Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/04/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Warsaw_-_Pepe_the_Frog.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![163 File:LEGO "Y U NO " meme (Free to use).jpg](#File:LEGO_"Y_U_NO_"_meme_(Free_to_use).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
On face book page --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Where is he REALLY from????????? --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Indian artist --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
File written in arabic --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Another file written in arabic again --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
More worse files written in arabic again --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
File originally uploaded and written in Spanish --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedied as obvious attack-image (see description). --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Ad promotion --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Another ad by same user also has misspelling --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Google map ad in Fla. --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Selfie file --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a rapper photo!!!!!!!!!!!!! --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Rapper spam images!!!!! --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This SOUTH AFRICAN spammed his files!!!!! --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Ad for Jodhpur (blue city) ice cream shop --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Mdaniels5757. --Rosenzweig τ 00:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Published online priori to this import: [1], [2] Gyrostat (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Selfie and duplicate --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 11:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Minecraft head. Should be qualified under fair use and then deleted. --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Fair use" media files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons will be deleted on sight, without warning @BoulevardBowl27: --Trade (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1 (copyvio). --Wdwd (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright at source. "Photo sous licence CC-BY 4.0" means it's licensed that way, right? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Upon the death of Pr. Scelles, I contacted Eres Editions, their publisher, asking them to set the picture to CC-BY in order to put it on Wiki project, which they accepted. "Photo sous licence CC-BY 4.0" means that it's licensed under CC-BY 4.0. CelianGdfrd (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- La question reste : les éditions Erès possèdent-elles les droits photographiques ? --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah - looking around I see "Les photos de nos auteurs figurant sur notre site sont libres de droit." which may mean freely licensed? (https://www.editions-eres.com/mentions-legales). If that is the case my apologies for this and the DR can be closed. Herby talk thyme 06:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of this mention. "Libre de droit" is kind of a misuse of language in French, to say "Free from any rights", which is legally impossible. But it certainly means that they intend to allow the reuse of the pictures of their authors. I maintain that the picture of Pr. Scelles on her author page specifically mentions CC-BY 4.0 license. CelianGdfrd (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oui @Pierrette13, l'entourage de la Pr. Scelles m'a confirmé que cette photo a été prise par les éditions Erès pour illustrer leur site. J'ai fait mes recherches antérieurement à la publication de l'article Wikipédia et n'en ai trouvé aucune occurrence préalable à celle du site des éditions Erès. CelianGdfrd (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Parfait et très bonne nouvelle pour d'autres photos du site Erès... --Pierrette13 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah - looking around I see "Les photos de nos auteurs figurant sur notre site sont libres de droit." which may mean freely licensed? (https://www.editions-eres.com/mentions-legales). If that is the case my apologies for this and the DR can be closed. Herby talk thyme 06:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- La question reste : les éditions Erès possèdent-elles les droits photographiques ? --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Herby talk thyme 10:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Mdaniels5757. --Rosenzweig τ 11:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Completely black JPEG. I can't see any use this serves. Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Omdat ik niet wil dat mijn foto en mijn gegevens op deze manier gebruikt worden. Kon foto niet verwijderen maar wel vervangen. Vandaar zwart.
Groet Anita Leeftink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemakfraud (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Vera (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I uploaded it by mistake George Muttathil Pulikurumba (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: and redirected--F8. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
Looks like a random topless selfie rather than providing educational use to Commons A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10: Personal photo by non-contributor. --Wutsje 02:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism and violation of the Biography of Living Persons Clause — Preceding unsigned comment added by 迷斯拉10032号 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
While {{PD-USGov}} applies to works of the federal government of the United States of America, it does not apply to the governments of the constituent sovereign states (see COM:USA#Works by the US Government, which notes that while a work created by the federal Government is in the public domain, works created by most state and local governments are subject to copyright). This photograph wasen by the Alexandria Sheriff's Office; the employees of that office are employees of the U.S. Commonwealth of Virginia, not the U.S. Federal Government. As such, the {{PD-USGov}} tag does not appear to apply to this photograph. As this photograph was created in the 2000s, the photog is not presumed to be in the public domain on account of age. For these reasons, the photo does not appear to be in the public domain, and the photo should be deleted in light of COM:PRP for also lacking evidence of a valid free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thibaud mousset (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like personal notes with no meaningful descriptions - out of scope
- File:Act E 9.jpg
- File:Act E 8 .jpg
- File:Act E 7.jpg
- File:Act E 6.jpg
- File:Act E 5.jpg
- File:Act E 4.jpg
- File:Activ E 3.jpg
- File:Act E 2.jpg
- File:Matrice act E.jpg
- File:Nouveau réseau.jpg
- File:Degré coeff moyenne.png
- File:Degré des voisins.png
- File:Distribution degré.png
- File:Graphe activité D M1 SIREN.jpg
- File:Correction activité B M1 SIREN.jpg
- File:Graphe activité M1 SIREN thib.jpg
- File:Graphe 2 activité M1 SIREN Thib.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Found here before upload - http://www.the-advantage.org/2021/06/dinan-and-foley-join-forces-with-tf.html - i think we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Author given as dsc.edu.hk, low quality, clear copyvio
Gbawden (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Definitely not own work Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lwj19971027 (talk · contribs)
[edit]"Only-spam account in zh.wikipedia, unauthorized company images allegedly infringe copyright" per a series of edits by 迷斯拉10032号.
- File:曼恩能源图片3.png
- File:曼恩能源图片2.png
- File:曼恩能源图片5.png
- File:曼恩能源图片7.png
- File:曼恩能源图片6.png
- File:曼恩能源图片8.png
- File:曼恩能源图片9.png
- File:曼恩能源图片11.png
- File:曼恩能源图片.png
- File:2曼恩能源图片.png
- File:曼恩能源图片12.png
- File:曼恩能源的logo.png
- File:曼恩能源logo.png
— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
1930s or 1940s photograph. Would need more information on the photograph and where it was published to determine copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Google Streetview is the source, so it cannot be freely licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Circa 1960s photograph. The source lists this being from Vanguard News, which is a Nigerian newspaper that was established in the 1980s, which was after the death of the subject. The uploader does not know the copyright status of this photograph given their inquiry at the talk page of the file. Mali is 70 p.m.a. so if Mali is the country of origin, it's too young to be public domain. If Nigeria is the country of origin, it has publication plus 50 years for photographs. But we'd have to know when it was first published and if it was first published in 1973 or afterwards in Nigeria, it's still in copyright in Nigeria. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlbaCerinea20 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copies of published works from various authors and sources, all claimed as own work. No evidence of permission from copyright holders. Uploader has a history of uploading files that have been deleted as copyright violations (and has an unheeded warning to stop doing so on their user talk page).
- File:Ao Haru Ride - Volumen 01.pdf
- File:Solanin tomo 01 de 02.pdf
- File:Solanin tomo 02 de 02.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 3 Aquel Arbol Familiar.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 7 King Nothing.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 1 Bienvenidos a Ciudad Morioh.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 2 El Nombre Josuke Higashikata.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 5 Ciudad Morioh Año 1901.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 6 La Meta de Tsurugi Higashikata, y el Arquitecto.pdf
- File:JJL Volumen 4 El Limón y la Mandarina.pdf
- File:Tomo 11 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 10 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 9 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 8 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 6.pdf
- File:Tomo 4.pdf
- File:Tomo 5.pdf
- File:Tomo 3.pdf
- File:Tomo 2.pdf
- File:Tomo 1.pdf
- File:Tomo 22.pdf
- File:Tomo 23.pdf
- File:Tomo 21.pdf
- File:Tomo 20.pdf
- File:Tomo 19.pdf
- File:Tomo 18.pdf
- File:Tomo 17 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 16 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 15 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 14 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 16.pdf
- File:Tomo 13 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 12 7.pdf
- File:Tomo 15.pdf
- File:Tomo 13.pdf
- File:Tomo 14.pdf
- File:Tomo 12.pdf
- File:Tomo 10.pdf
- File:Tomo 11.pdf
- File:Tomo 17.pdf
- File:Tomo 9.pdf
- File:Tomo 8.pdf
- File:Tomo 24.pdf
Marbletan (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlbaCerinea20 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal files outside of COM:SCOPE. These files are of unidentifiable subjects - they have nonsense descriptions, nonsense categorization, and meaningless file names. They are therefore completely useless for Wikimedia projects. Some, such as File:3 GCIC datos de perfil.png appear to contain non-public personal information. Some of these files may also be screenshots of copyrighted software and therefore would need permission to be hosted on Commons (uploader has a long history of copyright violations).
- File:2 Busqueda de usuario.png
- File:1 GCIC general.png
- File:6 GCIC transaccion pendiente.png
- File:9 Comentarios completos.png
- File:8 Comentarios 2.png
- File:7 GCIC Comentarios.png
- File:5 GCIC transaccion.png
- File:4 GCIC Historial de Contacto.png
- File:3 GCIC datos de perfil.png
- File:Uwucion.pdf
- File:Riñonero.pdf
Marbletan (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by بهزاد بیات فرد (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable own work claims. Many of these files are copyrighted book covers and posters. Photographs of people lack metadata and have low resolution.
- File:کتاب تحلیلی بر EF CORE2.jpg
- File:سورگون.jpg
- File:ساناز امامی.jpg
- File:گذر از اندوه.jpg
- File:رقص اندیشه ها.jpg
- File:دویغولو گئجه لر.jpg
- File:داستان خدا.jpg
- File:سی سال زندگی در بیمارستان.jpg
- File:قارا بوغما.jpg
- File:گورخواب.jpg
- File:زهرا بادره.jpg
- File:دلتنگی های سارا.jpg
- File:پاییزترین روز بهار.jpg
- File:جوان سارا.jpg
- File:ایرانیم منیم.jpg
- File:رقیه کبیری.jpg
- File:یورقون تورکمانلی.jpg
- File:۹۹قارداش.jpg
- File:اریین شمع.jpg
- File:حوا و آدم.jpg
- File:آتاسیز گونلریم.jpg
- File:تاریخ زبان ترکی.jpg
- File:المیرا زنجانی.jpg
- File:فاطما.jpg
- File:آغریلاریم.jpg
- File:سحرخیاوی.jpg
- File:هادی کرمی.jpg
- File:غبارلی کؤنول.jpg
- File:علی محرم نژاد.jpg
- File:اوزلم تبریز.jpg
- File:بیرقوجاق اوزلم.jpg
- File:Ozlam.jpg
- File:سهندی مهدی.jpg
- File:مهدی سهندی.jpg
- File:رعنا زارع.jpg
- File:پوریا محمدی کیا.jpg
- File:میرشاهین هاشمی.jpg
- File:اشک قلم.jpg
- File:اورکده مین داغ.jpg
- File:Arefsasani.jpg
- File:Daliboyuk.jpg
- File:Hasratli.jpg
- File:Neydan.jpg
- File:Sudyolu.jpg
- File:Sahib.png
HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 08:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio see metadata that clearly state "Copyright holder ROCYKA FOTOGRAFIE" Hoyanova (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
wrong file SCAPHED (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
None of this appears to be in scope, also probably not own work (pixel art saved as jpg files?)
- File:Seiku Charging his power.jpg
- File:Primordial Seiku.jpg
- File:Seiku Holyfire mode.jpg
- File:Seiku's updated Hellfire Mode.jpg
- File:Seiku's appearance as a hellspawn.jpg
- File:Human Seiku.jpg
- File:Seiku's Hellraiser Axe.jpg
- File:Seiku in his last transformation callled Embodiment of Chaos.jpg
- File:Seiku in his Primordial Form.jpg
- File:Seiku using his second transformation called Holyfire Seiku mode.jpg
- File:Seiku in Hellfire mode.jpg
- File:Seiku with a special axe.jpg
Nutshinou Talk! 09:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
wrong file SCAPHED (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
wrong file SCAPHED (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:Scope: unused personal image. MKFI (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AsadollahS (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs taken from the internet. Watermarks are evident.
- File:SaipaShahinEngineM15TC.jpg
- File:207iMc1.jpg
- File:207iMc2.jpg
- File:Fotonh5p.jpg
- File:Fotonh5daste.jpg
- File:Fotonh5d.jpg
- File:FotonH5.jpg
- File:Fotonh5A.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
unused logo for advertisement Zafer (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused suspicious personal photo, out of project Zafer (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- include
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo for advertisement, no educational value Zafer (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo for advertisement, no educational value Zafer (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo for advertisement, no educational value Zafer (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Blurry and unused COM:VAGINA photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 00:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:Tiglinate-ion-2D-structure.svg as high-quality vector replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
{{Speedydelete}} Red Natters (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- And why? --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep, no actual reason provided, just a failed template attempt. --Matr1x-101 {user page - talk with me :) - contribs!} 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
{{db-author}} Red Natters (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Far from being eligible for speedy deletion, it is COM:INUSE and therefore a speedy keep candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 11:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Self created artwork or ad? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
self created banner, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? Much higher resolution can be found here. Wouter (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
equal to File:Ruggerodeceglie.jpg, orphaned and with wrong name. ZioNicco (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Not own work: [3] Gyrostat (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I see no evidence that this work has been produced by the US government. Gyrostat (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs evidence that PD Gov applies to SPIC. --Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
the image cites meg linehan as the photographer. the image is no longer available on linehan's website, but there does not appear to be any indication that her work is free to be used. Rubythrees (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
movie poster of commercial movie; probably not CC-By-SA 4.0 ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 21:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Face generated by some kind of avatar software, similar versions exist online (e.g. https://github.com/wkingfly, identical hair) Belbury (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Argentine currency
[edit]Per Com:Argentina/currency. The Argentine austral was released in 1985 so it is protected at least until 2036. There are also images of Argentine peso (1983–85)
Some coins such as this one are not listed so they are composed of simple elements, below the TOO.
Files affected:
- File:1 аустраль Аргентины..jpg
- File:1 аустраль Аргентины.jpg
- File:1 сентаво Аустраля 1985 Аргентина..jpg
- File:10 Australes 1989.jpg
- File:10 аустралей.jpg
- File:100 000 аустралей.jpg
- File:100 аустралей.jpg
- File:1000 аустралей.jpg
- File:10000 аустралей.jpg
- File:5 аустралей.jpg
- File:50 000 аустралей.jpg
- File:50 аустралей.jpg
- File:500 аустралей..jpg
- File:5000 аустралей.jpg
- File:1⁄2 сентаво Аустраля 1985 Аргентина..jpg
- File:5 сентаво Аустраля 1985 Аргентина..jpg
- File:Аргентина 1 аустраль 1989 ратуша Буэнос-Айреса.jpg
- File:Аргентина 1000 аустралей, 1991.png
- File:Аргентина 1 аустраль 1989 ратуша Буэнос-Айреса.jpg
- File:Аргентина 5 аустралей (australes).png
- File:50 сентаво Аустраля 1987 Аргентина..jpg
- File:1 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)..jpg
- File:1 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)f.jpg
- File:1 аустраль Аргентины..jpg
- File:1 аустраль Аргентины.jpg
- File:10 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)...png
- File:10 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)..jpg
- File:10 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985).jpg
- File:10 аустралей.jpg
- File:100 000 аустралей.jpg
- File:100 аустралей.jpg
- File:100 Песо аргентино (оборотная сторона).png
- File:100 Песо аргентино.png
- File:1000 аустралей.jpg
- File:10000 аустралей.jpg
- File:5 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)..jpg
- File:5 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985).jpg
- File:5 аустралей.jpg
- File:50 000 аустралей.jpg
- File:50 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)...png
- File:50 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985)..jpg
- File:50 Аргентинское песо (1983—1985).jpg
- File:50 аустралей.jpg
- File:500 аустралей..jpg
- File:5000 аустралей.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP316-500PesosArgentinos-(1984)-donated b.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP316-500PesosArgentinos-(1984)-donated f.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP317b-1000PesosArg-(1983-84) b.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP317b-1000PesosArg-(1983-84) f.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP318b-5000PesosArg-(1984-85) b.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP318b-5000PesosArg-(1984-85) f.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP319-10000PesosArgentinos-(1985)-donatedsb b.jpg
- File:ArgentinaP319-10000PesosArgentinos-(1985)-donatedsb f.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
...png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
...png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-donated_b.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-donated_f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_b.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_b.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-donatedsb_b.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-donatedsb_f.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Fma12 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Qué pasa aquí? 191.125.143.221 23:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, crop of a copyrighted image. --Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-free image. Take directly from a website without authorization. Words in the Wind (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erfan aliabadi (talk · contribs)
[edit]No proof that these are licensed with CC. At least one is taken here: [4]. Logo is out of scope
- File:Babashikh.jpg
- File:Nuranifard2.jpg
- File:Nuranifard1.jpg
- File:Nuranifar.jpg
- File:Babashaikh.jpg
- File:KNN.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
personal stuff, out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. --Gbawden (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Applied to Facebook as "Ritchie posing for 2023 Photo-op", but no source is given. EXIF shows a Facebook source. Presumably an AI image generated in response to https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/kid-rock-bud-light-woke-trans-protest-dylan-mulvaney-1234709445/ - the flag colours are arbitrary and don't line up with each other across the fold. Belbury (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by شهلا رحیمی (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by دڵشاد کاوانی (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
- File:بەرهەمەکانی دڵشاد کاوانی.jpg
- File:خەڵاتی ئەدەبی.jpg
- File:دڵشاد کاوانی.jpg
- File:ڕۆمانی بە ڕێگاوە.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kechavarzr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a crop of this image: https://m.facebook.com/TheStrongMuseum/posts/did-you-know-that-the-rochester-jeffersons-football-team-was-one-of-the-original/10158060057648988/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Florence County is not accurate on this map, which is otherwise redundant to File:2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court election results map by county.svg and not used anywhere. Kelly only got 69.97% in Florence County, as can be verified by running the numbers from the source given in this file's description. Elli (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Yeah, my bad here. I'm fine with this getting deleted Alexcs114 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The image is from Catherine Haena Kim's social media account, not own work by uploader. Bookish Worm (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Almost all of the uploader's other uploads are copyvios. This one is low quality and potentially wrong, see this cut off coat of arms from a Moroccan tourism website: https://www.infostourismemaroc.com/uploads/images/gallery/5eb952b52f502_vacances-khouribga-city-infos-tourisme-maroc.jpg Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, complex logo. --Wdwd (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributor/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
pergantian background Dtopeng Kingdom Group (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Changed background" to my knowledge is not a deletion reason, regardless of how many times you give it as if it were one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
pergantian background Dtopeng Kingdom Group (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Pergantian Gambar Dtopeng Kingdom Group (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Pergantian Gambar Dtopeng Kingdom Group (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
User has uploaded multiple copyvios, so is unlikely to be copyright holder. Found elsewhere online here [5], but that site obviously doesn't check copyrights. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete. Clearly this image is falsely claimed as own work. Marbletan (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copy of https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=183667331135694 Habertix (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-free logo. See https://immersion-totale.fr/ Habertix (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Inaccurate Red Natters (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (feel free to upload a corrected new version). --Wdwd (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Speedydelete}} Red Natters (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- And why? --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Túrelio As they say, because of inaccuracy. But to be honest any other skeletal reconstructions by this user are inaccurate as well and some may even used trace of works by other ones. I don't understand why this is the only one being requested for deletion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
{{db-author}} Red Natters (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 11:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|<As the author, I have decided to delete this image due to it being inaccurate>}} Red Natters (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
{{db-author}} Kaoavi (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. With a photo of a minor such as this, courtesy deletion at the request of the uploader is entirely appropriate. Marbletan (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
the author wishes to remove just the image. Iodides (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Courtesy deletion of a personal file, requested by uploader. Marbletan (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot as mentioned in Metadata, also with a small "!" mark at the bottom left, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Sindorbek (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
personal photo by non-contributor, user hasn't been active in 10 years (the image is used on the uploader's userpage so the file couldn't be speedy deleted) -- Nutshinou Talk! 08:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, very few meaningful edits. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, see source Xocolatl (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
wrong file SCAPHED (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
picture from Instagram. No permission 2A0C:5A80:3309:BF00:A972:81EB:ECC2:E67E 10:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a selfie by the person depicted, it lacks permission ticket. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abduljanfarah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable own work claims. One seems like a screenshot
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? This single contribution of the user is clearly a photo of a photo. Who is the original photographer? Wouter (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
superseded by JPG Southern Illinoisan Sun Mar 6 1983.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, made redundant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted materials Michel Bakni (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
sorry, i am newcomer and created dublicates of this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Zimbabwe%2Bflag_of_rhodesia.svg Bazylevnik0 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
sorry, i am newcomer and created dublicates of this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Zimbabwe%2Bflag_of_rhodesia.svg Bazylevnik0 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Instagram 186.174.169.68 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Credit in EXIF data not matching uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Atharva Chandrashekhar Dalal (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused image, many alternatives available. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Promotional image (of a politician) that is found on other websites, also Out of scope because the article was deleted. kyykaarme (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
People appear to be wearing tables. Occurred in the Czech --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Wearing tables is not a valid basis for a deletion request. But User:Gampe tagged it COM:CSD#F10, which actually is a valid reason, and one that I think does apply here. The file is in-use on uploader's cswiki userpage, but they do not appear to be a constructive contributor to any *wiki. DMacks (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:DMacks. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope logo HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Logo file. Company also based in Koltaka --BoulevardBowl27 (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploader has multiple copyvios, so is unlikely to own rights to release. Wasn't able to find a website for the team, but this site [6] uses this logo for them, and it's too complicated of a logo to not attract copyright. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am the owner of this file, want this file to be deleted. Because I don't want my personal photos to be published and visible in search engines. Rudy Triokariyawan (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
broken? com:csd#F7 eien20 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Personal file (letter of employment confirmation) outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Self created logo? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
personal photo? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused and lacking any context or sources for its alleged meaning. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Possibly above the threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Factual incorrect: Outermost limits of the Pandya empire are shown incorrectly. Kindly delete or correct the image (the more suitable image can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pandya_Kingdom_(south_India).png) Patraoleum (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.png)){kind=link}
- Kindly check the origin of the file and, if necessary, devote the time spent requesting deletion of files correcting any possible mistakes. Much more useful for the encyclopaedia.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Agehrg4 as Fair use (Обоснование добросовестного использования) and the most recent rationale was: статья = Акрон (футбольный клуб)|цель = Для добросовестного использования в статье Акрон (футбольный клуб).# Это изображение — логотип футбольного клуба низкого разрешения.# Это изображение не ограничивает владельца авторских прав в возможности извлекать выгоду из оригинального источника, и не ослабит значение или узнаваемость изображения, как логотипа этого футбольного клуба.# Это изображение улучшает статью, в которой оно отображается, т. к. оно уместнее для читателя, чем исключительно текстовое описание.# Использование логотипа визуально идентифицирует компанию и ее продукты, и соответствует всем критериям Википедия:Критерии добросовестного использования.|заменяемость = Незаменяемое. Логотипы всегда предполагаются по умолчанию несвободными. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Этот файл можно удалять — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agehrg4 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
画像の回転が上手くいかないため削除をお願いします。 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- re Image was rotated. Do you still want it deleted? --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: image has been rotated, no reason for deletion. --Yasu (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
画像の回転が上手くいかないので削除をお願いします。 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: image has been rotated, no reason for deletion. --Yasu (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
See Template:PD-CSPAN. Work of C-SPAN is not federal government work, and committee hearings are only released for non-commercial use, from what I can see.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ytoyoda (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
While {{PD-USGov}} applies to works of the federal government of the United States of America, it does not apply to the governments of the constituent sovereign states (see COM:USA#Works by the US Government, which notes that while a work created by the federal Government is in the public domain, works created by most state and local governments are subject to copyright). These photographs were taken by the Alexandria Sheriff's Office; the employees of that office are employees of the U.S. Commonwealth of Virginia, not the U.S. Federal Government. As such, the {{PD-USGov}} tag does not appear to apply to these photographs. As each photograph was created in the 2000s, the photographs are not presumed to be in the public domain on account of age. For these reasons, the photos do not appear to be in the public domain, and the photos should be deleted in light of COM:PRP for also lacking evidence of a valid free license.
_Frese.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- As a friendly note, a discussion related to some of these files has been taking place on COM:VP/C. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Here is the contact information for the Alexandria Sheriff's Office if anyone wants to request permission. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)- In each case, it appears to be the Alexandria Sheriff's Office making arrests on behalf of the United States government (they're all charged with federal crimes, I believe). Does that make a difference? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- No difference; their employer is still the city of Alexandria and those photos are still works produced by Alexandria city employees. Unless these photographs were taken by federal employees acting in their course of duty (they do not appear to be, as all credits are attributed to the Sherrif's Office of Alexandria), then we can't host them under a claim of {{PD-USGov}}. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Headlock0225 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- My concerns remain. We know that the artist is Gary Brown who I believe is still alive. He could be the one and the same as the Uploader but this needs confirmation by VRTS. Furthermore the work is a Derivative Work with the the original photographer being Felix Greene who died in 1985. Without evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that copyright still rests with the estate of Felix Greene. --Headlock0225 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - The source document is from Sandia Labs which states it is "managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000." Work under contract to the US government does not automatically become PD. I checked into the image in the document on the chance that the image itself is the work of a US government employee. The reference in document credited this document. That turns out to be the work of an employee of Southern California Edison, and not a federal government employee. -- Whpq (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is media taken from CCTV equipment in the US? Does the US have a specfic exemption in copyright law, or is there specfic caselaw, supporting the reasoning that simple or trival media from such equipment is not suject to copyrights (mots likely held by the operators or woners of the CCTV equipment concerned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking essential information to show PD release. I am aware of no blanket exemption to copyright for CCTV footage. Bearing in mind that CCTV represents an edge case, Commons adopts a pretty strong precautionary principle; we want to ensure that media files are definitely free media, not just that a colorable argument might be made. 69.174.144.79 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - The USCO clearly says that for copyright to apply, there must be a human author. For example, at https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/, it says,
- "Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship... " and
- "Works are original when they are independently created by a human author..."
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is media taken from CCTV equipment? Where is/was that equipment and does that jurisdiction, have a specfic exemption in copyright law, or is there specfic caselaw, supporting the reasoning that simple or trival media from such equipment is not suject to copyrights (most likely held by the operators or owners of the CCTV equipment concerned)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- According to the source "Imageries are copyright free." --ToprakM ✉ 20:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - The USCO clearly says that for copyright to apply, there must be a human author. For example, at https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/, it says,
- "Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship... " and
- "Works are original when they are independently created by a human author...". . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Davepape as no permission (No permission since) Thibaut (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Per w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording_devices and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Salah Abdeslam.jpg. Thibaut (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)- Keep as per Thibaut above. Yann (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per above and with evidence that the Georgia Bureau of Investigations has released this footage to the public https://twitter.com/GBI_GA/status/1544808812334530560?s=20&t=vhXs_gq1lXeTSrCJU_RR3w Eagerdoggy (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: No proof that it's public domain, and that we have the rights to use it. 76.24.52.244 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Per w:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording_devices. That said someone could almost go the other way to justify deleting this since the idea of images taken with pre-positioned recording devices being copyrighted hasn't been tested in court yet and the whole "precautionary principle" thing exists, but whatever. I'm not super concerned about it myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is media taken from CCTV equipment in the US? Does the US have a specfic exemption in copyright law, or is there specfic caselaw, supporting the reasoning that simple or trival media from such equipment is not suject to copyrights (mots likely held by the operators or woners of the CCTV equipment concerned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There does not appear to be a widely accepted exemption from copyright for CCTV footage. Based on COM:PRP we should delete. 69.174.144.79 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Any media released by a government agency is automatically in the public domain Eamesheard (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not true. Only if the government agency's works are made PD by law and the copyright actually belongs to that agency. 69.174.144.79 05:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. The USCO clearly says that for copyright to apply, there must be a human author. For example, at https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/, it says,
- "Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship... " and
- "Works are original when they are independently created by a human author..."
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is media taken from CCTV equipment in the US? Does the US have a specfic exemption in copyright law, or is there specfic caselaw, supporting the reasoning that simple or trival media from such equipment is not suject to copyrights (most likely held by the operators or owners of the CCTV equipment concerned)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - The USCO clearly says that for copyright to apply, there must be a human author. For example, at https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/, it says,
- "Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship... " and
- "Works are original when they are independently created by a human author..." . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Although sexual intercourse is in scope, this image is in poor quality and unused, and can be replaced by alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete very bad quality Dronebogus (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 01:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Additionally, the photo wasn't at the source site's location anymore. -- 32X (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. At the source website, it states 'all rights reserved' Bookish Worm (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
_in_Warsaw_-_Pepe_the_Frog.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_Warsaw_-_Pepe_the_Frog.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possibly derivative work of "Pepe the Frog" Trade (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
_in_Warsaw_-_Pepe_the_Frog.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, as copyrighted character is central motive of this image. --Túrelio (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
_in_Warsaw_-_Pepe_the_Frog.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems like a screenshot from a tweet
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Urban painting with Ferdowsi's mausoleum (and his Shahname) 2.jpg
- File:Urban painting with Ferdowsi's mausoleum (and his Shahname) 1.jpg
- File:Koohsar 02.jpg
- File:Koohsar 01.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 06.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 04.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 05.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 02.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 03.jpg
- File:Mashhad City Hall (former Statue Sq. of Mashhad) (1) 01.jpg
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_06.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_04.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_05.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1)_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of these maps are tagged as 'own work' but they are very different and seem to be taken from different sources. The uploader has a history of copyright violation.
- File:Ahmadabad & Koohsangi map.jpg
- File:Schematic map of Mashhad (before 1979 Rev.) centered Nader Street.jpg
- File:Mashhad city master plan 1355 (1976).jpg
- File:S.E. Map of Mashhad - Farvardin 57.jpg
- File:The route between Koohsangi and Railway Station.jpg
_centered_Nader_Street.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- File:Ahmadabad & Koohsangi map.jpg and File:S.E. Map of Mashhad - Farvardin 57.jpg look like File:Guide Map of Tehran, 1966.png to me. I guess these are from the same source or series.
- File:The route between Koohsangi and Railway Station.jpg has a source and is in the public domain.
- File:Mashhad city master plan 1355 (1976).jpg could be in the public domain. Depends on who created it.
Hanooz 14:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Hanooz
- the File:The route between Koohsangi croped of File:Map of Mashhad, 1954.jpg (with some color changes).
- the File:Mashhad city master plan 1355 (1976).jpg was cuted of File:Mashhadplan.jpg and I write the current names of it's streets. Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian That's fine, these files are OK and I withdraw the nomination. Can you please specify sources for your other uploads? Did you take File:Sabet Baktash crop.jpg yourself? There are many other files that seem to be not your own work. HeminKurdistan (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
مشکل حق تکثیر در پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg
[edit]
از اینکه پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg را بارگذاری کردید سپاسگزاریم. با این وجود، وضعیت حق نشر و مجوز این پرونده مشخص نیست. حق نشر در ویکیپدیا مسئلهای بسیار جدی است. پرونده ممکن است به زودی حذف شود، مگر اینکه بتوانیم تأیید کنیم این پرونده دارای وضعیت حق تکثیر مورد قبول ویکیپدیا و دارای منبعی مشخص است. لطفاً با ویرایش صفحهٔ توضیحات تصویر این اطلاعات را به آن بیفزایید. برای دانستن اینکه چه پروندههایی را میتوانید یا نمیتوانید در ویکیپدیا بارگذاری کنید به سیاست استفاده از تصاویر مراجعه کنید. صفحهٔ برچسبهای حق تکثیر ممکن است به شما کمک کند برچسب مناسب را برای تصویر خود بیابید. اگر پرونده حذف شده است، همچنان میتوانید در ویکیپدیا:درخواست احیا درخواست احیای تصویر را بدهید و فرصتی برای رفع مشکل پیدا کنید.
خواهشمندیم پروندههای دیگری که بارگذاری کردهاید را نیز از نظر برچسب بررسی کنید. فهرستی از پروندههای بارگذاریشده به دست شما.
اگر پرسشی داشتید، اگر پرسشی داشتید لطفاً آن را در میز کمک بپرسید. باز هم از همکاری شما سپاسگزاریم. MehdiTalk ۴ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۰۶:۵۳ (UTC)
- مهدی گرامی --MehdiTalk ،
- پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg اثری کاملن شخصی و در اختیار خود است و نیز در زمانی آپلود شده است که قوانین حق تکثیر ، ترجمه فارسی دقیقی در "ویکی" نداشت.
- ضمن اینکه "پاک کردن پرونده" ظاهرا در اختیار کاربران عادی وجود ندارد و "پاک کردن پرونده" سیر بروکراسی واری دارد.
- ازینرو سپاسگزار میشوم هر پرونده مشکوک (در موضوع کپی رایت و حق تکثیر) را حذف فرمایید. با سپاس و احترام Parthiska Hakhamaneshian (بحث) ۸ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۲۱:۲۱ (UTC)
- سلام و روز بخیر. در خصوص پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg چند مطلب وجود دارد. با توجه به نبود قانون آزادی پانورا در ایران، اگر این میدان و المان وسط آن پس از انقلاب ۵۷ طراحی و پیاده سازی شده باشد، این تصویر را نمیتوان با برچسب حق تکثیر آزاد در ویکیپدیا و یا انبار بارگذاری نمود و قطعا حذف خواهد شد. دلیل آن هم طراحی خاص اِلِمان وسط میدان است. البته اگر این میدان از زمان پهلوی بوده، شرایط متفاوت است و می توان در انبار نیز بارگذاری نمود. اگر برای بعد از انقلاب باشد و بخواهیم در ویکی فارسی نگهداری کنیم، حتما باید نوشتاری در خصوص پارک راه آهن مشهد وجود داشته باشد و به معرفی این میدان و یا المان وسط آن بپردازد تا بتوان به صورت منصفانه از این تصویر استفاده نمود. راهکار دیگری هم وجود دارد، اگر وجود آن المان در تصویر خیلی برایتان مهم نباشد، میتوان بخشی از تصویر را برش زد و تصویر نوجوان و دوچرخه را به انبار برد و برای همیشه از این تصویر میزبانی نمود. سال ثبت تصویر و مشخصات میدان را نمیدانم که درست و کامل راهنمایی را تقدیم کنم. در خصوص تصاویر مشکوک به حق تکثیر نیز پس از هفت رو این تصاویر، در صورت عدم رفع مشکل، حذف خواهند شد. البته راه برای اعتراض و درخواست بازیابی در آینده برای بارگذار محفوظ است. با احترام:--MehdiTalk ۹ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۰۵:۱۰ (UTC)
- سلام مهدی ارجمند و بزرگوار ---MehdiTalk .
- سپاس از پاسخ مشروح تون. من با توجه به نبود تاکنون قانون کپی رایت در ایران، زیاد متوجه انبوه این قوانین کپی رایت و نشر و بازنشر و جزئیات آبجکت های مختلف آن (تصویر، پانورا، نقشه، لوگو، سکه؛ عکس گیری از تصویر یا فیلم، عکس از کتاب و روزنامه، گنو و کریتیو کامنزهای گوناگون و GFDL و COM و FOP؛ پدیدآور و مالک و استفاده منصفانه، و یا قوانین برخی تصاویر قدیمی ایرانی ("تصویر آزاد جایگزینی برای همان موضوع یا همان مقاله وجود نداشته باشد" یا "تصویر در ویکیپدیای فارسی نگاه داشته بشود و به ویکیانبار منتقل نشود" یا "زمان اولین انتشارش مشخص نباشد") و ...) نمیشوم (البته سن و سال و پیری هم در آن، بی تاثیر نیست).
- ایستگاه راه آهن مشهد در 1345 و المان مجاور آن (با طراحی یعقوب دانش دوست)، حدود سال 1350 و در دوره پهلوی دوم ساخته شده اند.
- ضمن اینکه برای تصاویر و پرونده هایی که کار خودم است، برای برچسبهای حق تکثیر، باید چه گزینه ای را انتخاب یا چه مطلبی را در توضیح بنویسم تا اجازه نشر و بازنشر آن را مشخص کنم؟ (به عنوان مثال، همین پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg ، یا
- پرونده:Marst.jpg که در پایین به آن اشاره کرده اید؟
- سپاس فراوان از شما Parthiska Hakhamaneshian (بحث) ۱۰ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۰۳:۴۱ (UTC)
- سلام مجدد و عرض ادب و احترام. من تصاویرم را با Template:الگو یا Template:الگو منتشر می کنم و به گمانم اگر دوست دارید حق نشر و بازنشر و ... چه به صورت تجاری و چه غیرتجاری را به جهانیان ببخشید، این دو مجوز بهترین باشد. هر کدام از تصاویرتان که با این مجوزها منتشر کنید، به انبار منتقل می کنم تا برای همه جهانیان و همیشه ماندگار شوند.--MehdiTalk ۱۰ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۰۴:۴۷ (UTC)
- سلام و روز بخیر. در خصوص پرونده:پارک راه آهن.jpg چند مطلب وجود دارد. با توجه به نبود قانون آزادی پانورا در ایران، اگر این میدان و المان وسط آن پس از انقلاب ۵۷ طراحی و پیاده سازی شده باشد، این تصویر را نمیتوان با برچسب حق تکثیر آزاد در ویکیپدیا و یا انبار بارگذاری نمود و قطعا حذف خواهد شد. دلیل آن هم طراحی خاص اِلِمان وسط میدان است. البته اگر این میدان از زمان پهلوی بوده، شرایط متفاوت است و می توان در انبار نیز بارگذاری نمود. اگر برای بعد از انقلاب باشد و بخواهیم در ویکی فارسی نگهداری کنیم، حتما باید نوشتاری در خصوص پارک راه آهن مشهد وجود داشته باشد و به معرفی این میدان و یا المان وسط آن بپردازد تا بتوان به صورت منصفانه از این تصویر استفاده نمود. راهکار دیگری هم وجود دارد، اگر وجود آن المان در تصویر خیلی برایتان مهم نباشد، میتوان بخشی از تصویر را برش زد و تصویر نوجوان و دوچرخه را به انبار برد و برای همیشه از این تصویر میزبانی نمود. سال ثبت تصویر و مشخصات میدان را نمیدانم که درست و کامل راهنمایی را تقدیم کنم. در خصوص تصاویر مشکوک به حق تکثیر نیز پس از هفت رو این تصاویر، در صورت عدم رفع مشکل، حذف خواهند شد. البته راه برای اعتراض و درخواست بازیابی در آینده برای بارگذار محفوظ است. با احترام:--MehdiTalk ۹ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۰۵:۱۰ (UTC)
- بسیار بسیار سپاسگذارم از راهنمایی تون. سالهاست با این موضوع بغرنج برایم، درگیر هستم و سر در نمی آورم. بر روی چشم. سپاس فراوان. Parthiska Hakhamaneshian (بحث) ۱۰ آوریل ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۴۲ (UTC)
چرا برخی پرونده ها در محیط fa.wikipedia قرار گرفته اند و برخی دیگر در محیط commons.wikimedia ؟ Parthiska Hakhamaneshian (بحث) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seems like a screenshot.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]This video is edited with music from Eric Clapton and its source is unknown. Copyright status unclear.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old footage with unknown source
HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]This seems like a derivative work and there is no proof of own work. Also, an IP user claims to own the work.
HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parthsbod K.A. Hakhamaneshian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Newspaper clippings from 2006. They are copyrighted until 2036 per Iranian law.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a derivative work and there is no proof of own work. Uploader has a bad recored on copyright violation. Also, an IP user claims to own the work. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Jameslwoodward. --Rosenzweig τ 21:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
duplicate image Cuddlestheboa (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - if it's duplicate, please provide a link to the other copy - Jcb (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio. Basta con leer el EXIF. 186.173.18.234 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Question How does the EXIF show that the uploader was not the photographer? If there's evidence to that effect, I'm not seeing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Improper licensing Auguel (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: change the license. Ruthven (msg) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The image is not within "legal statutes, administrative regulations, court decisions and other decisions by public authorities", and as such is not covered by the exceptions in §14 of the law, and is covered by copyright, and not public domain. Premeditated (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was recommended to use the {{PD-NorwayGov}} at the Norwegian WP:VPM when discussing the photograph, that discussion can be found here.
- 12u (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I was not aware of that discussion (that is now archived here). Maybe Adamant1 has some input regarding the usage of {{PD-NorwayGov}} on this image? - Premeditated (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This picture is published by the norwegian police, a public autority. This is in the scope of {{PD-NorwayGov}} "This is also the case with proposals, reports and other statements which concern the public exercise of authority, and which are made by a public authority, a publicly appointed council or committee, or published by the public authorities." --Andrez1 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think {{PD-NorwayGov}} works in this case because the law specifically says it covers things "which are made by a public authority" and the image wasn't made by the Norwegian police. It was made by and at a restaurant in Oslo. Just because the Norwegian police reused it in a report doesn't mean they created it or that the restaurant, or whomever else took the photograph originally, isn't the original copyright holder. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- This dokument are made by a public authority and published by the public authority. I belive your consern for a unknown copyrighet holder is somewhat spoilt energy. The european GDPR kicks in and the restaurant does not have the oportunity to publish from their surveillance cameras. this links to 4 descisions with fines between 35000-400000NOK (3500-40000US dollar) for attemts to use the material out of order. But they are obliged to give the material to the police acording to this. When the police go trough material and find something interesting; it becomes a document in an ongoing investigation. This dokument is what the police have chosen to publish as a part of an ongoing investigation. Here {{PD-NorwayGov}} kicks in. --Andrez1 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think {{PD-NorwayGov}} works in this case because the law specifically says it covers things "which are made by a public authority" and the image wasn't made by the Norwegian police. It was made by and at a restaurant in Oslo. Just because the Norwegian police reused it in a report doesn't mean they created it or that the restaurant, or whomever else took the photograph originally, isn't the original copyright holder. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per my prior comment. Mainly, this wasn't made by the Norwegian police. So I assume the restaurant where the image was taken still holds the copyright to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- No restaurant to hold a copyright & made by the police. Andrez1 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is illegal in Norway for restaurant owners to store CCTV footage for longer than 7 days. The restaurant will by that logic no longer "own" this material, and as previously stated it has been made public by the Police of Norway. Therefore I find it hard to believe that this photo is not considered to be under free use. 12u (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- No restaurant to hold a copyright & made by the police. Andrez1 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to bring attention to perpetrators for their actions.--Zartesbitter (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Per Andrez1. 12u (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - Taken by a surveillance camera and therefore has no copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Re-nominating. I am aware of previous arguments, but the logic that CCTV footage is public domain through being simple does not apply universally, as indicated in some recent DR's on that issue. This media originates outside the US, and thus it would be the copyright situation in it's origin country that would need to be applied. Does Norway have a specfic exemption of copyright for simple images taken by mechanical means without creative input in the choice of images? The use of the images in an official capacity or govt released media is a side issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP; the idea that there is a blanket exemption from copyright law for CCTV footage does not seem to be clearly established. We need something more than an arguable basis before declaring something to be outside of copyright for all uses. 69.174.144.79 14:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to note the claim in the previous discussion that the file was published by a public authority (and cannot lawfully be published by the restaurant) does not mean that the rights to the image are owned by the public authority. 69.174.144.79 14:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Laws about copyright differ from country to country; we have established that the image's origin country is Norway, and that CCTV footage does not have any legal copyright owners per Norwegian law. I completely agree with the COM:PRP policy, however, I do not see it being pertinent in this particular case. Please elaborate. 12u (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep As previously stated, it is illegal in Norway for restaurant owners to store CCTV footage for longer than 7 days. The image therefore has no copyright protection in Norway (the origin country) as it does not have any actual owner. The image was publicized by the Norwegian Police Service, and there are no specfic exemption of copyright for simple images taken by mechanical means without creative input in the choice of images in Norway. We should apply the copyright laws for the origin country, in other words keep the image.
- The fact that it would be unlawful for the restaurant owner to retain the footage doesn't render it PD. You have no pronouncement of Norwegian law that expressly makes this image PD. The police usage of it is a form of fair use. COM:PRP means we delete this image. 69.174.144.79 14:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep I closed this previously, so I will not close it again. I note that as in most countries, the term of a copyright is measured by the life of the author. An automatic camera does not have a life, so that if there were a copyright here, how long would it last? Also, the Norwegian copyright law says, at Section 2, "The person who creates an intellectual work has copyright to the work, and is referred to as the originator."[Google translation] Since an automatic camera is not a person, it cannot benefit from this. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This file was filed under PD-NorwayGov until this edit changed that. It should be set back to PD-NorwayGov. This is a document (in a still ongoing) criminal case against Matapour where the police as a public autority has published his image as a part of the investigation. (The owner of the cctv-thing are not in posistion to publish, and would have been heavily fined if they did.) This is in the core of what PD-NorwayGov is protecting. And should be set back to that.Andrez1 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Should be set back to PD-NorwayGov. If I do that; it would alter the premise
sfor this deletion request by ShakespeareFan00 and revert an edit of the keeper of the former discussion, (Jameslwoodward). That would solve this issue. Is that OK with you 12u? Andrez1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)- @Andrez1: Yes, it is :) 12u (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ok for ShakespeareFan00 acording to this. Andrez1 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not OK for (Jameslwoodward) acording to this in this topic.
- Should be set back to PD-NorwayGov. If I do that; it would alter the premise
- So.. no consensus. The edit are not defended. The - "So if you can not show that a copyright exists, please leave the tag." - lays the burden of proof on the other part.
- I, for one, can not prove that a copyright exist. But is convinced that this material is in the Public Domain, and that the material falls within the scope of PD-NorwayGov. And by that is a "work of art without copyright protection".
- Reverting the materials license from "PD-ineligible|Surveillance camera - has no copyright" back the original "PD-NorwayGov" will solve the ongoing issue. From a unwanted problematic license to a defensible license. The case can be closed. Anyone who wants to challenge the "PD-NorwayGov" license can then do that in a new deletion requests.
- I will wait a day or two. And do that. Andrez1 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Done.
- This Deletion request can then be closed. The document now have the original license. It is not contested. Andrez1 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Andrez1. Ruthven (msg) 13:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF, included in montage by same uploader of blatant COM:NETCOPYVIOs (see File:Ludhiana Montage.jpg and example source), visual characteristics may suggest screenshot from video, etc. COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 12:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely not own work. Plus there are plenty of PNG files of this version of the logo of this sports club (see category) and this is not in use, furthermore, is a bad PNG because the inside of the logo shouldn't be transparent. Frodar (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: duplicate of Instituto acc cordoba logo.svg. Ruthven (msg) 13:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Non-free image. Source: ISL (https://www.indiansuperleague.com/clubs/1102-sc-east-bengal-profile/news/we-should-score-in-the-chances-we-get-kerala-blasters-fcs-ivan-vukomanovic) Ken Tony (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? This is not own work. Higher resolution can be found here. Wouter (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The claim of "own work" is clearly false. Marbletan (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 13:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Originally tagged for speedy deletion by User:Timeshifter because "This PD-ineligible license tag was never approved at Commons talk:Threshold of originality, nor anywhere else. I removed it from the list of PD-ineligible tags. See: diff. "What Links Here" shows it already being used on 3 images, and so it needs to be deleted before more damage is done. Also, see this discussion where it was not approved: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of images taken by automated cameras. (Traffic enforcement, speed, red light, etc)." Converting for discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and modify to make clear that this applies only in the US and certain other countries. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't apply anywhere. See: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of images taken by automated cameras. (Traffic enforcement, speed, red light, etc). The fact that a camera is automated does not determine whether its subject is copyrighted or not. An automated camera can be pointed anywhere. Where it is pointing is what matters. Not the automation. And this template should not be kept according to totaling keep and delete votes. This template does not meet the policies and guidelines of the Commons. It would never be approved at Commons talk:Threshold of originality as it is now. So until it does, which would require its scope to be radically narrowed, this template should be deleted. Because it is already being used on images. For example these images which are not from automated traffic cameras:
- File:Patty Hearst takes part in the April 1974 Hiberna bank raid with other SLA members.jpg
- File:Patty Hearst- Hibernia bank robbery.jpg
- File:Christopherneil.jpg
- I noticed various Patty Hearst security camera files under different image licenses. Such as {{PD-USGov}} since the files were found on FBI pages. Other such security camera photos were under the PD-ineligible license ({{PD-ineligible}}) at some point (such as before the {{PD-automated}} license was added. I am not sure any of those licenses are correct. If the bank made no copyright claim, then I would think the photos were simply in the public domain regardless of where they eventually showed up. I don't know. It needs to be thoroughly discussed at Commons talk:Threshold of originality. That is where other PD-ineligible licenses were discussed.
- Found a Wired article: Do People Caught on Ring Cameras Have Privacy Rights? from May 2022. It says: "The owner of the surveillance footage technically owns the copyright." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's a non-legal source. It is absolutely true in the United States according to the U.S. Copyright Office: the work must be "created by a human being" (sec. 306) and not "produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author" (sec. 313.2). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- The problem we'd run into is if the particular arrangement of a camera system to capture an intersection at a certain angle under certain circumstances would qualify as sufficiently creative input from a human author. If courts in the U.S. have ruled that this sort of stuff can be copyrighted we'd run into a possibly fatal problem with this template; as COM:TOO USA notes, [w]orks from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country are
Not OK to upload to Commons (COM:Licensing requires that works be free both in their source country and the United States, so we need the image to be below COM:TOO USA regardless of its country of origin). - Along those lines, I have a Question: has this question previously been tested in U.S. court and, if so, what have the courts ruled? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- From that US Copyright Office link that Mdaniels5757 linked to is the following (with another link at the end):
- The problem we'd run into is if the particular arrangement of a camera system to capture an intersection at a certain angle under certain circumstances would qualify as sufficiently creative input from a human author. If courts in the U.S. have ruled that this sort of stuff can be copyrighted we'd run into a possibly fatal problem with this template; as COM:TOO USA notes, [w]orks from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country are
- That's a non-legal source. It is absolutely true in the United States according to the U.S. Copyright Office: the work must be "created by a human being" (sec. 306) and not "produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author" (sec. 313.2). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
The crucial question is “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, REPORT TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 5 (1966).
- I don't see anything about security cameras in anything discussed so far except in the Wired article. That magazine puts out quality stuff (for a long time now). So I believe they are probably right. A security camera can be put anywhere. Hell, anybody can put a camera on a tripod and a timer and take group photos with themselves in the photo too. Isn't that an "automated" timer camera. Just like many security cameras that take photos every few seconds, minutes, etc.. People can mount automated cameras anywhere. Like all the web cams worldwide taking photos and videos of wildlife, eagle nests, interesting sites, etc.. As I said previously, the fact that it operates by timer is irrelevant. What matters is what the photo or video is about.
- I left a link to this discussion. At Commons talk:Threshold of originality. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- If someone sets up an timer camera to take a picture, that's a human author with an assisting instrument (the timer). If someone installs a fixed security camera, there is no human authorship, because nothing copyrightable was conceived or executed by a human. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- The assisting instrument is the fixed security camera whose direction, subject, etc. were all selected by a human. Same as the tripod camera which is also fixed by a human, and whose subject was chosen by a human. No difference. See the US Copyright Office quote higher up. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- If someone sets up an timer camera to take a picture, that's a human author with an assisting instrument (the timer). If someone installs a fixed security camera, there is no human authorship, because nothing copyrightable was conceived or executed by a human. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Info Hi! I'm the person who made this, (Context here.) Feel free to revert or undo, but there's something to be said for a more specific {{PD-ineligible}} tag. I'm not nailed to the wording; the idea, I think, is that an image or work produced by an automated system that involved no human decision-making is ineligible. I'd support making the wording more narrow, e.g., maybe this only applies to works created in the United States, and it has to be clearly a system that did not have a human controller doing anything meaningful. grendel|khan 05:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even traffic cams are copyrighted: Traffic Camera Terms of Use | IDrive Arkansas. Excerpt: "All camera images provided through the Traffic Camera feature on IDrive Arkansas are the property of and copyrighted by each camera owner. All rights are reserved." Traffic cams were in the title of your Village Pump discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- They can claim all the copyright all they want; if there's no human input, there's no copyright. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Who do you think selects the targets of the traffic cams? Humans, not robots. And humans adjust the direction, focus, aperture, etc. of those traffic cams. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- They can claim all the copyright all they want; if there's no human input, there's no copyright. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even traffic cams are copyrighted: Traffic Camera Terms of Use | IDrive Arkansas. Excerpt: "All camera images provided through the Traffic Camera feature on IDrive Arkansas are the property of and copyrighted by each camera owner. All rights are reserved." Traffic cams were in the title of your Village Pump discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The issues raised seem to me to confirm that such files should be tracked, not lost among other files by using less specific templates. The wording should make clear that the automation in itself may not make the file ineligible for copyright and point to a page discussing the issues. As our understanding increases, we can add parameters for specific circumstances, such as more specific PD rationales and notPD ("Although this image was captured in an automatic process, the human input was sufficient to create a copyright in some of the jurisdictions concerned") warning reusers to respect the separate licence and editors not removing it as redundant. –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Info. From a US professional photographer and videographer. Who owns the copyright of a recorded webcam stream? "Jessica would likely be the copyright owner to a recording produced by her webcam,"
- From a US legal site: Who owns the copyright to a screen-recording of a webcam performance that is NOT scripted, the performer or the screen-recorder? "A performer does have a copyright in his/her performance the minute it is performed and publicly shown. Each subsequent performance may be considered a derivative work or another unique performance. ... 4 lawyers agree".
- UK security cam owners also have copyright. See diff. It is discussing this court case: Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- A photographer/videographer is no legal authority. And Jessica would likely be the owner because the recording depicts something copyrightable she's doing. Performers can absolutely have copyright if they are performing. And UK security cam owners have copyright. But none of that means that this template should be deleted: recordings of non-copyrightable things depicted on CCTV are not copyrightable in the United States. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have listed multiple sources more expert than you or me that say differently. But I agree we need more discussion with more legal authorities. That is why the template should be deleted until then so that it is not used until there is more certainty at Commons talk:Threshold of originality where more lawyers and experts hang out concerning PD-ineligible and threshold of originality stuff.
- And you previously said that there is no human authorship. You are ignoring the quote I left from the US Copyright Office. "elements of selection, arrangement, etc.". There is no automated camera I know of that selects what it views, or arranges itself or its subjects. The fact that it is on a timer or motion detection is irrelevant. It could be a human counting the seconds between manually clicking the shutter, watching for motion. So automated cameras of all kinds are "basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument," says the US Copyright Office. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- A photographer/videographer is no legal authority. And Jessica would likely be the owner because the recording depicts something copyrightable she's doing. Performers can absolutely have copyright if they are performing. And UK security cam owners have copyright. But none of that means that this template should be deleted: recordings of non-copyrightable things depicted on CCTV are not copyrightable in the United States. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Info See: en:Threshold of originality#Originality in specific types of works (Link has been fixed). See subsection: "Pre-positioned recording devices". It says this question remains untested in the United States. Also in New Zealand. In the UK it has been tested in the previously mentioned security camera case. Concerning continental European countries there seems to be nothing but speculation.
- So according to Red-tailed hawk's post none of these automated images and videos can be uploaded to the Commons because they are not free images in the US. Uncertainty does not make for a free image or video. If the person or organization that set up the automated camera decides to declare that some of the images or videos are free, then that is a different story. That overrides threshold of originality concerns in all countries.
- The template needs to be deleted. Legal uncertainty does not make for a free image or video. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Deletion of the template does not affect the copyright issues of these types of files. If people believe the files are PD, they will still upload them and will use a more generic template, which won't have a warning and a link to our discussion on the issues. These files will then be lost to janitors among all genuinely PD files. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Since there is no certainty that there are any automated images that legally can be claimed as PD-ineligible in the US, then what difference does it make if they use another incorrect PD license. Either way the image will have to be deleted. We can put the warning and link on the generic {{PD-ineligible}} license. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that no images can be PD because of them being automated, and thus somebody can conclude that a certain image is PD as automated. At least over here, a copyright requires creative input, such somebody else tasked with setting up the camera wouldn't get the same images. They need to reflect the authors personality. Isn't that true of copyright worldwide? I have a hard time imagining that setting up an automated camera would automatically count as such creative input. Some automated cameras are certainly set up in a creative way, say a wildlife photographer using one, but that doesn't make your run-of-the-mill surveillance camera would create copyrightable photos. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- See the UK court case where simple security camera photos were found to be copyrighted. For the US and other countries see: en:Threshold of originality#Originality in specific types of works (Link has been fixed). See subsection: "Pre-positioned recording devices". See Red-tailed hawk's post higher up about how US law (or lack of it) determines what can be posted to the Commons. The fact is that there are no US court cases on the issue. So we don't know what is PD and what is not. We don't post stuff to the Commons if there is a question about whether they are free images or not. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that no images can be PD because of them being automated, and thus somebody can conclude that a certain image is PD as automated. At least over here, a copyright requires creative input, such somebody else tasked with setting up the camera wouldn't get the same images. They need to reflect the authors personality. Isn't that true of copyright worldwide? I have a hard time imagining that setting up an automated camera would automatically count as such creative input. Some automated cameras are certainly set up in a creative way, say a wildlife photographer using one, but that doesn't make your run-of-the-mill surveillance camera would create copyrightable photos. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I do think that from a garbage collection perspective, it would be better to have a unique tracking template for images taken in this manner (this isn't a defense of the validity of the template; it truly looks like an unclear situation to me, and we have COM:PRP for a reason). I would like to see if the WMF has a position on these sorts of copyrights, to clarify what to do in this sort of untested situation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will separately note that there are cases of automated (or extremely long) cameras that would appear to me to have the requisite originality. Consider the following two scenarios, for example:
- On the evening December 31, 2023, an employee of NBC New York positioned a camera in Jersey City pointing at New York City. The camera will remain in place, and is set on an automatic timer to take a video starting one hour before sunrise and ending one after sunrise each day; the team wants to capture a video of the sunrise over Manhattan every day for the entire year. After the initial configuration, the camera is fully automated; it starts recording on its own and stops recording on its own.
- On the evening December 31, 2023, an employee of NBC New York positioned a camera in Jersey City pointing at New York City. The camera will remain in place and will capture a continuous video of New York City over the entire year beginning at 00:00 on January 1, 2024 and ending at 00:00 on January 1, 2025. After the initial configuration, the camera is fully automated; it starts recording on its own and stops recording on its own.
- For each scenario, I find myself thinking about the following questions:
- Does this sort of videography have copyright protection in the United States and, if so, do stills taken from the videos also have some form of copyright protection?
- To what extent is this scenario comparable to automated security cameras, and to what extent does it differ?
- If we have answers to those questions, I think we have answers to questions related to other sorts of automated videography (and stills derived therefrom). My gut feeling here is that we're going to need to apply a case-by-case approach to the sort of automated camera setup and the extent to which a human was creatively involved in setting the photo up. That probably leaves some form of a {{PD-automated}} template in place for U.S. works, but I would advocate for some sort of warning/disclaimer to be added to the template to expressly state that this template does not apply to videos where humans had substantial creative input in setting up the automated camera. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk. Thanks for the NBC automated video examples, and for linking to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (COM:PRP). If those NBC videos have enough originality to pass the threshold of originality, and thus be copyrightable, then they would not be using any type of {{PD-ineligible}} license template.
- We would have to go to NBC to find out what kind of copyright they are using, and if the copyright was a free one like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Then we could use it on the Commons.
- But who is going to make these decisions on originality? We could continue to guess as we are doing now, but I would think then that COM:PRP might apply, and we shouldn't post the images to the Commons.
- We could maybe set up a committee to anticipate future US court rulings, and set up threshold of originality rules based on that. But then that would skirt COM:PRP rules. I agree that this needs to go to the highest levels of arbitration and even to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will separately note that there are cases of automated (or extremely long) cameras that would appear to me to have the requisite originality. Consider the following two scenarios, for example:
- Since there is no certainty that there are any automated images that legally can be claimed as PD-ineligible in the US, then what difference does it make if they use another incorrect PD license. Either way the image will have to be deleted. We can put the warning and link on the generic {{PD-ineligible}} license. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Deletion of the template does not affect the copyright issues of these types of files. If people believe the files are PD, they will still upload them and will use a more generic template, which won't have a warning and a link to our discussion on the issues. These files will then be lost to janitors among all genuinely PD files. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Info It looks like I've poked a hornet's nest of unclear rulings. From what I can tell (see en:Threshold of originality#Pre-positioned recording devices), the copyright status of the product of pre-positioned or automated cameras in the United States is unclear. Such claims are valid in England, invalid in Russia, and unclear just about everywhere else. At the same time, we have a lot of security camera footage under {{PD-ineligible}}. This decision is above my pay grade; is there a way to get an official ruling from Wikimedia's legal staff one way or the other? The issue is, I think, less the existence of this template and more the unclear copyright status of a whole heap of media currently in the "ineligible" bucket. grendel|khan 20:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Legal generally does not make "rulings" or serve as an arbitrator for policy decisions on WMF projects. They do issue reports on topics at meta:Wikilegal, and there's a Commons page where suggestions can be made for topics of interest. These reports generally will summarize the legal issues and existing case law, and will probably not reach a black-and-white conclusion. The Commons community can use that as input in making policy decisions. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we get legal advice or clear court cases, we have to apply sound judgement on to what extent the cases are similar to ours – "guess", as Timeshifter puts it. We will never get an absolute line, just guidance on where the line in the water lies. This is the same problem as with de minimis, textlogo, derived work, whatever. The precautionary principle doesn't say we cannot use our sound judgement, to the extent it says anything about copyrightability (which one can argue it doesn't), it says that we shouldn't go too far into the grey zone. Our understanding on where the line goes will probably increase as cases get into court or the law is clarified, and thus a tracking template is valuable. Unless we believe that none or all media by automated cameras are copyrighted, by virtue of being automated, we need a template. Even in the latter case we can retain it, as a speedy template, but I don't believe we will get consensus on that. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, is the next step to to open a COM:RFC and propose some possible choices? grendel|khan 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I dislike the RFC venue, as the proposals are mostly not mature enough for meaningful voting, and voting starts regardless. My impression is that there simply isn't enough understanding of the issues to make informed decisions on new policy. Better keep track of files in the grey zone and delineate it by individual deletion requests. –LPfi (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That is a proposal, isn't it? Move all automated-camera images into this tag and figure out policy later? grendel|khan 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- :-)
- Seems so. I am not certain about "move" or "all", but otherwise yes. It seems we need tracking and a warning for at least some of these files, and a PD-template seems to fit the bill, given suitable wording. Before applying it to many files, we should make sure that what it says will not change in ways that confuse what the person who added the template believed they were saying by doing so. If we need to say something different later, that can be handled with parameters, but a careful original (default) wording is still essential. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- That is a proposal, isn't it? Move all automated-camera images into this tag and figure out policy later? grendel|khan 00:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- I dislike the RFC venue, as the proposals are mostly not mature enough for meaningful voting, and voting starts regardless. My impression is that there simply isn't enough understanding of the issues to make informed decisions on new policy. Better keep track of files in the grey zone and delineate it by individual deletion requests. –LPfi (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- So, is the next step to to open a COM:RFC and propose some possible choices? grendel|khan 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we get legal advice or clear court cases, we have to apply sound judgement on to what extent the cases are similar to ours – "guess", as Timeshifter puts it. We will never get an absolute line, just guidance on where the line in the water lies. This is the same problem as with de minimis, textlogo, derived work, whatever. The precautionary principle doesn't say we cannot use our sound judgement, to the extent it says anything about copyrightability (which one can argue it doesn't), it says that we shouldn't go too far into the grey zone. Our understanding on where the line goes will probably increase as cases get into court or the law is clarified, and thus a tracking template is valuable. Unless we believe that none or all media by automated cameras are copyrighted, by virtue of being automated, we need a template. Even in the latter case we can retain it, as a speedy template, but I don't believe we will get consensus on that. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Legal generally does not make "rulings" or serve as an arbitrator for policy decisions on WMF projects. They do issue reports on topics at meta:Wikilegal, and there's a Commons page where suggestions can be made for topics of interest. These reports generally will summarize the legal issues and existing case law, and will probably not reach a black-and-white conclusion. The Commons community can use that as input in making policy decisions. Toohool (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
We need something that tells editors that it is questionable whether the automated image or video is in the public domain. Maybe {{PD-automated-questionable}}. Then when a decision is made that it is likely that a court will determine a specific subcategory is in the public domain then we can move the image to that subcategory. For example: {{PD-automated-questionable-traffic}} to {{PD-automated-traffic}}. If that is what some authoritative decision making process here determines. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There's currently a {{PD-RU-exempt-autocam}} that's specific to these sorts of works that are in the Russian Federation, so it might make sense to have the documentation of one of those replacements specifically refer to the Russian autocam template. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Excerpt from that template says: "The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ... the mentioned Session Resolution applies to any photowork or videowork made by automatic camera for administrative violation record." Is that referring to things like traffic cams? And will we require court rulings? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Hasn't this been discussed several times already? Most countries require human authorship to create a copyright. The United States definitely requires human authorship and that's the most important jurisdiction for Commons. Sure the UK allows such images to be copyrighted, but the UK allows almost anything to be copyrighted (including AI generated images). A warning about re-use in the UK can be added to the template. Nosferattus (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- all cameras are set up directly or indirectly by humans. the difference is the "level of automation" in its operation. here are some that are ranked by less automation (more human decision) to more automation, in my opinion:
- a camera doing a time lapse. the human set its optical settings (iso, aperture, etc.) as well as the timing of the time lapse (when it starts, how many seconds is the interval, etc.).
- an infrared-triggered camera. the human chose its location (path where wildlife frequents) and set its setting. (but when it makes photos/videos is triggered by infrared sensors, not controlled by humans.)
- a cctv camera with human supervision. someone in the control room could change its angle, zoom, etc., but the cam usually just keeps running by itself.
- a cctv camera without human supervision. humans only check the footage from the hard disk when they want. otherwise the cam keeps running by itself.
- from which point onward does copyright emerge? this question can only be decided by parliaments and courts.
- personally, i would think that ordinary doorcams or the kind of cctv installed on the ceiling in banks have very little human input when they capture videos/photos. RZuo (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- however, even with the most unrestrictive laws, it's fairly easy as the footage owner to get copyright. all i need to do is adjusting the saturation/exposure/contrast etc. before publishing the photos/videos. my editing would ensure copyright.
- as such, such templates become useless. you can hardly verify whether the publishers have edited the photos/videos. you can only assume they did, so they own the copyright to at least the versions they publish. RZuo (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion(s). There is no creative content in what produced by a CCTV, in particular because there is no human manoeuvring the camera. Ruthven (msg) 14:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible derivative work of the "Y U NO" meme Trade (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
![20:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/06#c-Trade-20230406205900-File:LEGO_"Y_U_NO_"_meme_(Free_to_use).jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Very far from the original. Ruthven (msg) 14:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
![14:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/06#c-Ruthven-20230727141300-File:LEGO_"Y_U_NO_"_meme_(Free_to_use).jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by L'Mainerque as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This file may be false as I cannot find this exact design on any governmental website, but this file is eerily similar to other designs which may constitute a copyright violation. Proof: https://lens.google.com/search?p=ARADZa6i2f8_Epmu-WmwYP_GNUSsUwYrESg1upah_lFFIcY8sjgikn03WtdQxpBhQ9vhj68HU6E1JloW8s-3foPRkWiBbND3XtSYmEYtXUKg4E0BBlOdi55gQkU5VivsTDudy3Ql-X72bFoK8rR8dyykiSwI0grx6_8l2JIPV_t7j6sR8sYXkGlmNz0T_87ysUui4QfB3_taKNKfOeYLsnYF5Fy_y5q-YZe61FkIbPPyzKCsCRFjW2TKIPZh_EyjdQZq57V3di1dmebIduxvh9wciOXpbCS9bAAj_U_Q_UbIgnIpSLASugR0sMN5YdCDmfCf-mRV4RMF99FGJCxnVUsmN3Gi4Znf2zyN0svcSNa_zG4ey5M7bU4MhOMYbRIKMepxvhB2NKQ493zT8iUWNQU%3D&ep=gisbubb&hl=en-ZA&re=df#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKR1kzTmpFM1pqazRMVFF4TkdVdE5ETm1PUzFoWlRnNUxXVTBPRGRtTW1GaU56VTNPQklmU1hwSGVIUlVUM1ZoVEZGbWMwRmhRM1F0VldoaFp6WXRNRmcyUTJSU1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsbnVsbCxbbnVsbCxudWxsLFswLDAsMTAwMDAwLDEwMDAwMF0sbnVsbCw1XSxudWxsXQ==. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I believe this is copyvio. Found the logo here. -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Satdeep Gill: It is obviously not the uploader's own work, we already know that. The question is whether it is even copyrightable at all, since the US has a relatively high threshold of originality for logos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts Right. Well, this isn't even the official logo either. The text "City of" has been added by the uploader it seems. Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Credits to 331dot for finding this, but this may be an official logo as it's on www.augustamaine.gov in a white color scheme, but this is surely misclassified as "own work." - L'Mainerque (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK, it looks like the solution then is to Keep and relicense as {{PD-textlogo}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK, it looks like the solution then is to
- Credits to 331dot for finding this, but this may be an official logo as it's on www.augustamaine.gov in a white color scheme, but this is surely misclassified as "own work." - L'Mainerque (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts Right. Well, this isn't even the official logo either. The text "City of" has been added by the uploader it seems. Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Satdeep Gill: It is obviously not the uploader's own work, we already know that. The question is whether it is even copyrightable at all, since the US has a relatively high threshold of originality for logos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per King of ♥. Ruthven (msg) 14:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
File:A Seeker 400 drone, manufactured by South African company Denel Dynamics, flies over Cape Town Stadium..jpg
[edit]
Flickrwashing. This account has little followers and this photo is credited to Denel here - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/race-manufacturer-sets-sights-market-armed-drones-flna2d11909866 - before the flickr date Gbawden (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Denel is not known for giving away anything, never mind permission to use their photos. BoonDock (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Connecticut, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to have first been published after March 1, 1989 in the United States. Not in the public domain, since CT does not place its works into the public domain, and no evidence of a free license from the copyright holder exists. I find it unlikely that the uploader actually represents CT, as they have also uploaded plates from other states as "own work". This plate is over COM:TOO USA, so it's copyrighted, and we need to remove it from Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Colorado, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Colorado, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete These plate contains artwork that is above the threshold of originality in the United States. While Federal Government works are in the public domain in the United States, the same cannot be generally said for works of U.S. States; Colorado does not dedicate its works to the public domain. The license plate bears a design that appear to have first been published after March 1, 1989. Per COM:HIRTLE, this would make the plate copyrighted in the United States. As we cannot host copyrighted works absent an explicit free license, we likewise cannot host images of this plate on Commons. This files should be deleted as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Montana, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Design first published after March 1, 1989, and it's a Montana work. Montana does not release its works into the public domain, so this needs to be deleted as a violation of Montana's copyright in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Montana, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Design first published after March 1, 1989, and it's a Montana work. Montana does not release its works into the public domain, so this needs to be deleted as a violation of Montana's copyright in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Unless Rouge Falconer (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Vermont, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. The watermark gives "Photo: Bettmann / Getty Images. A much smaller version has been uploaded by the same user. Wouter (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete both (File:Irene-joliot-curie-with-einstein-bettmann.jpg too). The claims of "own work" are clearly false. Marbletan (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
File:線路に物を落ちれた方は駅係員にお申し出ください - If you've dropped something on the tracks, please inform the station agent.jpg
[edit]
And also:
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Why do you keep repeating simplistic falsehoods like "No FoP for 2D works in Japan" ?
- Japan does have FoP, except that for "artistic works" it's limited to non-commercial use, i.e. inadequate for Commons. But this isn;t an artistic work, it's a simple piece of utilitarian signage (and Japanese copyright law takes a broad view of what is "utilitarian"). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Would you care to elaborate Japanese copyright law takes a broad view of what is "utilitarian"? In my opinion, it's a matter of thershold of originality and this graphic may exceed the thershold of originality of Japan as per the cases of Japan's court.
- How can a 2D graphic become "utilitarian"? Just because it's a graphic used as signage? What about using it in a book as illustration?
- FYI, Tokyo District Court stated that the feather is copyrightable and the logo of Kakugawa infringed the copyright of the said feather.
- I would vote Delete here. Teetrition (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of Japanese law here has mostly been about toys and models, and some about decorative objects, particularly high-end lacquerware. There is a strong tradition in Japan that a mundane object can, and should be, made beautiful by careful design. This has led to an acceptance in copyright law that excellence in design of itself does not engender copyright protection. A particularly beautiful teapot is still a teapot, and treated as an everyday teapot, even if its shape is the finest and best-proportioned ever made. There is a recognition of applied art beyond this, such as your book cover design, where it is not part of the essential form and nature of any book that it shall have its cover decorated by a feather. Thus the feather is something in addition, thus protectable as an additional work.
- In this case, the sign is a pictorial illustration of the process implied by its meaning. That (however finely executed) is its function. It is not some additional artistry applied to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: You've said things like toys, models and some decorative objects. These objects are all 3D objects rather than a 2D graphic. I think we only talk about 3D objects when we refer to applied art (utility) ("応用美術" in Japanese). In your opinion, if the people in the poster are carefully painted just like these women in this picture, this poster is still not copyrightable just because it's a illustration of the process implied by its meaning? The graphic in this poster is actually unnecessary. The station could have used text only. Teetrition (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: You've said things like toys, models and some decorative objects. These objects are all 3D objects rather than a 2D graphic. I think we only talk about 3D objects when we refer to applied art (utility) ("
- Keep Per Andy Dingley, COM:UA applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ping @Yasu and Miya: . Pinging two Japanese-speaking admins over the matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- This signage is in use at train stations of JR Group companies. To the best of my knowledge it has a long history dating back to the JR's predecessor Japanese National Railways, dissolved some 35+ years ago. However, I don't have enough information to confirm the graphic is in PD. Hence I would vote Delete as per COM:PRP. And BTW, there is a file of the same subject. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Added. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; photos of not free artwork in Japan (COM:FOP#Summary table). --miya (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Sandia National Laboratories is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Just to note I was not the uploader.--Carnby (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Per en:Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is claiming her own copyright and PD license cannot be applied A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo recieved, not a work by Fars HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a work by Fars News HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a photo by Tasnim, no photographer credited HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a work by Fars News HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a work by Tasnim. Photograph taken in France by unknown, no more information HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a work by Tasnim. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/94141246@N05
[edit]Likely flickrwashing. This account has little followers and is a mixture of photos with no camera details. File:HMS Helsingborg (K32) firing her Bofors 57 mm Mk3 gun.jpg is a crop - see https://laststandonzombieisland.com/tag/hswms-helsingborg/ File:Su-30MK2 Vietnam's air force fly over the Spratly.jpg was probably taken from here - https://tienphong.vn/diem-mat-vu-khi-moi-cua-quan-doi-viet-nam-post628314.tpo
_firing_her_Bofors_57_mm_Mk3_gun.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
They are generally low quality and I believe they are being flickrwashed
Another one is up for deletion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Seeker 400 drone, manufactured by South African company Denel Dynamics, flies over Cape Town Stadium..jpg
- File:HMS Helsingborg (K32) firing her Bofors 57 mm Mk3 gun.jpg
- File:Baimajing, Danzhou.jpg
- File:Trương Tấn Sang and Vladimir Putin.jpg
- File:Su-30MK2 Vietnam's air force fly over the Spratly.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Superseded low-resolution painting Niketto sr. (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- do not supercede with false color version, see also [[7]] --Frypie (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Blurry copy of File:The runners of the Pasha, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.jpg. --Yann (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Lauwin-Planque - Teheiura Teahui présent au centre de distribution d'Amazon LIL1 lors d'un have fun sur le thème de Koh-Lanta le 15 novembre 2021.JPG
[edit]
I'm not conviced this qualifes as a "simple" image, the posed nature of the photograph suggests some degree of compositional choice by the photographer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The photo was taken by a photomaton, we sometimes have that at work, for events. I push the button. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC) PS : I am the guy in orange.
- Withdrawn It appears a contributor has a connection to the photographer and can thus clarify the licensing situation on the image description directly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- I give more détails when I upload the file, you can see them at the bottom of the page and use Google Translate. A month after the upload, an user made a crop, so it make a change in the image. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
De foto werd al gepubliceerd op deze website. Toestemming van de oorspronkelijke auteur moet gestuurd worden naar VRT. --トトト (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright notice, no evidence of a free license. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
superseded by JPG File:Southern Illinoisan Sun Mar 6 1983 (cropped).jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- Keep There is no harm in retaining an alternate crop. These are not the same image, they are alternate crops. Also, removing this corrupts archived versions of articles that previously made use of this version. SecretName101 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Slightly larger. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Per COM:France#Stamps, stamps have a normal copyright term. This stamp is by Jean Delpech, who died in 1988, so would seem to be under copyright there until 2059. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh sorry. I wasn’t aware of this problem. I only intended to illustrate a posterity paragraph about the polar ship Thala Dan, to stress how she had been celebrated… Pepys (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Commons does not accept fair use images. Unsure if it would be acceptable locally uploaded on en-wiki, but it might be if the text discusses the stamp. The license you used (and the "own work" claim) also seems to indicate that you were the artist; be careful of that. If it's not your own photo, we have to find a public domain tag, or a license from the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is my own photo.
- Just to let me know what is acceptable: should I have specified the name of the engraver on the source line, instead of “own work”?
- Thank you for your reply and sorry again for the mess I did.
- PS: And I uploaded another stamp photo yesterday (File:Stamp Port Martin.jpg), with the same kind of problem (own photo, but engraver died in the 80s)… Pepys (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Commons does not accept fair use images. Unsure if it would be acceptable locally uploaded on en-wiki, but it might be if the text discusses the stamp. The license you used (and the "own work" claim) also seems to indicate that you were the artist; be careful of that. If it's not your own photo, we have to find a public domain tag, or a license from the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies, thought it was a scan. For these situations, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag -- the photo in this case is essentially a copy of another work, so you may or may not actually have a copyright on your photograph, depending on country. Even if there was, it would be a Commons:Derivative work where we also need a license from the underlying author, if it's not old enough to be public domain. This can happen for photos of copyrighted paintings or sculpture or any other copyrightable work -- often the photo is copyrightable, but counts as a derivative work. At any rate, thank you for respecting this stuff -- it's never easy, and we get way too many uploads which don't. That other photo is likely a problem too -- see Commons:Stamps; some countries allow it, or have very different eras of stamps which are allowed. France however seems to have nothing special we can use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- My turn to apologize: I only used the term "photo" because you mentioned it in your first reply, which mislead me. Both jpegs are actually scans. (I understood afterwards that there is a different copyright policy for photos and scans.) So: in the present case, "own scan" + "70-year copyright problem" mean that both jpegs should be deleted... Too bad... The File:Stamp Port Martin.jpg shows an old Antarctic station now derelict, the ruins of which are difficult to take now in photograph. Pepys (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies, thought it was a scan. For these situations, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag -- the photo in this case is essentially a copy of another work, so you may or may not actually have a copyright on your photograph, depending on country. Even if there was, it would be a Commons:Derivative work where we also need a license from the underlying author, if it's not old enough to be public domain. This can happen for photos of copyrighted paintings or sculpture or any other copyrightable work -- often the photo is copyrightable, but counts as a derivative work. At any rate, thank you for respecting this stuff -- it's never easy, and we get way too many uploads which don't. That other photo is likely a problem too -- see Commons:Stamps; some countries allow it, or have very different eras of stamps which are allowed. France however seems to have nothing special we can use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Abzeronow as no license (No license since). The photographer, A. H. Black was a part of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History which is not part of the federal government. North Carolina is not one of the states whose government works are public domain by default. https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/north_carolina/ North Carolina does say this as far as their copyright policy https://www.nc.gov/disclaimer-terms-use "Unless otherwise noted on an individual document, the state of North Carolina grants permission to copy and distribute non-image files, documents, and information for non-commercial use, provided they are copied and distributed without alteration.
Photos and other images appearing on our websites have been purchased with a license for limited use. Use of any photos or images appearing on any state website is strictly prohibited." This is obviously not free enough for Commons.
As the photograph was published between 1978 and 1989, North Carolina could have registered the photograph for copyright within five years of its publication in 1986. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Are you able to find a registration for this photograph? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find a copyright registration so I'm thinking that this is probably public domain after all. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've double checked, this is not among the copyright registrations for the North Carolina Division of Archives and History or for the photographer Allison Harris Black. {{PD-US-1978-89}} Abzeronow (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Questionable own work claim HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless Wya107 (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Tennessee, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
(As well as File:Tn14-2.jpg and File:Tn2017.png)
Unless oldfan123456 (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of Tennessee, they cannot license this image which belongs to the state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless oldfan123456 (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of North Carolina, they cannot license this image (nor File:NC1982twoNumber.jpg, File:NC1985Plate.jpg, or File:Nc2017pass.jpg) which belong to that state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio (proprietary basemap, sources are stated on the lower right: Esri, Garmin...) Enyavar (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, File:Ameerega trivittata 2.png: same basemap, same problem. --Enyavar (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless oldfan123456 (talk · contribs) formally represents the copyright interests of the government of South Carolina, they cannot license this image which belongs to that state. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wilfredor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the based image was deleted because copyvio. In use, should be given an opportunity to find a replacement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- The file cites File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png and File:WikiProject Awards Logotype.png as what it is based on (with "Imagen" instead of "file", thus redlinks. However, the coat of arms in the middle isn't found in either, so I suppose it is a third unnamed file that was deleted as copyvio. Could you, Wilfredor link it, so the deletion rationale can be evaluated? –LPfi (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not admin, I can't see the file deleted, maybe this, I remember that it was nominated to deletion by myself --Wilfredor (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Third image doesn't match file Wilfredor provided. No prejudice towards renomination if copyvio evidence is found. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
falsification Pessimist2006 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Фотография из открытых источников и не является фальсификацией. В качестве подтверждения звания могу привести пример выступление на украинском ТВ от 10 ноября 2022 года, где было озвучено звание Пионтковского А.А.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4THZwJoQbQ Гаррі Табах (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Фальсификацией является как минимум поддельная лицензия, вы не автор данного изображения. Pessimist2006 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Уверены, что не моя? Гаррі Табах (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Вполне уверен. Вы одновременно утверждаете, что взяли фото из "открытых источников" и что сделали это фото как фотограф. Одно из этих утверждений - ложь. Кстати, за размещение этого фото ваша учётка уже заблокирована в укрвики. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Вообще Template:RPA Гаррі Табах (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Запрет персональных нападок не является карт-бланшем на фальсификацию и вандализм. В ruwiki, кстати, уже тоже бессрочная блокировка. Попытки вандализма статьи о Пионтковском в ruwiki будут пресекаться. Pessimist2006 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- О, Боже 0_0. Бан. Зачем так жёстко? Как же страшно. У меня вся жизнь теперь после такого остановилась. Пощады. Гаррі Табах (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Запрет персональных нападок не является карт-бланшем на фальсификацию и вандализм. В ruwiki, кстати, уже тоже бессрочная блокировка. Попытки вандализма статьи о Пионтковском в ruwiki будут пресекаться. Pessimist2006 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Вообще Template:RPA Гаррі Табах (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Вполне уверен. Вы одновременно утверждаете, что взяли фото из "открытых источников" и что сделали это фото как фотограф. Одно из этих утверждений - ложь. Кстати, за размещение этого фото ваша учётка уже заблокирована в укрвики. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Уверены, что не моя? Гаррі Табах (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Фальсификацией является как минимум поддельная лицензия, вы не автор данного изображения. Pessimist2006 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution, no camera EXIF, uniform appears to be photoshopped on, TinEye with multiple hits https://tineye.com/search/d1b79867f041989fb4678bdf8b7be07148f75756?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
superseded by JPG File:Francis J. Cain The Burlington Free Press Wed Jan 27 1965.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, the file this is supposedly superseded by is lower-quality than this one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
