Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/19
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Dayspring_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Marchioness_of_Hartington.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
テスト投稿に成功して Powerlike (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
not used Kwamikagami (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: empty category. --Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyrights: file is not owned by me, upload by mistake. Wiki6995 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
User Nimro told me today (March 19, 2023) that the photo doesn't show Otto von Müller. The German Wikipedia article about Otto von Müller content a Weblink (announced in the informations to the upload) that shows the same photo. Please manage the deletion as soon as possible. Thank you. Monika Hoerath Monika Hoerath (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Historical photo. Just edit the file description and request a filename change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nevermind. You have the right to have the photo deleted, because it was uploaded a few days ago. But have patience if it takes a while for an admin to make this deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation?? See COM:PACKAGE Headlock0225 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Not own work: [1] (and in higher resolution on FB) Gyrostat (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: what new could be added to existing collection of explicit materials? And what good does it do to the society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZzMysyeryxX (talk • contribs) 13:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to have encyclopedic relevance if we do not already have media of the specific act. -- The Anome (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason provided for deletion; video is unique in its subject matter and of reasonably high quality. Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ƏXPLICIT 13:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Pornographic content without educative purpose 80.146.8.244 10:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep Not a valid reason. Definitely educational (and we don't have many of these). Previously kept allready. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Nieodpowiedni 31.61.229.221 12:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I declare that the photo is my own work, a crop from a photo of my whole naked body while sunbathing. My intention is to depict the complete male genitalia and their natural enlargement and stretching under the heat of the sun while tanning. I think that my intention is clear enough from the photo and the image is useful for education. I deny any erotic subtext Nicolaus.cfnm (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Redundant & low quality & Commons is not your free web host. --Achim55 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, poor quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- All exhibitionists are people whose only aim is to contribute to the development of sciences, we have no doubt on that. 186.172.172.85 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Human reproductive system is within project scope, but Commons has no need for low resolution images of very common subjects which we have a wealth of better illustrations of. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete user doesn’t even spell the title right, and the supposed subject is barely visible. It takes literally zero effort to photograph the penis well if you have one since it’s routine for countless people when sexting. Dronebogus (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, poor quality penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- And possible abuse. See this claim.--Yellow Horror (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Is this image is in Common's COM:SCOPE? Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- We have a Category:Urinating men, but I understand people want to see the organ, for some reason that I cannot understand. In this picture there is no organ visible and IMHO (quite subjective though :) it would be better to keep only one or two pics like this one in the category and delete all the rest. Thanks for reading. --E4024 (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: We have 61 images in the category E4024 mentioned. This 'new' image would be redundant. Some of the 61 images aren't even used. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be stolen from Twitter at around 0:32 A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, low resolution somewhat blurry penis snapshot. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of Com:Scope Advertising or self promotion Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Ikan Kekek. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Arrow303 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work. No evidence that it's under CC-BY-SA|source=https://www.eastlombardy.it/it/prodotti/bergamo/stracchino-fresco-bronzone/. That sites copyright claim appears significantly newer than the image which was upload to commons more than 5 years ago. Gnangarra 11:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- The original version of the uploader contained the indication that the photo came from: "Monti e Laghi Nuova Società Coop Agricola Vigolo (BG)", so it's unlikely that the uploader was also the photographer (moreover, on the linked site there are many other photos in the same style as this uploaded one, which are protected by copyright, and do not appear to be the uploader's "own work"). @Gnangarra: The fact that the uploader indicated that the image came from another source but without giving information about the original license does not imply the addition of {{no permission since}}? Arrow303 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gnangarra 12:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
La fuente proporcionada no especifica que la imagen sea de uso libre Oli (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; source states "2022 © PRM - Derechos Reservados". --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
La fuente proporcionada no especifica que la imagen sea de uso libre Oli (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation ToniSant (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Photo extracted from Twitter. Possible copyright violation. (https://twitter.com/NawafMV/status/1636801292054953989) 2800:810:496:91B5:F1D6:1063:E580:5628 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
contenu pornographique sans apport pédagogique Phc20141209 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in use at es.wikipedia. I'd also imagine there's some sort of educational value because of its age, but I wouldn't be sure. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
pornografia Marcos Araújo Braulio 10:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, would support speedy keep. Not a reason for deletion; no new reasoning offered after previous "Kept". -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment No longer in use at es.wikipedia, but I'd imagine it still has some value. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept:' as above. Yann (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
It does not deal specifically with the topic of male ejaculation. Additionally, it is offensive to those who see this as an attack on Catholic institutions. 72.238.67.165 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept Public domain, in scope. Sexual fantasies involving priests and nuns has centuries old history (perhaps in part because some consider it offensive - and it is not the job of Commons to make sure that no media has any potential offense to anyone - much of human history and culture is or has been offensive to someone somewhere.) If something in the description or categorization is inaccurate, that can be corrected, and is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is pornography, which doesn't belong on this site, even if it has historical value. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In use in es.wikipedia.org in es:Cine pornográfico and in ne.wikipedia.org in ne:अश्लिल चलचित्र, so this file is automatically in scope. Also this file as historical value and Wikimedia Commons is not censored and Commons has a scope in pornographic materials and this file inserts in said scope, as even en.wikipedia.org as a article about this and other old pornographic movies in en:The Good Old Naughty Days, the es.wikipedia.org in es:Polissons et galipettes and fr.wikipedia.org in fr:Polissons et galipettes. Tm (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that this is only one of a series of similar clips. Also note prior deletion discussion for another clip from the same film. --Andreas JN466 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep We have no rule against pornography, and shouldn't have. darkweasel94 06:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as per the others' comments. Absolutely in scope. Handcuffed (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, it does belong on this site, absolutely. Historical value acknowledged by nominator, and that's all we need to keep. What doesn't belong on this site is cultural bias and censorship. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, the only criteria in this case for deletion would be if it was under copyright. nominator needs to understand that there is no censorship of content here. we do have protected files which have been used in an inappropriate way, but i believe those are all images, no films or audio files. If the content of a video was particularly transgressive of social norms, i could see us adding it to the list of carefully watched images, but i dont think this qualifies (i have not watched it)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Kept per all comments other than nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
this is porn 81.191.203.225 15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; speedy kept, c 1920 film. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is porn 194.233.96.65 06:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, yes, it is, but this is not a reason to delete it. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną. 188.147.12.36 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason --Trade (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
contiene error CARACULIO3 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
contiene error CARACULIO3 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
contiene errores CARACULIO3 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
contienen errores CARACULIO3 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
advertisement Wouter (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, spam. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is porn 194.233.96.65 06:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, this is not a reason to delete it. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
this is porn 81.191.203.225 15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; speedy kept 1907 film. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
les vidéos tombées dans le domaine publique représentent une opportunité pour une utilisation éducative, mais comment encourager des jeunes à utiliser ces vidéos s'ils risquent d'y trouver des films pornographiques !!!! 109.190.70.102 16:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Didym (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
this is porn 81.191.203.225 15:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept; no valid reason for deletion. Out of copyright 1925 film; that anon considers it "porn" is not a reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Young girl involved in an explicit sexual scene. She is literally presented on a plate (5:35 min.) and she is also labeled as a child (the intertitle at 7:05 min. reads: “Pièce montée a la jeanfille” (jeanfille = jeune fille = young girl ). This description is in line with her anatomy –that of a young girl. Vysotsky (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep Being "served" on plate has nothing to do with the age of this woman, so this argument is irrelevant. Child in french is not jeune fille, as you claim, but is "petite fille". Also jeunne file does not only mean a young girl but, and manly, an young adult woman but not yet married (like mesdemoiselles or miss in english), as this actress is called.
About this film, this is an historical pronographic movie Clearly an adult woman, per height (5:50) and other morphological signs like small but developed breats. Also this movie was released to public exhibition in UK and other countries in the collection The Good Old Naughty Days, so there no legal problem. Tm (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm, and Commons is not censored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete In my view both counter-arguments are not valid. (1) Being served on a plate is relevant, also because it makes it clear that the girl (who was easily carried on this plate by one man) had at least one body feature (lightweight) that is more common with a young girl than with a woman. (2) In the French Wikipedia both petite fille and jeune fille redirect to the article fille. The 4th line of that article reads: Jeune fille désigne une fille pubère . If you follow up fille pubère in the French Wikipedia, you'll find this line: Démarrage : généralement entre 9 et 16 ans (plus tôt que l'homme). So the intertitle Pièce montée a la jeanfille clearly alludes to a young girl. For that matter: I totally agree with Commons is not censored, but this video is out of scope. Vysotsky (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your counter-counter arguments are the ones that are invalid.
- About filles and puberé, the article that you mention Puberté is needing better sourcing since 2010. Enough said
- Per larousse defitions of fille:
- Jeune fille, fille pubère ou femme jeune non mariée.
- Petite fille, fille jusqu'à l'adolescence ; fillette.
- Besides, the height (5:50) and other morphological signs like small but developed breats and genitalia, shows this to be a adult woman.
- There are several adults, specially adult women, that are very thin and lightweight, weighting around 50kg or even less, specially until a few decades ago were people didnt had the acess to so much abundance in food and so hadnt so much cases of overweight. But also the men that carries her is clearly a strong men, but even so shows some dificulties in carrying the adult actress.
- IMDB tributes the casting as Mme. Jesuce, Mme. Enculée and and Mr. Biteraide, being Mme. a short term to Mademoiselle that wikipedia gives as a "French familiar title, abbreviated Mlle, traditionally given to an unmarried woman The equivalent in English is 'Miss'.". So another clue that this actors are all adults~.
- Also this film, as you should have known, is clearly in scope, as this 1920 movie is one of the first surviving porn movies, and is essencial to understand the evolution of this genre in its infancy.
- Also, answer me this simple question. Being this film part of the in the collection The Good Old Naughty Days, and if, as you claim, this film has pedophile content, how come is this collection was released to public exhibition in UK , the first R18 film to be rated for display in cinemas in the United Kingdom for over ten years, despite its contents, partly due to its 'classic' style and age and as "historical footage and exhibited in the USA in New York's Quad Cinema. How is this possible? Or being sold in several websites like Amazon? Finally the nailing in the coffin, the Guardian covers this movie saying One of the films, The Musketeer's Dinner, features a French infantryman who has a meal in an outdoor restaurant before two waitresses decide to make his lunch a highly memorable one. It was made during the filming of a 1920 film, The Three Musketeers, in the Paris suburb of Redon, and its happy star would have been a jobbing electrician or a cameraman taking advantage of his boss's day off. Tm (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete Thank you for this note. The arguments still don’t sound very convincing to me.
(1) Larousse: Jeune fille: fille pubère ou femme jeune non mariée. Both fille pubère (the first meaning) and femme jeune non mariée are more in line with my arguments, and do not describe an adult woman.
(2) Anatomy of the body: the female carried on the plate clearly has the anatomy of a girl in her puberty.
(3) IMDB: thanks for the addition. I hope you understand the meaning of the French names mentioned in IMDB. These names also make clear why the girl is labelled as Mme: the combination of these swear words (like enculée) and Mlle were surely not (and are not) regarded as a very appropriate combination.
(4) The historical argument isn’t valid either, as 10 other films from Polissons et galipettes still remain in Commons.
(5) Films from this series were apparently shown in Scotland and the US (though not without controversy, as your reference shows). Public screening in a country is no argument for inclusion of a film in Commons, though -as far as I know.
(6) "The film is sold via Amazon." Good to know, but no argument pro inclusion in Commons -to my knowledge.
(7) My favourite newspaper The Guardian apparently also describes this movie. I fail to see any arguments in this quote from The Guardian that counter my 3 main arguments for deletion: (a) explicit sexual scene involving a minor, (b) one of the females involved is presented and labelled as a girl, (c) the anatomy of this female is that of a young girl. Vysotsky (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment No need to vote delete a second (or third time). It seems that your trying to cover the sun with a sieve. About your argument that the adult woman o the plate is a underage by her anatomy, your wrong, as i said before her anatomy is clearly of an adult.
You have severe dificulties in separate adults anatomy from minors anatomy. To prove my point, besides the facts above, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fellation.JPG you claim that the woman depicted is a minor, but if you research properly you would see that this image is stolen from a website (NSFW link) (http://content.thehun.net/1720/1720580_Interracial_gangbang_pics_from_Ewen.html) that points to "http://www.britishbukkakebabes.com/" (very NSFW). Well at the bottom link) and that at the links you can see that the so called "very young girl" is in fact a full adult woman, that states (safe link but porn site). "n compliance with the Federal Labeling and Record-Keeping Law (also known as 18 U.S.C. 2257), all models located within our domain were 18 years of age or older during the time of photography. All models' proof of age is held by the custodian of records, which is listed below, organized by producer. All content and images are in full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and associated regulations.".
1) Yes i understand French and jeune fille mentions an young but adult woman, the same as Miss in english.
2) Anatomy of the body: the female carried on the plate clearly has the anatomy of a adult woman with developed height, breasts and genetalia as well as all other anatomic features.
3) Yes i understand French and Mademoiselle mentions, in this context, an adult but unmarried woman and the slang names this actors are called is irrelevant to determination of age or scope of file.
4) Your argument is irrelevant, and it admires that you that understands the importance of preservation of early silent movies, is so adment to have this file deleted. This is one of the first films porn movies still in existance and is preserved and was restaured by the Archives du Centre National de la Cinématographie, one of the french national film archives. Also the collection Polissons et galipettes as its own wikipedia article so this file is in scope, per historical importance (specially in clandestine cinema), importance of coverage of their release in our times, and in scope of the coverage of Polissons et galipettes and early pornography and other History of erotic depictions. It was even axhibited in the Festival de Cannes en 2002, à la Quinzaine des Réalisateurs, and covered by the the press like the Guardian and L'Humanité. So you see its scope.
5) and 6) You miss the point on its avaibility and public exhibition in France, USA and UK. If this file has a minor involved, do you think this movie would be publicly exhibited or publicly avaible in DVD or sites like Amazon or Barnes and Nobles? Your argument of one of the women falls flatly to earth with this public avaibility.
7) You "fail to see any arguments in this quote from The Guardian that counter my 3 main arguments for deletio". You think, if your argument of an existance of a minor in this movie was true, that the Guardian would mention the existance of bestiality on this collection and yet fails to mention the existance of pedophilia, in particular on this movie? They mention men, women, prostitutes, and in this particular movie, waitresses, electrician and cameraman. Not one time, in this mentioned in this movie "made during the filming of a 1920 film, The Three Musketeers, in the Paris suburb of Redon", is mentioned an underage actress. Tm (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment Thank you for your comments, and for your checking of the (apparently stolen) other file. Nonetheless it will be no surprise to you that your text failed to convince me. I think my three main arguments still stand. Let's agree to disagree. Vysotsky (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per cmts Alan (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Cleaning up unused photos and videos NudistPhotographer (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep being unused is not a reason to delete if in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept, Taivo (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You could not be more right. 186.172.172.85 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Correct that this is not an amateur porn site, but human sexuality is within project scope. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 12:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
sexual content 97.83.164.180 19:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, DR vandalism is all this IP does. Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
[Non-admin closure, Speedy Kept] Mass closure DR added by 97.83.164.180 because of accidental create. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ talk to me ] 04:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
We have a better video of this, file:Fellatio.webm, we can delete this file and redirect it so no uses are lost. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I realize this video's quality is not that good, but it's a much closer view, so unless there's a better-quality video with a comparably close view, it should be kept. I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but the one you linked isn't it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per previous & comment. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; in use. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Pornographic content without educativ purpose 80.146.8.244 09:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Not a valid reason. Definitely educational (and we don't have many of these). Previously kept allready. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This is porn 194.233.96.65 06:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept, yes, it is, but this is not a reason to delete it. Taivo (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Low quality amateur porn, shaky and frequently out of focus Dronebogus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No suitable replacements --Trade (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną. 188.147.12.36 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason --Trade (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Nullifying potential copyright, this file still fails COM:PORN.
- Speedy keep Policy that I cited cannot be used here, author also signed below.A09 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną. 188.147.12.36 21:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason --Trade (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Not under free license. Photos on hayazg.info are not CC licensed. No source for PD-Russia claim Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Estamos hablando de una persona que falleció en 1937? Todas esas fotos deberían estar libres, pienso yo. 186.172.98.173 00:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As per COM:PORN ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- G4? Borrar de todos modos. 186.172.98.173 00:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Just finding the next random reason for deletion of these? Please give a source for your claim. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Debería no serlo, sin embargo es un desastre... Deleting 186.172.98.173 02:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Work of Aaronson Andrew, not 'own work'. 2607:F140:8801:0:0:0:1:25 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am Aaronson Andrew. This is my own work. NudistPhotographer (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Low quality file, commons is not an amateur porn site Dronebogus (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I think in fact it looks more like a professional porn site. Therefore better delete this kind of amateur stuff from this place. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.43.5.243 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and lack of COM:EDUSE due to poor quality. --Achim55 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't look professional, and it seems strange to argue that it's both poor-quality and professional. And the thing is, do we have better videos of missionary position sex, other than the full-length Debbie Does Dallas? Might it be good to keep this as educational? I admit to feeling a little strange making this argument, but still. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to ignore your stupid question but then how will you understand that the question was stupid? Who told you that the file was both poor-quality AND professional? Por Dios! 181.43.5.243 15:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Look at the arguments above. It looks amateur to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną. 188.147.12.36 21:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason --Trade (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Para mí es una razón valida y legitima. Borrar. 186.172.98.173 00:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. Period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep this was nominated by a vandal on a censorship spree. It can easily be speedy kept. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Ya no quiero que este en internet Anais.Marin.2004 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Nadie quiere, ya que es robado de un diario con derechos de autor. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 186.172.98.173 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: un-used: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 16:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Magog the Ogre. --Rosenzweig τ 10:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of anus photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, also a screenshot. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete it’s like a very sad attempt at recreating goatse. Not educational or “medicle” [sic] at all. Dronebogus (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low-quality photo of a tourist. TadejM (t/p) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination Actually the only close-up photo of a tourist at Škocjan Caves. --TadejM (t/p) 08:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 10:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from w:en:Pierre Fakhoury is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from w:en:Pierre Fakhoury is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Beautiful dome but it is an artwork, and photo violates dome artist's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from the artist of the dome is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Taken from https://samilhistory.com/2017/03/29/winner-of-the-honoris-crux-gold-twice-one-of-a-kind-remembering-maj-arthur-walker-hcg-bar-sm/ - needs OTRS as this is likely not taken by the blog owner Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Same as his spotify pic - https://open.spotify.com/artist/3vH5gACMlz0cvkjJsjbt3d?si=yR83eYxmTAybCLdljMXPWA&nd=1 - we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:1-2نویسنده و مترجم و دو مقاله در کنفرانس بینالمللی ترکیه برگزار شد و در مجله لندن مقاله های اجتماعی.pdf
[edit]out of com:PS. Hanooz 08:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
out of com:PS. Amateurish/AI colorized photo. Hanooz 08:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
self promo on enwp --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
out of com:PS Hanooz 09:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Kurt Eigler
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyrighted until 70+ years after the death of the designer or longer depending if their status was restored by the URAA. Although I'll leave that up to others to decide. Either way in this case the designer of these stamps, Kurt Eigler, died in 1990. So the stamps are copyrighted until at least 2,060.
- File:DDR 1953 342 Wilhelm Pieck.jpg
- File:DDR, Dienstmarke, 05 Pfennig, Zirkel links.jpg
- File:DDR, Dienstmarke, 05 Pfennig, Zirkel rechts.jpg
- File:DDR, Dienstmarke, 06 Pfennig, Zirkel links.jpg
- File:DDR-Briefmarke Wartburgfest.jpg
- File:DDR-Marke Tag der Briefmarke 1951.JPG
- File:GDR 1953 MiNr0384XII mt B002.jpg
- File:GDR-stamp -Herbstmesse 1952 Mi. 316.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Agricola 10 1955 Mi. 497.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Arbeiterbewegung 15 1955 Mi. 474.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Arbeiterbewegung 20 1955 Mi. 475.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Arbeiterbewegung 25 1955 Mi. 476.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Arbeiterbewegung 40 1955 Mi. 477.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Arbeiterbewegung 5 1955 Mi. 472.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Aufbauprogramm 1952 Mi. 303.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Aufbauprogramm 1952 Mi. 304.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Aufbauprogramm 1952 Mi. 305.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Aufbauprogramm 1952 Mi. 306.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Avicenna 1952 Mi. 314.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Bart-Cisinski 50 1956 Mi. 535.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Beethoven 1952 Mi. 300.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Beethoven 1952 Mi. 301.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Befreiung vom Faschismus 10 1955 Mi. 459A.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Befreiung vom Faschismus 20 1955 Mi. 460A.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp da Vinci 1952 Mi. 312.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Gogol 1952 Mi. 313.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Heine 1956 Mi. 516.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Heine 1956 Mi. 517.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Herbstmesse 1952 Mi. 315.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Hugo 1952 Mi. 311.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Händel 1952 Mi. 308.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Jahn 1952 Mi. 317.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Lortzing 1952 Mi. 309.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Luftfahrt 1956 Mi. 513.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Luftfahrt 1956 Mi. 514.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Luftfahrt 1956 Mi. 515.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Mahnmal Treptower Park 20 1955 Mi. 463.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Mozart 1956 Mi. 510.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Mozart 1956 Mi. 511.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Robert Schumann 1956 Mi. 528.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Robert Schumann 1956 Mi. 541.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Robert Schumann 20 1956 Mi. 529.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Tag der Marke 1952 Mi. 319.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Thälmann 20 1956 Mi. 520A.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Uni Halle-Wittenberg 1952 Mi. 318.jpg
- File:GDR-stamp von Weber 1952 Mi. 310.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Völkerkongreß 1952 Mi. 320.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Völkerkongreß 1952 Mi. 321.JPG
- File:GDR-stamp Ägyptenhilfe 20+10 1956 Mi. 558.JPG
- File:Lufthansa DDR 5 Pf.jpg
- File:Lufthansaddr15pf.jpg
- File:DDR-schumann-1956.jpg
- File:Stamp 1955 GDR MiNr0493 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1955 GDR MiNr0495 pm B002a.jpg
- File:Stamp Josef Stalin 2.jpg
- File:Stamp Josef Stalin.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1953, MiNr Block 008 A.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1953, MiNr Block 008 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1953, MiNr Block 009 A.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1953, MiNr Block 009 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr 0428.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr 0430.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr 0431.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr 0432.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr 0445 B.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1954, MiNr Block 010.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0449.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0459.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0460.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0463.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0464.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0472.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0473.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0474.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0475.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0476.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0478.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0491.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0492.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0493.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0494.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0495.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr 0496.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1955, MiNr Block 011.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0510.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0512.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0514.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0516.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0520 A.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0529.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0535.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0541.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr 0558.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1956, MiNr Block 014.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1957, MiNr 0622.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1958, MiNr 0623.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 0807.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1961, MiNr 807.JPG
_1953,_MiNr_Block_008_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1953,_MiNr_Block_008_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1953,_MiNr_Block_009_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1953,_MiNr_Block_009_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_0428.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_0430.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_0431.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_0432.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_0445_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1954,_MiNr_Block_010.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0449.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0459.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0460.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0463.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0464.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0472.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0473.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0474.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0475.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0476.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0478.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0491.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0492.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0493.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0494.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0495.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_0496.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1955,_MiNr_Block_011.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0510.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0512.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0514.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0516.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0520_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0529.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0535.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0541.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_0558.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1956,_MiNr_Block_014.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1957,_MiNr_0622.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1958,_MiNr_0623.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_0807.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1961,_MiNr_807.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Slovenia: 1939 work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957); not available for Commons until 2035. TadejM (t/p) 15:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian: Out of scope --Alaa :)..! 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1963 artwork by a living artist. Source site also has this "© No work can be reproduced in any way without the permission of Carmen Gracia" Would need VRT from the artist to be hosted here. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
circa 1980 Icelandic photograph with a copyright notice and a named photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Official photo of a New York State legislature member. Per https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/new_york/ New York government created works can be copyrighted. I don't know if New York State Assembly is like New York State Senate which uses CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 which would be unacceptable for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
_Dayspring_Cover.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Dayspring_Cover.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1945 American book cover. If the copyright on the book was not renewed, it's public domain, if the copyright was renewed, it won't be public domain until 2041. Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
_Dayspring_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
_Dayspring_Cover.jpg){kind=link}
1925 Hungarian photograph, could be public domain. Uploader is obviously not the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
We need to determine if this logo exceeds COM:TOO France (it was created by Nadeo and/or Ubisoft, two French companies). I actually think it does not exceed the TOO in France, which is apparently quite high, but I also cannot find too much info about TOO in France because I don't know French. I am starting this discussion because another version of this logo, en:File:Trackmania (2020 video game) logo.svg, was tagged by User:FreeMediaKid! as being ineligible for transfer to Commons. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
_logo.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright Jedi Noordegraaf, see https://studiovandaar.nl/contact/ Vysotsky (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright Touchstone Television Vysotsky (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Probably the uploader is not the author of the photo, so she cannot use the CC-BY-SA license. 94.154.23.43 00:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted according to the website. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The copyright of this photo is doubtful because the results are taken from social media WillsonEP09 (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copied from the Internet, COM:PCP! Ras67 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dark, blurry and unused file, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blurry and unused file, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, very bad quality without apparent compensating importance. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality vulva photos, not being used other than user namespace, with many alternatives in the category, so I don't think this is useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Mediocre. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nur aisyah siregar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-10.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-9.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-8.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-7.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-6.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-5.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-3.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-4.jpg
- File:Arti Sahabat.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-2.jpg
- File:07a7a073ccd3e71fc255b12e06f6398e-0.jpg
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
out of com:PS logos.
Hanooz 08:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Copyright 2001:448A:11A8:13D1:2040:D611:CDB3:E716 09:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Extremely small image missing EXIF data, appears to be a crop from another photo, thus dubious "own work" claim A1Cafel (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing EXIF data, dubious claim of "own work" A1Cafel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Carl Bickel
[edit]According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Liechtenstein stamps of Liechtenstein are likely copyrighted and therefore shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. So the standard term of Life + 70 years applies to images of stamps from this country. In this case the designer of the stamps, Karl Bickel, died in 1982 so these images are copyrighted until at least 2,053. As a side to that a few of these stamps are from Switzerland, but they have the same copyright laws as Liechtenstein so the same term applies in those cases.
- File:LIE 1964 MiNr0448 mt B002b.jpg
- File:LIE 1965 MiNr449 mt B002.jpg
- File:LIE 1968 MiNrD045 mt B002.jpg
- File:LIE 1968 MiNrD048 pm B002.jpg
- File:LIE 1968 MiNrD055 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUi 1936 MiNr0297 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUi 1936 MiNr0298 pm B002b.jpg
- File:SUi 1936 MiNr0300 pm B002c.jpg
- File:SUI 1936 MiNr0301II pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUi 1936 MiNr0302 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1936 MiNr299II pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1939 MiNr0335 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1939 MiNr0336 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUI 1941 MiNr0377 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUI 1941 MiNr0378 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUi 1941 MiNr0380 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1941 MiNr0381 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUI 1941 MiNr0383 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUi 1941 MiNr0384 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1941 MiNr0385 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUI 1941-MiNr0382 pm B002.jpg
- File:SUI 1945 MiNr0466 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1948 MiNr0500 pm B002a.jpg
- File:SUI 1958 MiNr0685 pm B002b.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Artwork by Giovanni Greco, an Italian artist who died in 1957, and no permission from the heirs. Ruthven (msg) 14:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality Mons pubis images, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 05:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there any (even potential) educational use for these "alternative" flags? Unless someone can plausibly come up with one, these files should be deleted as out of project scope.
- File:State of Sicily.png
- File:Italy alt.png
- File:Republic of florence.png
- File:Croatia alt.png
- File:Serbiaalt.png
- File:Hungaryalt.png
- File:Austriaalt.png
- File:Slovakia alt.png
- File:Flag Of Saxony.png
- File:Czechia.png
- File:France alt.png
- File:Germany United By Bavaria.png
- File:Benelux free state.png
- File:Rhineland.png
- File:Denmarkalt.png
- File:Germany alt.png
- File:Grand Dutchy of Carpathia.png
- File:Lithuania alt.png
- File:Poland alt.png
- File:West prussia.png
- File:Norway e.png
- File:Sweden alt.png
- File:Byzantium (2).png
- File:Byzantium.png
- File:Bulgaria alt.png
- File:Romania alt.png
- File:Ukraine alt.png
- File:Belarus.png
- File:East prussia (konigsberg).png
- File:Estonia.png
- File:Karelia.png
- File:New Catalonian Flag.png
- File:Spain alt.png
- File:Portugal alt.png
- File:Morocco alt.png
- File:Algeria alt.png
- File:Tunisia alt.png
- File:Libya alt.png
- File:Egypt alt.png
- File:Cyprus alt.png
- File:Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd (Alternate).png
- File:Jordan alt.png
- File:Palestine alt.png
- File:Lebanon alt.png
- File:Syria alt.png
- File:Kuwait alt.png
- File:Iraq alt.png
- File:Turkey alt.png
- File:Georgia alt.png
- File:Armeniaalt.png
- File:Azerbaijan alt.png
- File:Iran alt.png
- File:Turkmenistan alt.png
- File:Uzbekistan alt.png
- File:Mongolia alt.png
- File:Kazakhstan Alt.png
- File:Alternate Russian Flag.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Once more: Is there any (even potential) educational use for these "alternative" flags (and one fictitious banknote)? Unless someone can plausibly come up with one, these files should be deleted as out of project scope.
- File:France redesign.png
- File:2023 03 19 0rn Kleki.png
- File:Genoa.png
- File:The flag of Azure.png
- File:Grand Empire of Switzerland 2nd flag.png
- File:Alps Danubian confederation.png
- File:Remade flag of Catalonia.png
- File:Flag of The United States of Brittany.png
- File:England alt.png
- File:Scotland at.png
- File:Northern Ireland V.2.png
- File:Iceland.png
- File:Exiled Enosis (Crete and Cyprus).png
- File:Calabria.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Not an own work. 186.172.59.255 00:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now. An email has been received at VRTS concerning. The email is in a queue awaiting processing Headlock0225 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
unused personal photo, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Photo Credit Press Information Department(PID)
[edit]Photo Credit: Press Information Department(PID), not a work from the US Embassy, thus the PD license is invalid
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104879181).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51105985545).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104951944).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Photo Credit Ministry of Foreign Affairs Bangladesh
[edit]Photo Credit: Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Bangladesh, not a work from the US Embassy, thus the PD license is invalid
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104879221).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104969262).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104969337).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104952314).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Photo Credit Prime Minister's Office Bangladesh
[edit]Photo Credit: Prime Minister's Office/Bangladesh, not a work from the US Embassy, thus the PD license is invalid
- File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Meets with Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka (50505174307).png
- File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Meets With Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka (50505173947).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104953309).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51105987065).png
- File:Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry Visits Bangladesh (51104880611).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Subject died in 2014, it is impossible that the file was created in 2017. By guessing from her daughter's appearance, this photo was probably taken in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Original source and permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support, as per nom. Dead.rabbit (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Meets With Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka (50491103566).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office, not a work from the US Department of State, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete While the Flickr license says "United States government work", the description for the image clearly states the image is courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office and copyright for works by the government of Bangladesh is 60 years after the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet. Personally, I tend to lean toward saying we should follow that term instead of assuming specific license on Flickr's side is correct since there's a tendency on such website to just mass upload images while selecting a random license without regard for it's actually correct or not. Especially in this case. Since obviously no one is going to sue the State Department for infringing copyright or whatever if they get the license on a few files wrong. Either way, we should default to the precautionary principle since it's clearly ambiguous as to which license to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Meets With Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka (50491254697).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office, not a work from the US Department of State, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete While the Flickr license says "United States government work", the description for the image clearly states the image is courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office and copyright for works by the government of Bangladesh is 60 years after the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet. Personally, I tend to lean toward saying we should follow that term instead of assuming specific license on Flickr's side is correct since there's a tendency on such website to just mass upload images while selecting a random license without regard for it's actually correct or not. Especially in this case. Since obviously no one is going to sue the State Department for infringing copyright or whatever if they get the license on a few files wrong. Either way, we should default to the precautionary principle since it's clearly ambiguous as to which license to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
File:Deputy Secretary Biegun Meets With Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka (50490399828).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office, not a work from the US Department of State, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete While the Flickr license says "United States government work", the description for the image clearly states the image is courtesy of the Bangladesh's Prime Minister's Office and copyright for works by the government of Bangladesh is 60 years after the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet. Personally, I tend to lean toward saying we should follow that term instead of assuming specific license on Flickr's side is correct since there's a tendency on such website to just mass upload images while selecting a random license without regard for it's actually correct or not. Especially in this case. Since obviously no one is going to sue the State Department for infringing copyright or whatever if they get the license on a few files wrong. Either way, we should default to the precautionary principle since it's clearly ambiguous as to which license to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's Busan Tower. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Architect Na Sang-gi died in 1989, so the copyright will expire in 2060. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's Busan Tower. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Architect Na Sang-gi died in 1989, so the copyright will expire in 2060. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's Busan Tower. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Architect Na Sang-gi died in 1989, so the copyright will expire in 2060. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's Busan Tower. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Architect Na Sang-gi died in 1989, so the copyright will expire in 2060. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It's Busan Tower. There is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Architect Na Sang-gi died in 1989, so the copyright will expire in 2060. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted architecture by Jože Plečnik (d. 1957); not in the scope of Commons until 2028. TadejM (t/p) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP Slovenia: work by J. Plečnik (d. 1957), created in 1956. Not free for Commons until 2052 (as per URAA). TadejM (t/p) 15:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- P.S.: URAA does not affect works that were not copyrighted in the United States before 1990, such as architecture (see Commons:URAA-restored copyrights#Tests). The work will therefore be free in 2028. --TadejM (t/p) 06:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
unused formula that could better be typeset in TeX Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Author request, unhelpful redirect and no pages linked. Jerium (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a stock photo from Getty, specifically this one: [2]. Sumanuil (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Contains a mistake (missing hydroxy group in the bottom right structure); replaced by File:Biosynthesis of flavonoids (ES).svg. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete, because of the chemistry error and there is a correct, high quality replacement. Marbletan (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Per warning of the template: Post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in USA A1Cafel (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Blue House changed the license from KOGL v1 to v4 in early September 2018, which disallowed commercial use and derivative works. The KOGL v1 license was last available on 29 August 2018. So sorry that images published in or after September 2018 don't fulfill Commons:Licensing requirement. A1Cafel (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:VULVA photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is actually pretty good quality, with a good level of detail to the lips. I don't care greatly whether it's kept or not, but it is not low-quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: not that low. --Strakhov (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The artist died in 1971. They don't become public domain in the EU until 2042. If uploader is a heir to the artist, they should contact COM:VRT since these are previously published works.
- File:02B-E-Clerissi.jpg
- File:03B-E-Clerissi.jpg
- File:04B-E-Clerissi.jpg
- File:03-E-Clerissi.jpg
- File:02-E-Clerissi.jpg
Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. You have to get over the false idea that pornography cannot be hosted by Commons. Commons does not censor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The existence of pornographic content Zaher6689 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above (in use). Also, the quality is good enough, or at least better than what we have at the moment. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: decent quality. --Strakhov (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Pornographic content without educativ purpose 80.146.8.244 09:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Not a valid reason. Definitely educational (and we don't have many of these). Previously kept allready. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Commons nie jest amatorską stroną pornograficzną 188.147.12.36 21:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Are the maps, informational boards, and infographics in public domain? (That is, the map makers, authors of texts in informational boards, and artists of infographics have been dead for more than 70 years.) If not, which I suspect for these graphical and literary works, then these photos must be removed as violating the work authors' copyrights. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. These photos under commercial Creative Commons licensing need licensing authorizations from the work authors, or their heirs if they are already dead.
- File:INCURSION AU PARC NATIONAL DU BANCO 218.jpg
- File:INCURSION AU PARC NATIONAL DU BANCO 230.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 125.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 126.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 127.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 129.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 130.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 131.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 132.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 133.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 134.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 135.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du banco CIV-2023 136.jpg
- File:Incursion au Parc National du Banco CIV-2023 302.jpg
- File:Incursion Banco 56.jpg
- File:Incursion Banco 57.jpg
- File:INCURSION PARC NATIONAL DU BANCO 226.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Wedding of William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington and Kathleen (née Kennedy), Marchioness of Hartington.jpg
[edit],_Marchioness_of_Hartington.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Marchioness_of_Hartington.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from magazine published in 1992. 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. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1933 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)
- Delete Mass dissemination of a false statement. Information about the author of the photo was provided by the uploader. The author of the photo died in 1988. The photo is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not that I disagree, but you can't vote in your own DRs. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete Per the nominator and their follow up comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant to have it in Wikipedia 78.196.41.32 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The permission, where is it? 186.173.105.242 21:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, no permission needed. --VIGNERON (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant to have it in Wikicommons 78.196.41.32 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Useful in a variety of ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the permission of the author? Why was the previous discussion closed as keep? 186.173.105.242 21:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, no permission needed for a personal picture. --VIGNERON (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Not relevant to have it in Wikicommons 78.196.41.32 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Rationale not sufficient. --Achim55 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Agreed. And come on! A picture of an enthronement has no value? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I can't see the permission from Olivier Brunet, can you? 186.173.105.242 21:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Papy Planet, est-ce que vous vous appellez Olivier Brunet? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Herby talk thyme 12:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation?? See COM:PACKAGE Headlock0225 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation?? See COM:PACKAGE Headlock0225 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Title card from a freely licensed video. I'm not sure the title card itself has much educational use. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per Commons:SCOPE --Lukas Beck (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fictional flag. User created himself probably. Also he put this to other wikipedias as well. Beshogur (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I added the source I referred to. #1 -- Samhanin (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Samhanin: thanks. I think I can withdraw it. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Version of 1 December 2007 should be deleted as the background consists of a copyrighted painting. This per request on VRT ticket:2023031910003163 Ellywa (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from w:en:Pierre Fakhoury is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikivoyage banner is derived from deleted File:Basilique du Notre Dame de la Paix, Yammassoukro, Cote d'Ivoire.JPG. Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from w:en:Pierre Fakhoury is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have uploaded it locally at en.voy, but wait for all the other language versions of Wikivoyage to upload this banner locally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Maquette Basilique Yamoussoukro
[edit]Models are artworks. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from the designers or artists of the models is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tour de l'Échangeur de Limete
[edit]Freedom of panorama does not exist in Congo-Kinshasa; it is limited only to free uses in textbooks and other traditional media, not commercial media or online media. Per w:fr:Tour de l'Échangeur, the author of this architectural work is w:fr:Olivier-Clément Cacoub, who died in 2008. Thus the work is still in his posthumous copyright and is unfree for exploitations. Commercial license permission from his heirs is required.
- File:Deuxième étage de la tour de l'Échangeur vu du premier étage.jpg
- File:Pied de la tour de l'Échangeur.jpg
- File:Tour de l'Échangeur de Limete.jpg
- File:Tour de l'Échangeur en 2018.jpg
- File:Tour de l'Échangeur vue d'une voiture.jpg
- File:Tour de l'Échangeur vue du dessous.jpg
- File:Tour de l'Échangeur vue du pied.jpg
- File:Échangeur limite.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The reception hall of Gbadolite Airport seems architecturally distinct. Per w:en:Gbadolite Airport#History, the airport was built during the rule of Mobutu Sese Seko (who ruled Zaire / Congo-Kinshasa from 1965 to 1997). It is unlikely the architect or designer of this building is already dead for more than 50 years. Freedom of panorama is not granted in Congo-Kinshasa; permission for commercial licensing from the heirs of the architect is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Palais présidentiel à Yamoussoukro
[edit]The work shown is w:fr:Palais présidentiel de Yamoussoukro. Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from the heirs of w:fr:Olivier-Clément Cacoub (died 2008) is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. More removed photos of Ivorian architecture can be found at Category:Ivorian FOP cases/deleted.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hôtel Président à Yamoussoukro
[edit]The hotel complex was authored by w:fr:Olivier-Clément Cacoub according to w:fr:Hôtel Président de Yamoussoukro. Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from the heirs of the now-deceased architect is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Findeco House
[edit]Violation of architect's copyright. Zambia has no complete freedom of panorama; it only allows incidental inclusion of works in public spaces. None of the photos here show the architectural work in an incidental (trivial or accessory) manner. A free license authorization from work authors Dušan Milenković & Branimir Ganović (or their heirs if they are already dead) is required for these photos under a commercial Creative Commons license to be hosted here.
Better still, have Zambian copyright law revised to permit freedom of panorama (in which public space works can be depicted even as main or intentional subjects without work authors' permissions).
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 12.jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 13.jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 14.jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 2 (cropped).jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 2.jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 3.jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 5 (cropped).jpg
- File:The City of Lusaka 2022 1 5.jpg – borderline (50-50) incidental/intentional but the building is the only interesting subject here.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It might be possible to keep the last one. It's one of several buildings in the picture, plus a wall, cars, a few posts and so forth. I'd be interested to know what the things in the middle and on the top of the post on the right are and do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Violation of architect's copyright. Zambia has no complete freedom of panorama; it only allows incidental (not intentional or main-subject) inclusion of works in public spaces. Per w:en:Child Jesus Cathedral, Lusaka, the church was inaugurated in 2006. The article hints that the site was just a vacant field in 1989, which supports the 2006 claim. The architect is probably not yet dead for more than 50 years, hence still copyrighted architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Heroes Stadium
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Zambia. None of the photos show the stadium incidentally (trivially or accessory). Per w:en:National Heroes Stadium, it was completed in 2013 and inaugurated the next year. Permission for commercial license from the architect is required.
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 01.jpg
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 02.jpg
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 03.jpg
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 04.jpg
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 05.jpg
- File:2023 Heroes National Stadium 06.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 01.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 02.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 03.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 04.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 05.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 06.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 07.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 08.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 09.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 10.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 11.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 12.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 13.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 14.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 15.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 16.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 17.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 18.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 19.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 21.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 22.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 23.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 24.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 25.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 26.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 27.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 28.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium birds-eye view1.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lusaka National Museum
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Zambia. None of the photos show the museum building incidentally. Per w:en:Lusaka National Museum, it was built during the 1980s and inaugurated by 1996. A free license from the heirs of the architect is required.
- File:Eingangstreppe Lusaka National Museum.jpg – shows an art installation. Needs commercial license permit from the artist who created this.
- File:Lusaka Museum.jpg
- File:Lusaka National Museum.JPG
- File:Nationalmuseum (26332560698).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"Hale Yalincak"
[edit]First I was nominating these for discussion about the contradiction of a CC-BY-3.0 license and the statement "Use of these images is permissible as fair use." in the description. However, after noticing the inconsistent photography style and low resolution, I think this is a case of (unintentional?) license laundering. Especially considering https://haleyalincak.wordpress.com/about/ where Yalincak says: "This blog is just to share [...] interesting photos I have found online", admitting that Yalincak is probably not the author of all photos.
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838533).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838463).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838289).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838563).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838281).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838445).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838383).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838287).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838539).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838283).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838561).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838469).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838401).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838347).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838293).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838573).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838253).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838449).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838483).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838291).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838503).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838443).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838385).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838467).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838455).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838509).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838575).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838565).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838511).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838393).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838519).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838507).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838585).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838479).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838453).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838295).jpeg
- File:Hale Yalincak Wordpress Photos (124838581).jpeg
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HyperGaruda (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure these are all copyright violations. Most of his blog seems to be copyright violations. For example at [3] he reproduces an entire story from the New York Times and says "This story was shared from the NY Times page and link above. I do not own the copyright to this work." It seems very unlikely the Times gave him permission to publish this. I have republished news stories myself. The original organization always requires that you add some words like "reproduced by permission of the NYT". And I can't imagine NYT giving permission for this. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a nomination of all the JPGs uploaded by Enekorga, as well as several other images uploaded by them. I spot-checked several of these images and they were all either obviously copyright violations (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]) or credited to Flickr users without a link to Flickr. Since it is fairly evident that Enekorga has been misusing the CC-BY-SA license tag, I have nominated these images for deletion as a group without checking all of them individually.
I have also included several PNG and SVG logos, screenshots and satellite images in this nomination, since they likely fail PD-shape and are all currently mislicensed as CC-BY-SA.
- File:Coron du berger metro charleroi.jpg
- File:Surchiste anderlues metro charleroi.jpg
- File:Route de thuin metro charleroi.jpg
- File:Anderlues Jonction metro.jpg
- File:Route de la Station cHarleroi Métro.jpg
- File:Pétria Métro Station.jpg
- File:Leernes Métro Station.jpg
- File:Ciudaddeltransportedeiruña.jpg
- File:Logo Tram Zaragoza.svg
- File:Logo Tram Zaragoza N.svg
- File:Carte-Trambus-T1.png
- File:Herritar Txartela-Tarjeta Ciudadana.jpg
- File:Bonobus.jpg
- File:Linea1tuvillavesa.png
- File:Poste Pamplona.jpg
- File:Marquesina Pamplona.jpg
- File:Villavesa-bianakoprintzea.jpg
- File:Linea 16arrotxapea.jpg
- File:LineaAaeropuerto.jpg
- File:Linea25lezkairu.jpg
- File:Linea24zizur.jpg
- File:Linea23kordobila.jpg
- File:Interior villavesa 2.jpg
- File:Linea21centro.jpg
- File:Linea20centro.jpg
- File:Logotipo Vías Verdes.svg
- File:Linea19erripagaña.jpg
- File:Linea18iturrama.jpg
- File:Linea 16berriozar.jpg
- File:Linea 15ardoi.jpg
- File:Interior villavesa.jpg
- File:Linea 12centro.jpg
- File:Txik-Txaklogobleu.png
- File:Txik-Txakogoblanc.png
- File:Linea11centro.jpg
- File:Linea10centro.jpg
- File:Linea8centro.jpg
- File:SeñalEntradaNafarroa-Navarra.png
- File:A-12 zizur.jpg
- File:Linea 7ermitagaña.jpg
- File:Linea 17rotxapea.jpg
- File:Linea 6rotxapea.jpg
- File:Linea 5txantrea.jpg
- File:4h pakearen plaza.jpg
- File:Pio xii pamplona.jpg
- File:Villavesa L1 Cizur Menor.jpg
- File:Lineo Toulouse.jpg
- File:Estación Autobuses Pamplona.jpg
- File:Nbus Small Logo.svg.png
- File:Nbus Logo.svg
- File:Bat3 Bordeaux.jpg
- File:Logo urbano de tudela.png
- File:Logoteb.png
- File:Logoteb.jpg
- File:Tierraestellabuslogo.jpg
- File:2012030600025975640 4610ff14.jpg
- File:Nafarroako Aldiriak-Cercanías de Navarra.png
- File:Trambus Bayonne.jpg
- File:Villavesa Eléctrica Pamplona.jpg
Jc86035 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
CC-BY-NC-ND at source, which is not accepted on Commons. However, some of these may fall under {{PD-Spain-photo}} if date can be verified.
- File:NFA - Getze Ibargoiti - Eliza.jpg
- File:NFA - Zilegieta.jpg
- File:NFA - Idotzin.jpg
- File:NFA - Getze Ibargoiti - Etxea.jpg
- File:NFA - Idotzin - Eliza.jpg
- File:NFA - Elo (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Elo (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Ibargoiti (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Ibargoiti (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Higa (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Higa (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Higa (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Altzorritz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Zenborain.jpg
- File:NFA - Zabaltzeta.jpg
- File:NFA - Zorokiain.jpg
- File:NFA - Artaitz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Naxurieta.jpg
- File:NFA - Artaitz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Altzorritz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Ardatz Itzagaondokoa (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Ardatz Itzagaondokoa (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Idoate.jpg
- File:NFA - Iriso.jpg
- File:NFA - Erreta.jpg
- File:NFA - Itzagaondoa.jpg
- File:NFA - Indurain (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Indurain (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Esa (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Esa (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Esa (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (7).jpg
- File:NFA - Leire (6).jpg
- File:Ledeako bandera.svg
- File:NFA - Ledea (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Ledea (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Ledea (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Ledea (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberriko arroila.jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberri (6).jpg
- File:NFA - Irunberriko baseliza.jpg
- File:NFA - Napari.jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (6).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (7).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (9).jpg
- File:NFA - Arbaiun (8).jpg
- File:NFA - Adantsa.jpg
- File:NFA - Arbontze.jpg
- File:NFA - Biotzari.jpg
- File:NFA - Domeñu.jpg
- File:NFA - Orradre.jpg
- File:NFA - Murillo Berroia.jpg
- File:NFA - Usun.jpg
- File:NFA - Imirizaldu.jpg
- File:NFA - Iruzozki (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Eparotz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Iruzozki (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Aietxu.jpg
- File:NFA - Eparotz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Elkoatz.jpg
- File:NFA - Ongotz.jpg
- File:NFA - Zabaltza Urraulgoiti.jpg
- File:NFA - Ozkoidi.jpg
- File:NFA - Agoitz (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Agoitz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Agoitz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Agoitz (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Agoitz (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Ekai Longida.jpg
- File:NFA - Murelu Longida (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Murelu Longida (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Hiriberri Longida.jpg
- File:NFA - Olaberri.jpg
- File:NFA - Liberri.jpg
- File:NFA - Gorritz.jpg
- File:NFA - Itoitz.jpg
- File:NFA - Aos.jpg
- File:NFA - Orbaitz.jpg
- File:NFA - Aiantz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Billabeta.jpg
- File:NFA - Meotz.jpg
- File:NFA - Erdotzain.jpg
- File:NFA - Aiantz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Artaxo.jpg
- File:NFA - Garaioa (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Garaioa (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurrepea (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurrepea (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurregaina (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurregaina (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurregaina (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurregaina (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Abaurregaina (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Aribe (6).jpg
- File:NFA - Aria.jpg
- File:NFA - Orbara (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Orbara (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Orbaizetako ola (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Orbaizeta (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Orbaizeta (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Orbaizetako ola (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Hiriberri Aezkoa.jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (6).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (7).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (8).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (9).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (10).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (11).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (12).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (13).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (14).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (16).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (15).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (18).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (19).jpg
- File:NFA - Garralda (17).jpg
- File:NFA - Nagore (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Iriberri Artziber.jpg
- File:NFA - Nagore (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Arrieta.jpg
- File:NFA - Azparren (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Azparren (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Azparren (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Azparren (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Artozki.jpg
- File:NFA - Imizkotz.jpg
- File:NFA - Urdirotz.jpg
- File:NFA - Uritz.jpg
- File:NFA - Zaragueta.jpg
- File:Orreaga - NFA (2).jpg
- File:Orreaga - NFA (1).jpg
- File:Orreaga - NFA (3).jpg
- File:Orreaga - NFA (5).jpg
- File:Orreaga - NFA (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Auritz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Auritz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Auritz (3).jpg
- File:NFA - Auritz (5).jpg
- File:NFA - Auritz (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Urrotz (1).jpg
- File:NFA - Urrotz (2).jpg
- File:NFA - Urrotz (4).jpg
- File:NFA - Urrotz (5).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "eigenes Werk" - aber eindeutig kein Selfie Lutheraner (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "eigenes Werk" - aber eindeutig kein Selfie, denn der Protagonist steht auf der Bühne Lutheraner (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ich bin auch der Veranstalter dieses Konzertes auf dem dieses Foto in meinem Auftrag gemacht wurde. Ich habe einen Fotografen engagiert, der in meinem Auftrag diese Fotos gemacht hat. Ich habe diese Fotos, sie Rechte dat´zu sowieso, da ich der fotografierte bin, bezahlt und diese d´sind mein Eigentum. Ich erteile hiermit Wikipedia die Erlaubnis, diese MEINE Fotos zu veröffentlichen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Hendrik Schwolow (Hendrik Joachim Schwolow) Hendrik Joachim Schwolow Hendrik Joachim Schwolow (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatantly not uploader's own work. It is dated 1920, but how accurate is that? Provenance is "from the first edition of Virginia Woolf's Orlando", and thus the best we can say is that PD-US will apply as of 1 January 2024 DS (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iranitabar (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of com:PS
Hanooz 09:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It's illegal gambling website banner. This is out of scope. Ox1997cow (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Dubious ownership claim: [8] Gyrostat (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, found by TinEye back in Aug. 2017. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
because i said so HeZbz (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of out-of-scope doc. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This image is misleading: en:Russel's paradox is not just about a set K that contains itself as an element. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
fake flag Yilku1 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nathan B2 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1| https://pibcg.rio/nossa-historia/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is probably in the public domain already (created in 1903). -- Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-Brazil-Photo}}. Ruthven (msg) 12:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
編集のし直しをするため Powerlike (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion: uploader requested deletion on the day of upload. --Yasu (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan for artistic works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Com:Toys? 186.172.172.85 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as G4: Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. --Yasu (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sihlcity
[edit]FOP laws in Switzerland don't cover building interiors and in the meantime this mall was built in 2007. So it's extremely likely the architecture and anything inside of it are copyrighted, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. If not, then these images should be deleted as copyright violations.
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht - Weihnachtsdekoration 2015-01-05 14-58-46 (P7800).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht - Weihnachtsdekoration 2015-01-05 14-59-19 (P7800).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht - Weihnachtsdekoration 2015-01-05 15-01-11 (P7800).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht - Weihnachtsdekoration 2015-01-05 15-03-13 (P7800).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 2012-02-22 15-59-28 (SX230).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 2012-02-22 16-00-08 (SX230).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 2012-02-22 16-00-53 (SX230).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 2012-02-22 16-03-47 (SX230).JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 3. OG 2014-03-07 14-59-06.JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 3. OG 2014-03-07 15-03-21.JPG
- File:Sihlcity - Innenansicht 3. OG 2014-03-07 15-13-18.JPG
- File:Sihlcity.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 06:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.231.21 as no source (no source) Krd 06:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. The source is most likely [9] as stated, but there is not enough information there to determine the photo's copyright status. Also, the file seems to have been "enhanced" (that is falsified) by some AI effort, not very succesful though. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Image of unverifiable copyright status. It's claimed as CC/own work, but the same image is also used on another website (https://www.issuewire.com/daniel-larze-biography-wiki-birthdate-etc-1724939776721426 , although you'll have to arrow through the image gallery to see it), so it's impossible to verify whether the uploader was the rightful holder of any copyrights on it, or just grabbed it from a random image search. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photo was uploaded by an account from a sockfarm dedicated to promoting the subject of the image. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --✗plicit 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright 92.210.92.109 10:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There's zero evidence this image is copyright free. Plus, it was uploaded by a paid SPA account. So it should be deleted as PROMO spam anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with all of these three arguments. There is a chain of evidence, which I guess in real life would be often fair enough, but on Wikipedia could be dismissed due to the minor contradiction in the chain of evidence. Second, a paid account should not be held against the contributor, and third this not automatically makes it promotion. -- Mdd (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Adamant1, please keep in mind that starting with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and the subsequent set of rules can be a difficult task at first.
- In no way was it my intention to cause confusion.
- What is important for me to say is, that I am not acting on the will of promoting anything, which can also be seen in the case that I try to follow all rules of Wikipedia/Wikimedia by explicitly stating that I am getting paid for editing the article of Sebastian Haug. I am planning on volunteering on other articles in the future - for which I will not get paid, of course. MBueser (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- We hold all rights to this image.
The depicted member of parliament Sebastian Haug (MdL) holds all rights on this image. The photographer Lars Langemeier has agreed in a written manner that Sebastian Haug and I in the capacity of his media manager are allowed to upload this photography under the licensed terms (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International) which we noted during the upload of the file.
There is no copyright reason to delete this image in any way. MBueser (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)- @MBueser: in direct response to your comment, I tend to agree there is no copyright reason, but this is just a matter of semantics. I can confirm that due to the contradiction in the metadata, and the lack of an additional VRT permission these kind of images get deleted here on Wikimedia Commons. In your preparation you missed a step, which you can resolve (sometimes with some help). If you do, please let me know. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dear @Mdd, Thank you very much for your information regarding this case - in no way was it my intention to cause confusion with the upload of this image.
- As a side note, the depicted Sebastian Haug MdL has purchased this image under a written license that allows him/me on behalf of him to upload and publish this image under the CC4 license.
- If I understand the situation correctly this deletion request is based on the metadata that the photographer included in the file which states that he is the copyright holder.
- I will go ahead and follow your linked article so that the photographer can contact the VRT.
- Thanks again for the clarification - I am quite new to Wikipedia and sadly was of the opinion that having a written license would be sufficient. MBueser (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @MBueser: in direct response to your comment, I tend to agree there is no copyright reason, but this is just a matter of semantics. I can confirm that due to the contradiction in the metadata, and the lack of an additional VRT permission these kind of images get deleted here on Wikimedia Commons. In your preparation you missed a step, which you can resolve (sometimes with some help). If you do, please let me know. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by Mdd
- There seem to be a contradicting chain of evidence here.
- The uploader @MBueser: has identified himself on 13 jul 2022 as Mats Büser, see here as paid contributor at the German Wikipedia with the text: Mats Büser agrees to be paid by Sebastian Haug MdL for some edits to the article Sebastian Haug in accordance with the Terms of Use.
- Yesterday MBueser uploaded the file and after the Deletion request, he commented on the talk page (which I just copy/pasted here)
- However the meta data of the file still states: Copyright holder: Lars Langemeier, which contradics Mbueser's statement yesterday
- In this particular case an additional email from the photographer to Wikipedia/Wikimedia could resolve this situation, see also Commons:Volunteer Response Team and Commons:E-Mail-Vorlagen (example of permission form).
- -- Mdd (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023041310012742 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT license now. --Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Genehmigung des Fotografen Schmidt-Domine (s. Metadaten) fehlt Barbasca (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The name of the uploader user:Lenia Major is the same than the person represented, French writer Lenia Major. This means that this is supposed to be a self-portrait. But there is no proof user:Lenia Major is indeed this writer.
Furthermore, this picture is used on at least another website (an organization associated with the publishing world), and I couldn't find which was published first: https://www.la-charte.fr/repertoire/major-lenia/
An authorization should be sent. See in French: Aide:Republication/Image. Titlutin (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. Can be undeleted with VTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright. This photo is made by Lars Gundersen. Google shows the copyright of him. See here. I don't think that the user Biggyre = Lars Gundersun. Wouter (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Photo of photo = DW. --Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 24 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 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Joachim Leitsch, Harald Sydow, "Bergbaudampflokomotiven in Nordrhein-Westfalen", Arbeitsgemeinsch Drehscheibe, Köln, 2011, ISBN 978-3-929082-30-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright term in Germany for anonymous works is 70+ years after the date of publication, which means this image would have had to have been published in 1953 or earlier to be PD. In absence of a solid publication date I think we should air on the side of caution and delete the image since it's way more likely to have been taken post 1953 then the reverse. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 31 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)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
AI generated images of kidnapped Taiwanese women in bondage
[edit]If we truly needed educational images regarding the topic of kidnapping i feel like we could probably find something better than these unnatural-looking thinly veiled fetish images
- File:被綁架的護理師(Stable Diffusion).png
- File:A 17-year-old female student in school uniform with kidnapper.png
- File:被綁架的女OL(Stable Diffusion).png
- File:被襲擊的女孩 1158022922.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Trade (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Probably so, but the second one is COM:INUSE, so as long as it is, it has to be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The second one seems to have been added by the uploader without any discussion Trade (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then delete the others in the meantime. 181.43.4.47 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, deleting admin, you distinguish well good IPs from bad ones (IPs or users). 181.43.4.47 14:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I actually was looking for an image to represent w:ryona Dronebogus (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please generate something featuring adults instead? Trade (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I guess, though I’m not very good at AI image generation. Besides, 17 is pretty close to being an adult for the purposes of an illustration, especially a non-explicit one, and you couldn’t even tell without the caption. Dronebogus (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Is there something in the genre that makes a 30–50 years old inappropriate? When it comes to images with sexual undertones (or sexually explicit images), I think we should avoid images where somebody easily can imagine the person depicted to be a child, unless there is some specific reason to use such an image. Of course, Commons should have options for the latter cases, but I don't think that's too important here. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- I can try to make one but I’m not very good at either manual or AI illustration. Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there something in the genre that makes a 30–50 years old inappropriate? When it comes to images with sexual undertones (or sexually explicit images), I think we should avoid images where somebody easily can imagine the person depicted to be a child, unless there is some specific reason to use such an image. Of course, Commons should have options for the latter cases, but I don't think that's too important here. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- I guess, though I’m not very good at AI image generation. Besides, 17 is pretty close to being an adult for the purposes of an illustration, especially a non-explicit one, and you couldn’t even tell without the caption. Dronebogus (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please generate something featuring adults instead? Trade (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good example of AI-generated image Юрий Д.К 16:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close. 3 already deleted and 1 already kept. --Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Poland is not the country of original publication. Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Copyrightisreal What is? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PlanespotterA320. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently unknown if its in the public domain in the United States Trust Is All You Need (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The current license is most appropriate. The image is automatically in PD in the United States because it was in PD in its country of origin (Soviet Union -> Russia) on the URAA date, 1 January 1996.
Kept: per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient source information Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Question What was not resolved in the previous deletion request thread, in which the file was kept? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PlanespotterA320. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Probably not own work Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PlanespotterA320. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Obviously derivative work Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PlanespotterA320. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. João Justiceiro (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, yep, totally above the COM:TOO, even in Brazil. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessary redirect. João Justiceiro (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 2012. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Stefan Lauscher, Gerhard Moll, "Jung-Lokomotiven", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2012, ISBN: 9783882557978. Uoijm77 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Template:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügtRainerhaufe (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Wer hat dann die Zeichnung erstellt? Irgendein Hobbymaler und dann von einem historischen Buch übernommen wurden. Der Veröffentlicher damals hat eine Werksskizze von irgendwoher genommen.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:19, 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)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2026. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 2010. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. The author of this scheme published a book in 1997. His book was created with the participation of the authors of the book from 2010. He did not die over 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: Ingo Hütter, Thorsten Bretschneider, "Die Osthannoverschen Eisenbahnen", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2010. ISBN 978-3-88255-730-5. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepTemplate:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainerhaufe (talk • contribs) 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain.Uoijm77 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
wer hat dann die Zeichnung erstellt? Das wird wohl nicht von einem historischen Buch übernommen worden sein, wenn es nicht vom Hersteller abgesegnet wäreRainerhaufe (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no clear indications for keeping the drawing Uoijm77 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2046. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&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: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from book published in unknown time. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. 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. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 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 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)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- 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)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2048. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published in 2012. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Drawings created prior to 1995 cannot be anonymous works in Germany. Respecting copyright is not about presuming a thesis without evidence. It is not known when it was created. It can be assumed that the scheme was created many years later. It is not known to be the original factory schematic. The schema may have been sketched for the book. Don't rely on presumptions. It doesn't mean that someone can scan a photograph from any book and assume it has been published immediately after creation. No one can immediately tell that a given photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. It can't be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Additionally, it is impossible to tell which particular schema was created by factory. Many books contain modern technical diagrams of old machines. Many of them are drawn for the books. In many cases, drawings are created anew based on the data obtained. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, "Dampflokomotiven. Regelspurige Privatbahn-Lokomotiven bei der DR", Transpress, Stuttgart, 1998, ISBN 9783344710446. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Template:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe hinzugefügt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainerhaufe (talk • contribs) 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The scheme is a copyright infringement. All explanations are given at the beginning of the discussion. This drawing is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment der Veröffentlicher hat auf jedem Fall eine Zeichnung genommen, die vom Hersteller abgezeichnet wurde. Es ist also durch den unbekannten Ersteller gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are no clear indications for keeping the drawing. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until (conservatively) 2051. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 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 1998. 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 - Gerd Wolff, Lothar Riedel, "Deutsche Klein- und Privatbahnen. Band 5: Nordrhein-Westfalen. Nordwestlicher Teil", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 1998, ISBN 9783882556629. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es wurde lediglich die Fotosammlung Wolff angegeben. 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 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)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Taken "around" 1950 isn't good enough since the term for anonymous works is 70+ years after the date of publication. So the image would be copyrighted if it was made anywhere after 1953, which is way more likely then the reverse. Also, the idea that the photograph must be anonymous because the government didn't allow the public to take photographs of train yards at that time is bunk since they had professional photographers on the government payroll a lot of whom are known. Or they made special exceptions for press photographers. Either way though, I think there's a clear case for deleting the images even if the person is anonymous given the good chance it was created after 1953. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Adamant. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 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 2001. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. 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 - Jürgen-Ulrich Ebel, Andreas Knipping, Klaus-Peter Quill, Andreas Stange, "Die '6000er' der Deutschen Reichsbahn", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2001, ISBN 9783882551600. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Taken "around" 1950 isn't good enough since the term for anonymous works is 70+ years after the date of publication. So the image would be copyrighted if it was made anywhere after 1953, which is way more likely then the reverse. Also, the idea that the photograph must be anonymous because the government didn't allow the public to take photographs of train yards at that time is bunk since they had professional photographers on the government payroll a lot of whom are known. Or they made special exceptions for press photographers. Either way though, I think there's a clear case for deleting the images even if the person is anonymous given the good chance it was created after 1953. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 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)
Deleted: per Adamant. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 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 2001. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. 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 - Jürgen-Ulrich Ebel, Andreas Knipping, Klaus-Peter Quill, Andreas Stange, "Die '6000er' der Deutschen Reichsbahn", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2001, ISBN 9783882551600. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2048. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 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 2015. 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 - Alexander Bückle, Bernhard Günzl, Ludger Kenning, "Das Öchsle, Die Schmalspurbahn Biberach – Warthausen – Ochsenhausen", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn, 2015, ISBN 978-3-933613-99-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1930 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment ein Foto was 1930 entstanden ist, als das Fotografieren von Eisenbahnanlagen privat verboten war, von einem unbekannten Fotografen, ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Es ist daher gemeinfrei.Rainerhaufe (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2026. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 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 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Joachim Leitsch, Harald Sydow, "Bergbaudampflokomotiven in Nordrhein-Westfalen", Arbeitsgemeinsch Drehscheibe, Köln, 2011, ISBN 978-3-929082-30-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 photo is a copyright infringement. All explanations are provided at the beginning of the discussion. This picture is not in the public domain. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2046. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 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 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Joachim Leitsch, Harald Sydow, "Bergbaudampflokomotiven in Nordrhein-Westfalen", Arbeitsgemeinsch Drehscheibe, Köln, 2011, ISBN 978-3-929082-30-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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) 09:32, 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)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2046. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 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 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Joachim Leitsch, Harald Sydow, "Bergbaudampflokomotiven in Nordrhein-Westfalen", Arbeitsgemeinsch Drehscheibe, Köln, 2011, ISBN 978-3-929082-30-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt, es ist lediglich die Quelle 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 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) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment 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) 09:32, 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)
Kept: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow old orphan works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- On second look, deleted as unfree in the US until 2046. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Large portions of this video contain stock video clips from AFP, the Associated Press, and Reuters. None of those videos are covered by VOA's public domain status, so this work is itself non-free. We cannot have it on Commons so long as it contains those stock videos, and we should delete it as a non-free COM:DW. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:National Heroes Stadium in 2021
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Zambia. None of the photos show the stadium incidentally (trivially or accessory). The architectural elements of the stadium are clearly noticeable in the nominated photos. Per w:en:National Heroes Stadium, it was completed in 2013 and inaugurated the next year. Permission for commercial license from the architect is required.
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 01.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 02.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 03.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 04.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 05.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 06.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 07.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 08.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 09.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 16.jpg
- File:Inauguration at National Heroes Stadium 17.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 01.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 02.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 03.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 04.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 05.jpg
- File:Inside National Heroes Stadium 06.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 2021 1.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 2021 2.jpg
- File:National Heroes Stadium 2021 3.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Allow me to go and get a letter that allows me to take these pictures. Otherwise, this is ridiculous if that is the case you base that there is no freedom of panorama in Zambia then you have a lot of cleanups to do. We have a lot of pictures that need attention or to be deleted cause I don't think everyone has permission to do so. Icem4k (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Icem4k: taking photos is one thing, but publishing them is another. What matters is publication, and these photos are published on Wikimedia Commons under commercial Creative Commons licenses. But Zambian copyright law only allows incidental use of works in public spaces. The correct move is to obtain license permission from the designer or architect of the stadium, not a permit to photograph because it is allowed to take photos (only for personal use, not for sharing under free CC licensing). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- If I get this Permission for a commercial license from the architect where do I send it? Icem4k (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Icem4k: per COM:VRTS, correspondences go to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. But take note the architect or designer should be the one who will send that email, not you (since the permission must come from the copyright holder of the work). You are just going to contact the architect and ask them if they want to release their work under a free license. If they agree, they should send their authorization to Wikimedia Foundation directly, through that email address provided by VRTS page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 thank you. How many days do I have to get this over the line. Icem4k (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Icem4k: it depends. There is a chance of the photos being deleted before the architect agrees to Creative Commons license. But the files can be restored (yes, "deletion" only hides photos from public and non-admins). In fact, all successful nominations from Zambia have been categorized at Category:Zambian FOP cases/deleted, so that in case some Zambian Wikipedians would take major action; that is, calling the Zambian legislature to amend or revise the copyright law (to introduce FOP in Zambia), those deleted photos can be undeleted. In case of permission, a VRTS administrator will request on COM:UNDEL the undeletions in case the files got deleted and the photos need to be restored to process permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 That being the case do what you have to do. We will see each other soon 🤭... Icem4k (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Icem4k: it depends. There is a chance of the photos being deleted before the architect agrees to Creative Commons license. But the files can be restored (yes, "deletion" only hides photos from public and non-admins). In fact, all successful nominations from Zambia have been categorized at Category:Zambian FOP cases/deleted, so that in case some Zambian Wikipedians would take major action; that is, calling the Zambian legislature to amend or revise the copyright law (to introduce FOP in Zambia), those deleted photos can be undeleted. In case of permission, a VRTS administrator will request on COM:UNDEL the undeletions in case the files got deleted and the photos need to be restored to process permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 thank you. How many days do I have to get this over the line. Icem4k (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Icem4k: per COM:VRTS, correspondences go to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. But take note the architect or designer should be the one who will send that email, not you (since the permission must come from the copyright holder of the work). You are just going to contact the architect and ask them if they want to release their work under a free license. If they agree, they should send their authorization to Wikimedia Foundation directly, through that email address provided by VRTS page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Centre Spatial de Toulouse
[edit]Recent artwork. No FOP in France.
--Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Šenčur
[edit]Per COM:FOP Slovenia: work by Franc Žvan (architect; d. 1964) and Janez Gregorka (sculptor; 1946; possibly still living). Not suitable for Commons at the moment.
TadejM (t/p) 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Truške
[edit]Per COM:FOP Slovenia: modern architecture.
- File:Kantina Rodica Truške - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Kantina Rodica Truške - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Kantina Rodica Truške - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:Kantina Rodica Truške - panoramio (4).jpg
- File:Kantina Rodica Truške - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
TadejM (t/p) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" der Maler Willi Langenhan verstarb aber 1994 Lutheraner (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- allo lutheraner, das Foto ist von mir mit meinem eigenen Fotoapparat gemacht worden, als mein Vater noch lebte.
- Ich denke, dass ich damit die Lizenz habe, das Foto als mein Eigentum zu benennen. 2003:D3:E735:94BF:E591:9639:6B63:FA8F 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" der Maler Willi Langenhan verstarb aber 1994 Lutheraner (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo lutheraner, das Foto von dem GEMÄLDE ist von mir mit meinem eigenen Fotoapparat gemacht worden.
- Das Gemälde "Mein Hut und Ich" ist mittlerweile durch Erbschaft mein persönliches Eigentum geworden.
- Ich denke, dass ich mein Eigentum fotografiert habe und damit auch die Eigentumslizenz habe.
- Lothar Langenhan 2003:D3:E735:94BF:E591:9639:6B63:FA8F 20:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haratio Fales (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:O Class Battlecruiser Germany 1941 3.png and remarks on file talk pages, these are likely all copvio screenshots from a computer game called World of Warships and should be deleted per the precautionary principle.
- File:O Class Battlecruiser Germany 1944.png
- File:O Class Battlecruiser Germany 1941 4.png
- File:AquilaTop1a.png
- File:AquilaStbdFore1b.png
- File:SpahkruzerAngleObtuse1a.png
- File:OclassCruiser1-24ShipRearAngleA1hullMid.blend.jpg
- File:OclassCruiser1-23BigGuns1A1hullMid.blend.jpg
- File:DclassCruiser1WikiDetail1.blend.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 17:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: one of these images predate WoW; the game was released in September 2015, but File:DclassCruiser1WikiDetail1.blend.jpg was uploaded in May 2015. File:OclassCruiser1-24ShipRearAngleA1hullMid.blend.jpg and File:OclassCruiser1-23BigGuns1A1hullMid.blend.jpg were uploaded after the game came out, but are clearly of the same style as the earlier image. The top 5 images are all clearly copyvios, but the bottom three are likely fine. Parsecboy (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete top five / keep bottom three per Parsecboy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: top 5 and kept bottom 3 per above. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://diarieducacio.cat/. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: below TOO. Ruthven (msg) 07:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Utcursch as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Ruthven (msg) 07:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.231.21 as no source (no source) Krd 06:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 83.61.231.21 as no source (no source) Krd 06:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Fake template. This is not a factory drawing of a locomotive. This is a converted sketch of the locomotive of Class 690 of the Italian State Railways. This is a private invention. This site is not suitable for posting someone's own drawings of imaginary locomotives. Uoijm77 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + no permission. Ruthven (msg) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Schemas of locomotives
[edit]- File:VPS 77 108 Maßskizze.png
- File:VPS 51 58 Maßskizze.png
- File:Henschel Typ Gelsenkirchen Skizze.png
- File:Hanomag Typ L 3956.png
- File:LHW Bt 250 PS.png
These files may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. These files sre a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. These files sre subjects to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. These files are copyright violations for the following reason: There is no evidence that there were published 70 years ago. License is invalid. Please refer to Commons:Publication. Photo scanned from book published many years later. The entire content of the book is subject to the copyright of the publisher. The author of this scheme published a his book in 1977. He did not die over 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. These files are copyright violations. --Uoijm77 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep He appears to be the author of the text, I am not seeing a credit to him for the mechanical drawings, I may be wrong, can you show that they are credited with the mechanical drawings, they appear to be historical mechanical drawings taken from blueprints when the locomotive was built. --RAN (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The uploader provided the names of the authors of the works Probably the schemas were created for the book. These are not original factory drawings. The pictures are not in the public domain. This constitutes a violation of copyright law. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not really see the evidence that they are in the public domain. There is no reason not to believe that even original factory drawings would still be copyrighted in Germany, since none of the models are more than the 120 years old we require for {{PD-old-assumed}}. Felix QW (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; they are not old enough to be PD yet. —holly {chat} 16:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Photo of steam locomotives
[edit]
These files may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. These files is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The filee are subjects to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. These files are 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. Photos scanned from book published in 2012 Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that these photograph were taken by a private person. Stefan Lauscher did not die 70 years ago. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photos were published over 70 years ago. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. 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. These files are a copyright violation because it comes from: Stefan Lauscher, Gerhard Moll, "Jung-Lokomotiven", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2012, ISBN: 9783882557978. --Uoijm77 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Historical images were republished in 2012. --RAN (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete These are not republished photos. The only instance of the images being revealed is the aforementioned book. These photos most likely come from private collections. Pictures were first published in this book. There is no conclusive evidence that the photos were released earlier. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Even if they have been published as soon as they were made, is there any indication of when they were photographed? According to de-Wiki, these engines were still in use until 1959, which could certainly make the images still under copyright in Germany. Felix QW (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; although we normally presume that photos were published soon after being taken, both of these have named authors and thus would be subject to pma-70. —holly {chat} 16:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The image seems from the book cover of The Man Who Changed China:The Life And Legacy of Jiang Zemin (Chinese Edition), not from kremlin.ru Bookish Worm (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: This book's Chinese edition published in 2005, after kremlin.ru 水餃喵 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: There is no evidence that this image was published in kremlin.ru and instead, was taken directly cropped from the book cover, hence 'license laundering'. Bookish Worm (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; the link is a 404 and there is no record for it in Internet Archive either, so its provenance is unknown. —holly {chat} 16:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Violation of architect's copyright. Côte d'Ivoire does not allow commercial freedom of panorama. A free license authorization from w:en:Pierre Fakhoury is required for this photo under a commercial Creative Commons license. See also: COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Basilique de Notre Dame de la Paix.
This cannot be claimed as de minimis as the cathedral is the theme or intention of this photo, becoming a useless scenery view if cropped or censored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I don't agree that 2/3 or so of the photo that would remain if the cathedral were cropped out is "useless" - note the lake in the background. But I do agree that the cathedral is too prominent for de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 16:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Photo by Nappelbaum Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- What evidence do we have that it was Moisej Nappelbaum (1869-1958)? His copyrights expire in 5 years. --RAN (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence provided, so no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Published in RSFSR first. Works by Vayl are not public domain yet. Copyrightisreal (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence provided, so no valid reason for deletion (e.g., who is Vayl?). —holly {chat} 18:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Lorax as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image description claimes it is copyright "© Hedrich Blessing", not PD |source= King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; not a US gov't work. —holly {chat} 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by EugenioNoel as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Music and lyrics created by an author whose copyright has not expired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krd as no permission (No permission since)
- File:20th Century Bitch Home Entertainment 1995 logo.png
- File:20th Century Bitch Home Entertainment 2010 logo.png
Simple derivative of logo confirmed to be PD: Commons:Deletion requests/File:TCFlogo.png. However, is this in COM:SCOPE? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
this is not own work [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The collage may be, but the photos? 186.172.172.85 22:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Sources for collage not provided, deleted per COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit: Press Association, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, the UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account; therefore, the images uploaded to it are likely authorised by the Prime Minister's Office. Secondly, even though the metadata on the image may credit the Press Association, this does not necessarily mean that the copyright belongs to them. It is common for news agencies to distribute images on behalf of other organisations and to include credit in the metadata. Neveselbert (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Press Association is an independent media news agency. Usually, photo created by the UK Government are under crown copyright. Without other evidence, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright per COM:PCP. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's just nonsense. The UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account, authorised by the British government, which governs UK copyright laws. Neveselbert (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately agreeing with A1Cafel on this, the exif in this image is very clear. Copyright holder: PA Wire/Press Association Images which means the image rights was not released to the UK Govt for that specific image and in the exif you can see they borrowed the image from an article or else they'd have the Highest Quality for that image.. Treat PA like Getty Images, unless the released images are in Original quality and the exif doesn't demand or mention the copyright holder, they own the full rights.....--Stemoc 17:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit: Press Association, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, the UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account; therefore, the images uploaded to it are likely authorised by the Prime Minister's Office. Secondly, even though the metadata on the image may credit the Press Association, this does not necessarily mean that the copyright belongs to them. It is common for news agencies to distribute images on behalf of other organisations and to include credit in the metadata. Neveselbert (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Press Association is an independent media news agency. Usually, photo created by the UK Government are under crown copyright. Without other evidence, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright per COM:PCP. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit: Press Association, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, the UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account; therefore, the images uploaded to it are likely authorised by the Prime Minister's Office. Secondly, even though the metadata on the image may credit the Press Association, this does not necessarily mean that the copyright belongs to them. It is common for news agencies to distribute images on behalf of other organisations and to include credit in the metadata. Neveselbert (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Press Association is an independent media news agency. Usually, photo created by the UK Government are under crown copyright. Without other evidence, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright per COM:PCP. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's just nonsense. The UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account, authorised by the British government, which governs UK copyright laws. Neveselbert (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Generally we assume that official government Flickr accounts have their lawyers vet images posted, and know their own laws, better than we do. If they withdraw the image, or change the license, then we can delete it. --RAN (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo credit: Press Association, not a work from the UK Prime Minister's Office, thus the license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, the UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account; therefore, the images uploaded to it are likely authorised by the Prime Minister's Office. Secondly, even though the metadata on the image may credit the Press Association, this does not necessarily mean that the copyright belongs to them. It is common for news agencies to distribute images on behalf of other organisations and to include credit in the metadata. Neveselbert (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Press Association is an independent media news agency. Usually, photo created by the UK Government are under crown copyright. Without other evidence, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright per COM:PCP. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's just nonsense. The UK Prime Minister's Office account on Flickr is an official account, authorised by the British government, which governs UK copyright laws. Neveselbert (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Then please show the permission to VRT. Otherwise, we should assume the Press Association held the copyright and it is flickr-washing--A1Cafel (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that the Press Association gave permission for the government to apply Creative Commons licensing. Neveselbert (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In the past we have assumed that the legal team posting at government's websites know more than we do. If they withdraw the CC Flickr license, then we should delete. The Associated Press/Getty Images also redistributes US government images. --RAN (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
What if I change the license to PD-India? Will that resolve the issue? GaiusAugustine (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GaiusAugustine: Commons requires works to be free in their country of origin and the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. URAA applies, Undelete in 2056. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugenioNoel as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright © 2022 by Laszlo Cser and Daniel Wanner. All Rights Reserved. |source=https://pressbooks.pub/harmonyandmusicianshipwithsolfege/chapter/common-chord-pivot-chord-modulation/ Harmony and Musicianship with Solfège King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Could this possibly be {{PD-ineligible}}? I'll see if anyone from en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory can chime in. —holly {chat} 18:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't quite see what the question is. This file is nowhere used in the English WP (nor on any other WP, apparently). It is a German version of an example from a publication on Pressbook.com which apparently allows borrowings. The main reason to delete it therefore appears to be that it is nowhere used on WP. For sure, one could easily find better examples of pivot-chord modulations, if needed, but nobody seems to need any. The image therefore fills no purpose, but does it annoy anyone? — 2A02:A03F:6A7E:C01:A905:463:FEAB:672E 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- We normally keep unused files if they are potentially useful, assuming the licensing is correct, which is the question here: is this example of a pivot chord so generic that anyone could have come up with? If yes, then it's not eligible for copyright protection. —holly {chat} 22:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to your criteria, yes it is relatively generic, using the I chord to pivot to the Key of V (the most common key to pivot to). – Aza24 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: A simple connection of two cadences with T(I) = S(V) as pivot is trivial. --Achim55 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- According to your criteria, yes it is relatively generic, using the I chord to pivot to the Key of V (the most common key to pivot to). – Aza24 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- We normally keep unused files if they are potentially useful, assuming the licensing is correct, which is the question here: is this example of a pivot chord so generic that anyone could have come up with? If yes, then it's not eligible for copyright protection. —holly {chat} 22:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't quite see what the question is. This file is nowhere used in the English WP (nor on any other WP, apparently). It is a German version of an example from a publication on Pressbook.com which apparently allows borrowings. The main reason to delete it therefore appears to be that it is nowhere used on WP. For sure, one could easily find better examples of pivot-chord modulations, if needed, but nobody seems to need any. The image therefore fills no purpose, but does it annoy anyone? — 2A02:A03F:6A7E:C01:A905:463:FEAB:672E 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, PD-ineligible. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
What if I change the license to PD-India? Will that resolve the issue? GaiusAugustine (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GaiusAugustine: Commons requires works to be free in their country of origin and the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. URAA applies. Undelete in 2057. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
What if I change the license to PD-India? Will that resolve the issue?
Also please guide me, in simple language, regarding the copyright rules in case I'm missing some thing. GaiusAugustine (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @GaiusAugustine: Commons requires works to be free in their country of origin and the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. URAA applies. Undelete in 2056. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. The author of this photograph has published many books on East German railways. He didn't die 70 years ago. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Manfred Weisbrod, Hans Wiegard, "Dampflokomotiven. Regelspurige Privatbahn-Lokomotiven bei der DR", Transpress, Stuttgart, 1998, ISBN 9783344710446. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 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)
- 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) 10:35, 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) 09:10, 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)
- Ich fürchte, das Argument greift leider nicht ganz. Selbst wenn das Bild bald nach der Aufnahme um 1950 veröffentlicht worden wäre, was ich gerne glaube, wäre es in den USA nach wie vor urheberechtlich geschützt, und zwar bis zum Ablauf von 95 Jahren nach der Veröffentlichung. Das rührt daher, dass das Bild im Jahre 1996 auf jeden Fall noch in Deutschland urhebberrechtlich geschützt war und damit das amerikanische Urhebberrecht durch den sogenannten URAA wiederbelebt worden ist. Daher wird man das Bild auf Commons wohl so oder so löschen müssen. Felix QW (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. URAA applies to a German photo from 1950. Named author is Hans Müller. Not sure if it's the one that died in 1964 w:Hans Müller (aviator), if it is, then this can be undeleted in 2046. Otherwise not until 2071. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
There's zero evidence that this photograph is the uploaders own work or that it's released under a license that is compatible with Commons. In fact, the exif information says it's copyrighted. So the image should be delete per the precautionary principle unless the uploader provides the Commons:Volunteer Response Team with evidence that we can safely host it . Adamant1 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is possible that the uploader is related to the author, but we'd need COM:VRT to verify. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Subject died in 2014, it is impossible that the file was created in 2017. By guessing from her daughter's appearance, this photo was probably taken in the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Original source and permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Looks like 1980s to me but could be early 1990s. Anyway, information on the provenance of the photograph needed and not provided. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The video was deleted so I can't verify if the source is valid. Tryvix1509 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think it wouldn't valid? Because it would be a little ridiculous if we went around deleting every image that happens to have a dead source link. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 I tried go to archive.org and couldn't find the archive of the source. Tryvix1509 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. License cannot be verified unfortunately. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Originally tagged with no-permission by User:廣九直通車, moved to DR due to contests by other users A1Cafel (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Horus1927: The file clearly shows that it was purported to be from an external source before your edits, not the uploader's own work, so I have a reasonable cause to tag it with {{No permission}}. Do you have any valid reasons to support your claim?廣九直通車 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader name matches an instutition. Would need COM:VRT permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
SOHO images uploaded by user Mirus255
[edit]
These are clearly photos from SOHO spacecraft and not an own work. The copyright statement doesn't mention if commercial use is allowed or not, only mentions that public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged.
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SOHO images for similar files that have already been deleted. --C messier (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Can an automated camera be given a copyright, courts have said no. --RAN (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure that a spacecraft that requires constant adjustment to remain in place counts as an "automated camera". (also the claim that an automated camera can't have a copyright needs to backed by a source) C messier (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment There has been a discussion in en.wikipedia about a SOHO image and it has been pointed out that, according to the SOHO Science Operations Plan, ancillary, summary, event and synoptic data will be in the public domain immediately after acquisition (images are considered summary data according to table 3.6). --C messier (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per previous DRs and English Wikipedia decision to stick with non-free status quo. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. Licence is invalid. The author of the photo is also the author of the book. Photo scanned from book published in 2011. Please refer to Commons:Publication. The author of the photograph did not die more than 70 years ago. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Joachim Leitsch, Harald Sydow, "Bergbaudampflokomotiven in Nordrhein-Westfalen", Arbeitsgemeinsch Drehscheibe, Köln, 2011, ISBN 978-3-929082-30-2. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1950 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)
- 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) 08:55, 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) 09:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence that Harald Sydow has been dead for 70 years, circa 1950 German photograph, Undelete in 2071. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland makes it clear that Swiss FOP doesn't cover building interiors, including images taken inside of rooms. In the meantime, it's almost certain that the works depicted in these images haven't been released under a free license. So the images should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Ausstellung 'Der Zeit voraus - Drei Frauen auf eigenen Wegen' - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil - Alwina Gossauer 2015-09-05 16-30-16.JPG
- File:Ausstellung 'Der Zeit voraus - Drei Frauen auf eigenen Wegen' - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil - Marianne Ehrmann-Brentano 2015-09-05 16-32-05.JPG
- File:Ausstellung 'Der Zeit voraus - Drei Frauen auf eigenen Wegen' - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil - Martha Burkhardt 2015-09-05 16-27-21.JPG
- File:Brény-Haus - Innenansicht 2. OG - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-02-02 16-54-09 (P7700).JPG
- File:Brény-Haus - Innenansicht 2. OG - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-14-38 ShiftN.jpg
File:Historische Apotheke - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-38-31 (P7700).jpg- File:Historische Küche - Breny-Turm - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-20-51(P7700).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-10-17 (SX230HS).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-10-33 (SX230HS).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-15-06 (SX230HS).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-15-20 (SX230HS).JPG
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-21-39 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-22-07 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-22-22 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-22-48 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-23-25 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-23-34 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-23-56 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innnansicht 2011-11-06 15-30-22 (N8).jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum - Abschluss Erneuerung - Innenansicht 2011-11-18 16-28-08 ShiftN.jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum - Abschluss Erneuerung - Innenansicht 2011-11-18 16-28-22 ShiftN.jpg
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum - Abschluss Erneuerung - Innenansicht 2011-11-18 16-28-34.jpg
File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum IMG 1705.JPG
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.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){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Needs a case by case check. Some of the glass windows and the wall paintings are medieval and therefore public domain. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to nominate every image for deletion individually since the law is pretty clear it doesn't apply to building interiors. Your free to list the specific images that you think are public domain with a justifiable reason why you think they are and I'll cross them out of my nomination. That said with the stained glass windows specifically, the art in them might "look" medieval, but that doesn't mean they are. It's on you as the person saying they are to prove that's the case. A few of them have the artists signature on them. So it should be easy to do. Otherwise, the images should just be deleted because of the precautionary principle. You can't just say "keep because these look medieval. So whatever, shrug" without providing any evidence to support your claim that they are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I always believed that it's to the deletion nominator to do a reasonable amount of plausibility check at least. In western and central Europe mostly everything that looks medieval is actually medieval (or 19th cent. neo gothic or it is the Disneyland but that's clearly not the case here). And the law applies only to interiors that are still under copyright. German Wikipeadia entry of the building states that the interior is originally from the 16th century. Only the first and third may be a bit of a problem because of the photographs. (No. 2 shows an 18th cent. silhouette). On the pictures of the 19th cent. pharmacy there's nothing copyrightable to be seen. The photo exhibition pictures should count as de minimis. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Who says I didn't do a reasonable amount checking before I nominated the images for deletion? Either way, Commons:Deletion requests makes it clear that "the burden of showing that the file can be validly hosted here lies with the uploader and anyone arguing that it should be kept." The last time I checked I'm not the uploader or arguing for the images to kept. You are though. So it's on you to show that the files can be hosted on Commons. Just playing devils advocate by questioning how much research I did before nominating the images for deletion obviously doesn't do that either. Nor IMO does you saying that something must be medieval because it looks like it is. Plenty of modern stained glass windows "look" medieval. That's how they work.
- I always believed that it's to the deletion nominator to do a reasonable amount of plausibility check at least. In western and central Europe mostly everything that looks medieval is actually medieval (or 19th cent. neo gothic or it is the Disneyland but that's clearly not the case here). And the law applies only to interiors that are still under copyright. German Wikipeadia entry of the building states that the interior is originally from the 16th century. Only the first and third may be a bit of a problem because of the photographs. (No. 2 shows an 18th cent. silhouette). On the pictures of the 19th cent. pharmacy there's nothing copyrightable to be seen. The photo exhibition pictures should count as de minimis. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to nominate every image for deletion individually since the law is pretty clear it doesn't apply to building interiors. Your free to list the specific images that you think are public domain with a justifiable reason why you think they are and I'll cross them out of my nomination. That said with the stained glass windows specifically, the art in them might "look" medieval, but that doesn't mean they are. It's on you as the person saying they are to prove that's the case. A few of them have the artists signature on them. So it should be easy to do. Otherwise, the images should just be deleted because of the precautionary principle. You can't just say "keep because these look medieval. So whatever, shrug" without providing any evidence to support your claim that they are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- As to your assertion that FOP only applies to interiors that are still under copyright, that's clearly a nonsense argument since I'm not claiming the building itself is copyrighted. Obviously, you can't just take pictures of a copyrighted artwork and then claim it's OK because the building where you took the images was built in the 16th century. Get real dude. The de minimis thing isn't worth addressing. It's ridiculous to act like museum exabits can't be copyrighted or contain copyrighted works just because they involve multiple elements. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- It seems that the uploader is not active here anymore or takes a break, whatever. The interior - wallpaintings, woodcarvings, stained glass ect. - IS originally from the 16th century! And so it is in the public domain. You don't need to protect an artist who died more than 70 years ago! If you cannot read the German Wikipedia entry then please try it with deepl.com (provides better results than Google translate). -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The interior - wallpaintings, woodcarvings, stained glass ect. - IS originally from the 16th century! Where exactly did I claim the wood carvings were copyrighted? First you said I didn't do research when I did. Now your claiming I said things I didn't. You really seem to be boxing ghosts here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't miss construe things. Really, it's kind of you even are if this is such a clear cut case like your claiming it is. Also, where's your evidence that the stained glass windows are from the 16th century? Because I haven't seen any and I looked into it before nominated the images for deletion.
- It seems that the uploader is not active here anymore or takes a break, whatever. The interior - wallpaintings, woodcarvings, stained glass ect. - IS originally from the 16th century! And so it is in the public domain. You don't need to protect an artist who died more than 70 years ago! If you cannot read the German Wikipedia entry then please try it with deepl.com (provides better results than Google translate). -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- As to your assertion that FOP only applies to interiors that are still under copyright, that's clearly a nonsense argument since I'm not claiming the building itself is copyrighted. Obviously, you can't just take pictures of a copyrighted artwork and then claim it's OK because the building where you took the images was built in the 16th century. Get real dude. The de minimis thing isn't worth addressing. It's ridiculous to act like museum exabits can't be copyrighted or contain copyrighted works just because they involve multiple elements. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- In the meantime, windows are replaced all the time. In fact, this is what the English Wikipedia article says about the museum "In December 2009, the project "Janus" presented the results of an evaluation for public vote by the citizens of Rapperswil-Jona. The city museum will be renewed from January 2010 to autumn 2011, and therefore will be closed for visitors. Its historical intermediate section between Breny house and Breny tower will probably replaced by a purposive construction integrated into the historic street-scape between Stadtpfarrkirche (parish church) and Engelplatz square. This new building serves both, as an exhibition space as well as connection between the two historical museum buildings. The formative north side of the town walls will be kept as it is. Investment and operating costs of around 5.6 million Swiss francs will be borne equally between local community and political community Rapperswil-Jona. Simultaneously with the realization of the project, the accumulated maintenance work on the facades, windows and roofs of the historic buildings and the town wall will be done."
- So from that it sounds like they built a new building in 2011 and replaced the windows in the old ones. Otherwise, your going to have to provide some evidence that they didn't. But it would be weird for the Wikipedia article to say that if it didn't happen. Also as a side to that, the new building obviously wasn't built in the 16th century. So I assume images of it would be copyrighted. Are these images from that building? I don't know, but it's pretty likely. Be my guest and continue miss-construing things and talking in circles about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep offensichtlich nichts Geschütztes abgebildet. --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure dude. Evidence please. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep mit Ausnahme des zweiten und dritten Bilds. Beim Rest sind die Schutzfristen offenkundig abgelaufen oder die Bildinhalte sind unterhalb der Schutzschwelle. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Protection periods have obviously expired or the image content is below the protection threshold. What's your evidence that the periods have expired, especially on the stained glass windows? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Adamant - please stay with you postcards. Old works of art can be integrated into new buildings. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Old works of art can be integrated into new buildings. No really? Golly gosh. Who would have thought new buildings can have old art in them? Anyway, I'm sure they closed down the museum for a year to do maintenance on the windows because it took them that long to pop the old ones into the new window frames. Right dude. It's not usual for people to replace windows when they build a new building. But sure, the whole "they must be old because they look like they are" thing is totally more reasonable then the museum having someone create windows for their new building. You people literally have no argument do you? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The new building is only the connecting part between the 16th century Breny house and the Breny tower that indeed remained untouched. (Some of them even have Breny house or tower in the filename.) -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK. How exactly does that relate to the potential copyright status' of the stained glass windows though? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You really believe the stained glass windows are contemporary art? What exactly makes you think so? So they smashed all the old artwork, built a new museum and recreated the artwork? Even if a window is replaced, reframed, perhaps even fitted with a second insulating panel before the old one, the old artwork will stay the same and every effort will be made to fit it into the new window construction.
- Except of the files with photos and explanatory texts, I see no basis for a deletion request and even there each photo needs to be reviewed individually, because even there de minimis (in a very literal way) applies. Wuselig (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, agree, e.g. File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG is even dated, to 1614, but more of the windows from the files are some centuries old judging from style, so {{PD-old-100}} applies. --Marsupium (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG is even dated, to 1614 I cover the origins of the window depicted in that file in the message below this one. A little hint, that's not the date the window was created and it would have taken you only a couple of minutes of research to figure it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, agree, e.g. File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG is even dated, to 1614, but more of the windows from the files are some centuries old judging from style, so {{PD-old-100}} applies. --Marsupium (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK. How exactly does that relate to the potential copyright status' of the stained glass windows though? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The new building is only the connecting part between the 16th century Breny house and the Breny tower that indeed remained untouched. (Some of them even have Breny house or tower in the filename.) -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You really believe the stained glass windows are contemporary art? What exactly makes you think so? I said a few days ago that several of them have the artists signature on them. A few also have dates on them. It's not that hard to look at the images and extrapolate when they were created from there. For instance the window in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG pretty clearly says on it that it was created by H. Meyer in 1943. H. Meyer is a family operated modern company in Zurich that makes stained glass windows. There's an article here by Betty H. Meyer from 1986 that discussed stained glass window design. The window in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-15-06 (SX230HS).JPG was made by the same company. That's two right there. But it gets better. For instance the window depicted in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG says it was created by "Dold, Zurch." I assume that's the contemporary artist Fritz J. Dold, since as you can see from the link he does and is known for doing stained glass window art. But wait, there's more. The round window in the bottom of File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-21-39 (N8).jpg says "1984" in the middle of it. So probably that's around when it was created. Keep telling yourselves the windows were created in the 16th century because they look old though. There really isn't anything else to say about this if people can't be bothered to read what I say, look at the images, or put the two seconds it would have taken to look into the origins of the windows before having an opinion. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see. I must have overlooked this somehow, maybe the years shown on the windows were a bit too prominent. (They might be exact copies of older originals, but we better leave this to real historians.) Whatever – but what about those without a modern day signature? And what's the problem with File:Historische Apotheke - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-38-31 (P7700).jpg, File:Brény-Haus - Innenansicht 2. OG - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-14-38 ShiftN.jpg or File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum IMG 1705.JPG? Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- It happens. The ones without dates are of the same designs as the ones that have dates and the artists on them. So there's zero reason to think they aren't modern. There's also a couple more images of windows created by Meyer that I didn't include in the last message to. So the rest should probably be up to the administrators to decide. With the other images, I struck out File:Historische Apotheke - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-38-31 (P7700).jpg and File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum IMG 1705.JPG since I don't really care that much about them. The other image includes the display box in the bottom right hand corner of it, which appears to have a modern drawing. Maybe it could maybe it could be argue the box is de de minimis since it's only in the corner of the image, but there's no bright line there. So I rather just leave it up to the discretion of the closing admin. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see. I must have overlooked this somehow, maybe the years shown on the windows were a bit too prominent. (They might be exact copies of older originals, but we better leave this to real historians.) Whatever – but what about those without a modern day signature? And what's the problem with File:Historische Apotheke - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-38-31 (P7700).jpg, File:Brény-Haus - Innenansicht 2. OG - Stadtmuseum Rapperswil 2013-04-06 15-14-38 ShiftN.jpg or File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum IMG 1705.JPG? Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You really believe the stained glass windows are contemporary art? What exactly makes you think so? I said a few days ago that several of them have the artists signature on them. A few also have dates on them. It's not that hard to look at the images and extrapolate when they were created from there. For instance the window in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG pretty clearly says on it that it was created by H. Meyer in 1943. H. Meyer is a family operated modern company in Zurich that makes stained glass windows. There's an article here by Betty H. Meyer from 1986 that discussed stained glass window design. The window in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-15-06 (SX230HS).JPG was made by the same company. That's two right there. But it gets better. For instance the window depicted in File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-13-15 (SX230HS).JPG says it was created by "Dold, Zurch." I assume that's the contemporary artist Fritz J. Dold, since as you can see from the link he does and is known for doing stained glass window art. But wait, there's more. The round window in the bottom of File:Rapperswil - Stadtmuseum 'Tag des offenen Baus' - Innenansicht 2011-11-06 15-21-39 (N8).jpg says "1984" in the middle of it. So probably that's around when it was created. Keep telling yourselves the windows were created in the 16th century because they look old though. There really isn't anything else to say about this if people can't be bothered to read what I say, look at the images, or put the two seconds it would have taken to look into the origins of the windows before having an opinion. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If things do not improve I will begin an admin discussion. And if you don't stop the clear harrassement campaign that your doing by intentionally targeting my DRs and using them as platforms to make spurious accusations about me then I'll be doing the same. For the record though, the supposedly "spurious" deletion requests your referring to haven't even been closed yet, let alone as keep, and there's only like 2 out of maybe like DRs that I've opened recently that are being contested. One of which you are involved in. I'd hardly call that a "spate of frivolous deletion requests." Your obviously out of your depth and just here to farm drama though. So I'm expecting you to be accurate about it. But it would be good if you at least ceased with the harrassement campaign. It's getting rather tiresome and I rather not have to report you to ANU for it if I don't have to. This and the other DRs that you've commented in will be worked be dealt with by administrator at some point. The random, off-topic insults and spurious accusations everywhere in the meantime don't really add anything to the discussions. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Most, since the writing on the first three is an integal part of the photograph, deleted the modern stained glass windows, and the wall of photos which was the subject of those photographs. Kept the obviously out of public domain works and architecture, and the stained glass windows that didn't have a modern artist signature on them. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. Ernst Schörner died in 1994. Johannes Pfeifer, "Die Tegernseebahn und ihre Lokomotive No. 7. Informationsschrift zu den historischen Dampfsonderzügen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Eisenbahngeschichte e.V. Sitz Karlsruhe und der Tegernseebahn AG. in Tegernsee", Deutsche Gesellschaft für Eisenbahngeschichte, Karlsruhe, 1970, Unknown ISBN. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Die Lebenddaten von dem Fotograf sind mir nicht bekannt. Die Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1935 entstanden. Der Fotograf ist nicht bekannt. 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) 13:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- 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) 08:57, 26 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)
- 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) 08:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Undelete in 2065 when it becomes public domain in the EU. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: 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 1996. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. Copyright should not be implied. This should be based on unequivocal evidence. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Ludger Kenning, Gerhard Moll, Wolf Dietrich Groote, "Die Kreis Altenaer Eisenbahn", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn, 1996, ISBN: 9783927587458. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Der Fotograf ist lt. Bildunterschrift nicht bekannt, es steht bloß Sammlung Ernst Julius Wolff. Aufnahmen solcher Art wurden früher von Hermann Maey fotografiert, und der ist gemeinfrei. Stattdessen von der Veröffentlichung 1996 auszugehen ist auch Milchmädchenrechnung. Rainerhaufe (talk) 11:38, 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) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep 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) 09:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that Ernst Julius Wolff has been dead for 70 years. Circa 1931 photograph, undelete in 2052. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a high quality version for this one. This one: File:Flag of Himara in Epirus during Ottoman rule.png Flag Creator (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Can you explain how you come to own the copyright for this artwork? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The flag didn't match with the JPG format. So I instead improved the quality and matched it with the PNG format. Flag Creator (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- So no, you don't own the copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- The flag didn't match with the JPG format. So I instead improved the quality and matched it with the PNG format. Flag Creator (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: In Use. We can keep the jpg and the png. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
这是一个来自台湾省的室内作品。根据当地的著作权法规这是非法的并应当被删除ママママ、どうもそうそう無料。ちょっと待って、ちょっと待って、ちょっと待って、ちょっと待って、ちょっと待って、ちょっと待って、ちょっと待ってちょっと待って、ちょっと待ってちょっと待ってちょっと待って。なんだなん、だ、なんだ、なんだ、なんだ、なんだ。そう聞いてます。あもくじま Q28 (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This Wooden deity figure belongs to the Baoning Temple during in 17th century. It is an old figure. —Outlookxp (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Looks old enough to be public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. The author of this photograph published his book in 1974. He didn't die 70 years ago. This file is a copyright violation because it comes from - Jochen Fink, Ludger Kenning, "Kleinbahnreise mit der alten Kassel-Naumburger", Verlag Kenning, Nordhorn, 2016, ISBN 978-3-933613-99-8. Uoijm77 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Since we have a name someone needs to find out more about the photographer. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie Aufnahme ist auf jedem Fall um 1939 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) 13:03, 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) 08:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep 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) 09:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There's zero evidence the image was taken before 1945 or that would mean the work isn't copyrighted if it was anyway. For all we know the photographers name could have just been cropped out of the image for license washing reasons (by the author of the book, BTW. Not the uploader) or just because the original author of the book didn't want it taking up part of the picture. I'm really what the uploader is on about with their comment that the image was taken by unknown photographer just because "private" photography of railway facilities was forbidden at the time. It's not like the government didn't have professional photographers on the payroll to take images of things normal citizens couldn't and those cases the photographers are mostly known. Leni Riefenstahl being one person that comes to mind. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I could find a book that photographer Kurt Herbener co-authored in the 1970ies. Not PD. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Kurt Herbener lived at least until the 1970s so 2040s undeletion at the earliest if a death date is found. Otherwise, undelete in 2060, 120 years from 1939. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright? Is this "own work" of the user? The same applies for File:Chai (2).png and File:Sequence 07.00 03 15 13.Still005.jpg. Wouter (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader has the name of a production company but this requires COM:VRT verification. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
.png){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: 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 2012. 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 - Stefan Lauscher, Gerhard Moll, "Jung-Lokomotiven", EK-Verlag, Freiburg, 2012, ISBN: 9783882557978. Uoijm77 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- KeepDie 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) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uoijm77 please do not use {{Vd}}. You are the nominator and, as so, your opinion on whether the file should be kept or not is quite obvious. Also, try to be more concise on your rationales. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:58, 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) 09:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete There's zero evidence the image was taken before 1945 or that would mean the work isn't copyrighted if it was anyway. For all we know the photographers name could have just been cropped out of the image for license washing reasons (by the author of the book, BTW. Not the uploader) or just because the original author of the book didn't want it taking up part of the picture. I'm really what the uploader is on about with their comment that the image was taken by unknown photographer just because "private" photography of railway facilities was forbidden at the time. It's not like the government didn't have professional photographers on the payroll to take images of things normal citizens couldn't and those cases the photographers are mostly known. Leni Riefenstahl being one person that comes to mind. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 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: per nomination. 1933 German photograph, can be undeleted in 2054. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Bellingrodt
[edit]These are two 1934 and 1938 photographs by German railway photographer de:Carl Bellingrodt, who died in 1971. So they are still protected by copyright, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2042.
- File:Kleinbahn Greifswald-Wolgast, B n2t, Union, 1898, Foto K Bellingrodt, Sommer 1934 (BVY, Aloys Fauquez 93, 1018 Lausanne).jpg
- File:Parowóz odrzańska.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 18:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep the Kleinbahn Greifswald-Wolgast photo. The copyright statement on the back of the Kleinbahn Greifswald-Wolgast postcard, which is saved in the history, shows that it has been published in Switzerland. Thus Swiss law applies, and the "photograph of a three-dimensional object is in the public domain in Switzerland ..., because the work was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character." --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Photographs are protected in Switzerland for 70 years after the death of the photographer, just like in Germany. It used to be 50 years, but that was changed in 1993, long before the protection for the photographs of Bellingrodt would have expired. And Template:PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years, which you are citing, is hardly applicable to photographs created by a professional photographer. See [10] for more on that. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep the Kleinbahn Greifswald-Wolgast photo. The copyright statement on the back of the Kleinbahn Greifswald-Wolgast postcard, which is saved in the history, shows that it has been published in Switzerland. Thus Swiss law applies, and the "photograph of a three-dimensional object is in the public domain in Switzerland ..., because the work was created at least 50 years ago and the reproduction has no individual character." --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The license says "no individual character", and does not specify professional versus amateur. If it wanted to make that distinction, it would have been written into the law. The question should be more like: Would I recognize the image as belonging to a particular photographer because of the "individual character". All I see is a locomotive, no set design or unique staging, or unique lighting, just press the shutter button. --RAN (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The Swiss photograph appears to have individual character in my opinion, Undelete in 2042. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Fake template. This is not a factory drawing of a locomotive. This is a converted sketch of the locomotive Baureihe 96 of the German State Railways. This is a private invention. This site is not suitable for posting someone's own drawings of imaginary locomotives. Uoijm77 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The resolution and lack of other uploads by this user makes it seem suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, this user has two other uploads. Secondly, this all is too weak reason for deletion. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I only see one other upload, and it's even more suspicious:[11] A completely different style, also low res, and both look like they've been taken from random sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plesiadapis.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Duck for a copyvio in my opinion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Existing File:Feliz Oregon 2022 (cropped).jpg Selligpau (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep IMO these 2 files are suficiently different to keep them both.
.jpg)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --VIGNERON (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the same photo as the one deleted with Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNRA sl.jpg, primarily because it was considered to be fake. So this file should be deleted as well. Rosenzweig τ 19:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- “it was considered to be fake”? Where's the evidence? There are book titles with this picture, since 2007. --Treck08 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, 2007/2008 is apparently the first time this image appeared. There's a lot of discussion in the DR that I linked above. --Rosenzweig τ 05:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's fake show then evidence that it is fake Glaube (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Text is obviously a modern photoshop. No evidence that it was published before 2007. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Etienne Clerissi
[edit]Late 1920s photograph. Could be public domain but more information would be required to verify copyright status.
Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Masur (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)