already on Wikimedia. A detailed description and all sources are indicated in the description of the file. See more Rtfroot (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use at Persian Wikipedia. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2A02:908:1A4:6C80:0:0:0:B047 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://vnuf.edu.vn/tet-trong-cay-doi-doi-nho-on-bac-ho.html DMacks (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This has been challenged on my talkpage:
- Hello DMacks,
- I saw that you deleted the file File:Tết trồng cây.jpg on Wiki Media because of "copyright violation", however, the regarded photo was taken 60+ years ago as a set of photos by a government agency in Vietnam, and I believe that it is fully in public domain since the set of photos was published by the government for public usage. The institution you quoted is also not the copyright owner. Could you restore the photo? Faragona (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
According to PD Vietnam, a 1960 photograph appears to be protected for 75 years. The tagging of the image is flawwed: uploader claims own-work/CC-license but an IP reported that it is also found on a website. Need to verify the license-holder/trace ownership for them to make such a claim. Faragona is claiming it is published by the Vietnamn government, but I see no relevant special case in their copyright law (their for public usage intent is not relevant, license releases need to be explicit). DMacks (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not public domain in Vietnam or the US, no evidence of a free license. Undelete in 2056 when U.S. copyright expires. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This video is definitely under a Creative Commons license, but it may have been illegally cut from a video posted by GaaSyy. However, this video was not posted by his GaaSyy himself, and we have not been able to confirm that the video posted by Mr. GaaSyy uses a Creative Commons license. Nuraa.sinora (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep GaaSyy's short expose video was played on NHK Party's political broadcasts for each of the 47 prefectures, and according to one NHK Party politician, she claims that the political broadcasts are not copyrighted and recommends that the video be spread. Therefore, there is no need to delete either the video or the images.冷床系 (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article you have quoted is merely the assertion of one party member. If possible, i would like you to quote from the policy of the NHK party.
- In the first place, the original source of the video is unknown as it is a clipping and must be removed or the original source identified as soon as possible. Nuraa.sinora (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Political broadcasts fall under the category of "use of political speeches, etc." under Article 40 of Japan's Copyright Law, which allows free use of copyrighted material. (Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs webpage) 冷床系 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, for two reasons: A political speech can be reused, but a film is not a political speech, which would be text only. In addition the Japan Copyright says there are limits to the use, by article 49, which might be not compatible with the licensing used on Commons. --Ellywa (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
User claims to have taken this image but this user over a span of 2 years has added many images but none with the same camera so I doubt he took this image as well and this image looks very professional taken with a NikonD3100 and 3 days later he adds an image taken with a Sony DSLR-A500 and 6 months later he added an image taken with an OPPO A31 and a few weeks later, a few images taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and then more images and with 2 new different cameras.. Stemoc 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Я, участник AAA333 настоящим подтверждаю, что данное фото было сделано мной 9 декабря 2020 года с камеры NikonD3100. Уменя была возможность воспользоваться предоставленным оборудованием и сделать указанное фото. Других возможностей воспользоваться указанным оборудованием у меня не было и иных фото, сделанных указанным оборудованием, я не загружал. 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)AAA333 (talk) AAA333 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to not believe the uploader. I looked into some other files, indeed different camera's, but I did not find other sources. --Ellywa (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
