Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/04/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![68 File:Lynn Favin at the AFI, behind the scenes of "Cali Queen".jpg](#File:Lynn_Favin_at_the_AFI,_behind_the_scenes_of_"Cali_Queen".jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![137 File:AI-generated image using query "Flag with cool symbols".png](#File:AI-generated_image_using_query_"Flag_with_cool_symbols".png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
This image used a declined VRT image as a source; please delete urgently Jonathanischoice (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Composite of images, one already deleted as lacking copyright permission. Unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
2A02:2F0B:4110:2600:A82F:9BBA:9819:21AE 09:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
small inage Hejihn (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Medieval miniature. --Achim55 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
no permission, copyvio see metadata "Copyright holder KEES WINKELMAN AMSTERDAM WWW.KEESWINKELMAN.NL" Hoyanova (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, on top of that this image is found elsewhere on the internet and unlikely to be own work. --Wutsje 16:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Facebook 4 KB 181.43.7.29 14:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I could find no evidence the source document has been released under a Creative Commons license. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry...to be deleted. This image was in the middle of a series of infographics with the correct license published in the press kit of the mission.--Pline (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like you are correct as I did find another page where this image is freely licensed. I'll update the image description page. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Withdrawn due to free license found. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Kartikay1496 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F8. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
blatant advertising Veracious (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would go for speedy. Username of author already let us know it is spam. —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Jon Kolbert. --Rosenzweig τ 08:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
blatant advertising Veracious (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would go for speedy. Username of author already let us know it is spam. —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Jon Kolbert. --Rosenzweig τ 08:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant advertising. Veracious (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Jon Kolbert. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Facebook 181.43.7.29 18:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not own work, handsome 181.43.7.29 18:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No es trabajo suyo, guapo! 181.43.7.29 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Facebook 181.43.7.29 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete The log shows it was previously speedied as a copyvio. It is obviously not "own work" and was published at Notitizie Nazionali even before the original upload in 2022. --SVTCobra 18:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Facebook 181.43.7.29 18:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image not found on SpaceX website, unlikely to be released in said licence. vip (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The file IS available on SpaceX website.
- Go to the official link for the Starship Flight Test
- https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test
- and click on the link "Starship and Superheavy" inside the text. It'll get you to the file.
- https://sxcontent9668.azureedge.us/cms-assets/assets/Starship_Test_Flight_0238131e88.png?updated_at=2023-04-14T17:11:58.000Z%20target= CodemWiki (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Rosenzweig τ 08:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Pre-1964 photograph. We would need to know where it was first published (Poland? Vietnam?) and when in order to determine its copyright status. If this was published after 1960, it would still be in copyright in Vietnam. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No permission Lord Maximoff (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
All rights reserved. 191.126.167.171 22:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Spy story 191.126.167.171 22:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Financial Times 191.126.167.171 23:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. Replaced by File:Aluminium-triacetate-2D-structure.svg as high-quality vector replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Even worse, there is overlapped text, obscuring/damaging the factual content (charge on central atom). DMacks (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 10:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
There is an existing consensus to delete chemistry-related gallery pages as evidenced by the outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Chemistry-related gallery pages and later nominations that refer to it. Marbletan (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Leyo 10:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: COM:INUSE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, COM:INUSE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, COM:INUSE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Source said NATO photo. It should be noted that NATO photos are released under "Fair use", but fair use claims are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, not drawn according to en:MOS:CHEM. Leyo 09:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphaned chemical structure, not in use except on an abandoned user sandbox.
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, not drawn according to en:MOS:CHEM. Leyo 09:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphaned chemical structure, not in use except on an abandoned user sandbox.
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France, permission from the artist is required.
- File:Street Art in Paris SA08.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA09.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA10.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA11.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA12.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA13.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA14.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA15.jpg
- File:Street Art in Paris SA16.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
duplicate of File:Foto mykola durman.jpg Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - In fact, the files differ, while just their wd and hg agree. (Can't undo my action "suggest for deletion", so I have to vote "keep" here. Apologies!) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Jochen Burghardt, you can withdraw your nomination by typing {{withdraw}} or just copying that template below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - In fact, the files differ, while just their wd and hg agree. (@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your above hint!) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Glad to help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant advertising Veracious (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant advertising Veracious (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant advertising Veracious (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Europe.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Europe.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Europe.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Europe.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Drabelmendoza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal files uploaded for use in a now-deleted self-promotional page on Spanish Wikipedia. Outside of COM:SCOPE.
- File:LK 1227 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1180 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1191 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1135 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1161 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1166 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1131 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1122 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1114 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1075 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1105 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1103 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1023 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1003 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1011 copy.jpg
- File:LK 0821 copy.jpg
- File:LK 0914 copy.jpg
- File:LK 0778 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1184 copy.jpg
- File:LK 1147 copy.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. also no permission from EXIF author. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:FOP Denmark Moving here, since FoP cases are not amenable to speedy deletion. IMO this is a clear case of de minimis. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep De minimis works for me here. --Lukas Beck (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- It´s no copyright violation. It´s definitively a picture that I made. The other question is, what´s about Danish freedom of panorama. I'm not the one to decide this. It´s not the first time, we discus this.--Schorle (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
fictionnal + not in use = out of COM:SCOPE. Commons is not a depository for invented fantasies. 82.124.119.228 21:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
fictionnal + not in use = out of COM:SCOPE. Commons is not a depository for invented fantasies. 82.124.119.228 21:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
fictionnal + not in use = out of COM:SCOPE. Commons is not a depository for invented fantasies. 82.124.119.228 21:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete appears to be taken a professional photographer, and not the uploader. The source is here. There is no evidence there that the image is available under a license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence provided here that the artist who made this artwork has released their work under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license nor any other license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence provided here that the artist who made this artwork has released their work under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license nor any other license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence provided here that the artist who made this artwork has released their work under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license nor any other license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence provided here that the artist who made this artwork has released their work under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license nor any other license compatible with Commons. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. The artwork itself is not deminimis to the image. Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 3D works of art. The image here depicted is encumbered with rights from the original artwork. There is no evidence provided here that the artist has released their rights to the artwork. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
A formal PR picture and the photographer, WALTER DANNICH, is mentioned in the file's EXIF. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused text image. BrightRaven (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Is this a logo? No educational value. Weird categorization. Lymantria (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused rough sketch of some logo, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Very poor quality. Leyo 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
suspected flickrwashing Didym (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
![17:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/14#c-Didym-20230414174500-File:Lynn_Favin_at_the_AFI,_behind_the_scenes_of_"Cali_Queen".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
![06:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/14#c-Krd-20230421061900-File:Lynn_Favin_at_the_AFI,_behind_the_scenes_of_"Cali_Queen".jpg){kind=link}
Essay/article, out of project scope Achim55 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by OsinAharasani12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per Commons:Currency, it seems that the bank notes of Saudi Arabia are not in the public domain. The oldest notes were printed in 1953, so they are probably not old enough to be in the public domain because of their age.
- File:100 riyals in the 1st series (Reverse).jpg
- File:100 riyals in the 1st series.jpg
- File:50 riyals in the 1st series (Reverse).jpg
- File:50 riyals in the 1st series.jpg
- File:10 riyal in the 1st series (Reverse).jpg
- File:The fifth series under King Abdullah (2007–2016).jpg
- File:10 riyal in the 1st series.jpg
- File:5 riyal in the 1st series (Reverse).jpg
- File:5 riyal in the 1st series.jpg
- File:1 riyal in the 1st series (Reverse).jpg
- File:1 riyal in the 1st series.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned/replaced by File:Biuret-reaction.pdf. Leyo 09:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation: the person on the photo claims to be its author but it wasn't a tripod shooting obviously. Biathlon (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I would say it is a mirrored screenshot from this video - https://www.facebook.com/tsargradtv/videos/1403922706365374/ RenatUK (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 22:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation: the person on the photo claims to be its author but it wasn't a tripod shooting obviously. Biathlon (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 22:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-MOS:CHEM, orphaned, many better alternatives in Category:Acetylsalicylic acid. Leyo 19:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. With the inconsistent use of bond lines and ambiguous text, I think this representation has the possibility of causing confusion. Marbletan (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Wrong image format, uploaded by a persistent disruptive user. Apache287 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Wrong format, not used on any page. Uploaded as part of repeated disruption by user. Apache287 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant copyviol from Youtube video 2001:B07:6478:C09E:3176:9418:C36A:8525 21:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Blatant copyviol from Youtube video 2001:B07:6478:C09E:3176:9418:C36A:8525 21:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
photo of non contributors ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
COM:SCOPE Ameisenigel (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Crosswiki spam to self-promote himself. Page already deleted on severals wikis. Melquíades (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Being traditional/anonymous does not automatically make a recording of it public domain Dronebogus (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per relevant US law, there are two copyrights to consider for recorded music - the underlying composition and the recorded performance. The composition seems PD, but the recorded performance apparently not. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. As per nomination. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above; no counter argument has been offered. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
New version SCAPHED (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep what??? --SHB2000 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, prompt uploader request Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)
This not-in-use image, presented as a logo, cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. As such, it has no place in the Commons without a specific OTRS release note from the owner. Ldorfman (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Vandalismo Aitorembe (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
tineye shows that the image is a scaled-down version of this video thumbnail: https://top-channel.tv/2019/08/07/pushime-te-lira-ne-pogradec-cmimet-shume-here-me-te-uleta-se-ne-bregun-tjeter/ no proof that the image is own work or licensed under the claimed license. 2A02:908:121:6600:C00C:D665:AA7B:CA6C 04:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of nude photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete what is that pose, is that dude getting ready for a sumo match? Dronebogus (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, poor quality badly posed & composed penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality COM:PENIS photo, can be replaced by alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete very very bad Dronebogus (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope, privacy violation, no author, no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused photo of person previously in rejected draft on en:w. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content. Raw text. Better hosted elsewhere. Headlock0225 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This file does not belong to the uploader and is from the images available on the Internet CaesarIran (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This file does not belong to the uploader and is from the images available on the Internet CaesarIran (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This file does not belong to the uploader and is from the images available on the Internet CaesarIran (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused screenshot of an unidentified computer game Enyavar (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Almost certainly not "own work". David10244 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Almost certainly not "own work"; it's not likely that the subject took the picture himself. David10244 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
likely not own form (missing EXIF, small resolution, uploaded had uploaded other photo from likely the same match from a unfree source before, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Juraj_Slafkovsky.jpg) Polarlys (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete Clearly not the uploader's work, photo credit at https://thehockeywriters.com/docs/simon-nemec/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
QR code for an Instagram account CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Not in use. Part of an adv. Bilderling (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused artwork with no explanation of importance. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo with no explanation of importance. Nothing significant on a Google search. Malcolma (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a claimed selfie, and almost definitely not actually a selfie, so the photographer would need to give permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Taken from twitter - we need OTRS or proof of PD to keep Gbawden (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused on Wikipedia, personal photo likely out of scope Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The image is out of scope. A non-notable person is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Facebook 181.43.7.29 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused promotional image, out of scope. And looks like screengrab. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Official logo, likely not own work and above COM:TOO P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Indra Wijaya 25 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res/web-size screengrab images with disparate quality and styles, missing EXIF data, some taken from WhatsApp (as indicated by filename).
- File:Foto pak bangun.jpg
- File:IMG-20220424-WA0006.jpg
- File:Foto Ketua FBR Lutfi.jpg
- File:IMG-20181104-WA0070.jpg
- File:Ketum-FBR-Lutfi-Hakim.jpg
- File:Foto Agustinus.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused selfie by one-time contributor, originally categorized as "Politics" Enyavar (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright. Own work of user? = eastlabsphoto.com Wouter (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright. Own work of user? = eastlabsphoto.com Wouter (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is not the job center Enyavar (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it was taken from a broadcast. DatGuy (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Someone's pet dog Ђидо (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete In scope but poor quality and common subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. Good dog, poor photo. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused small photoshopped image, blurry and players indistinguishable, unusable. Many better alternatives in its subcategories. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo from IMDb, no evidence that the uploader is also the photographer Einsamer Schütze (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Not an own work. 84.15.183.108 18:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Uh. Is this real. Htm (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: OOS silly photoshop, unsourced. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
content that is copyright protected (presumably) is not de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
content that is presumably protected by a non-PD copyright is not de minimus SecretName101 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Cast promotional photo for the Norwegian mini series Halvbroren from 2013. Can be found on DVD cover and official Facebook page. Description and licensing is all wrong. Versatilist (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
History Points © 191.126.167.171 23:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no indication of free licensed status. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, orphaned. Leyo 19:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment This compound is discussed in a wiki article. Would be useful to have a high quality version of it (and also of File:Nitroaspirina.jpg that is in-use on on several wikis). DMacks (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have created File:4-Nitroxybutyl-2-acetoxybenzoate-2D-skeletal.svg and File:Conversion of 4-Nitroxybutyl 2-acetoxybenzoate to acetylsalicyclic acid.svg as replacements. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a great replacement. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have created File:4-Nitroxybutyl-2-acetoxybenzoate-2D-skeletal.svg and File:Conversion of 4-Nitroxybutyl 2-acetoxybenzoate to acetylsalicyclic acid.svg as replacements. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
superseded by File:Lilliput (actor).jpg (cropped; JPG instead of PNG) Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 19:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Reupload of a file which has been repeatedly deleted and then reuploaded by this user. LDM2003 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per previous DRs for substantially identical files. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I am the uploader and identifiable person. This image is redundant and not used elsewhere. The user page has been deleted and this image should be too. 86.9.85.39 07:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Confirming as logged in. Alexgm10197 (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the flag of Indonesia 2001:448A:11A8:1859:F897:27DC:BCC8:CA94 09:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Original research: the alleged common origin of Celtiberians and Caucasian ones is not supported by any of the scholarship on the matter and likely the result of original research. As such it is misleading and factually false. Desyman (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Random display of paintings with no indication of importance. Malcolma (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also, probably a DW copyvio. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright-issues. Elfabso (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, press photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ian Nepomniachtchi in 2018
[edit]Too many files of Russian GM Ian Nepomniachtchi from one source - https://ruchess.ru/news/report/memorial_talya_3_den/ . Yes, Nepomniachtchi is a very important and famous person and a grandmaster in chess… but will we really need too many photos of him in 2018? Only 2 out of 6 photos used. I think 3 photos will be enough
- File:Ian Nepomniachtchi 2018.jpg
- File:Nepo 2018 Tal Memorial (cropped).jpg
- File:Nepomniachtchi 2018 (cropped).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Brateevsky {talk} 11:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the deletion request. I feel that deleting some pictures of Nepo would be the appropriate solution. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Close duplicates of other files. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
No creo que el mismo sacó su foto desde la espalda. 181.43.7.29 13:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, OoS. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a simple design, above COM:TOO. Frodar (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Fantasy symbols, no educational value besides the fact AI can mess up flag generation almost as bad as humans can Enyavar (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
![15:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/14#c-Enyavar-20230414152800-File:AI-generated_image_using_query_"Flag_with_cool_symbols".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
![02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/04/14#c-P199-20230511022700-File:AI-generated_image_using_query_"Flag_with_cool_symbols".png){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Machida.cc (talk · contribs)
[edit]
The author, ワールド通商 (WORLD COMMERCE CORPORATION)[1], is the Japanese distributor of Franck Muller. These very high quality images are likely to be copyright infringements, and the first file is also used in current official PDF document of WORLD COMMERCE CORPORATION (PDF P.14). --61.120.241.1 10:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Additional Files. --61.120.241.1 10:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 61.120.241.1
Deleted: not own work, no permission. --Yasu (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete – Even if there were a UK FoP, this use is neither de minimis nor incidental enough to qualify. --dsprc (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Adeletron 3030 as no permission (No permission since). Seems to be own work. However, as a fictional flag it needs to meet COM:SCOPE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete fictional. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
A specific link/source should be given to verify this is a work from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. False claims; reverse image search shows it credited to Carlos Barria Reuters. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
A specific link/source is required to verify copyright status. EXIF data showed that this is taken in November 2015. At that time Donald Trump was not taken the office as U.S. President, I don't think this is a photo from the US Federal Government A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no confirmation found in reverse image search. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
violazione copyright Pamela344 (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- On :it, image is said to be from 1925. Couldn't it be in the public domain? --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- it is published on Facebook and I can't publish because it's a violation of copyright. Pamela344 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
No reason for speedy deletion (template removed). This file needs a date, a proper source and license tag. --Polarlys (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed: it's under PD-Italy/PD-1996. Cc: @Bradipo Lento: --Dans (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: While better source info than what is on the facebook page would be helpful, above discussion that it is none the less PD seems compelling. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Misnomer. FordPrefect42 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Why misnomer @FordPrefect42 ? Hernandlucas (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The file was originally uploaded as "File:Jean-Baptiste Accolay.jpg" by mistake. The picture does not show Jean-Baptiste Accolay (1833–1900) but rather bishop Jean-Baptiste Massillon (1663-1742), and the file is identical to File:Jean-Baptiste Massillon.jpg. Therefore the file was meanwhile moved to File:Jean-Baptiste Massillon (2).jpg. However the redirect File:Jean-Baptiste Accolay.jpg still exists and is misleading because of being a misnomer, however it is completely unnecessary, as all usages of the file have been removed. FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Support Delete. Magnus (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Redirect Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Seal of a state from Nigeria CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, false license claim, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
com:PCP: Construction of the Gach-qaraguli (Gachsaran) Road, 1909 Source: British Petroleum Archive, Warwick, Britain. Hanooz 11:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
- The paper is locked. I can't see the picture on the article? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This link (https://www.rouydad24.ir/fa/news/307239/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D9%84-%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7-%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%BE%D9%87%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C) is mentioning Kandovan Tunnel Labours from 1933.
- This link (https://www.bartarinha.ir/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%B3%D8%A8%DA%A9-%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C-3/1119381-%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%AE) and (https://shoaresal.ir/fa/news/334024/%DA%86%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%DA%86%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B3-%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxiEpcC4z0) show the labours of Kandovan Tunnel (not construction of the Gach-qaraguli (Gachsaran) Road.) Shkuru Afshar (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess you can acess the paper using https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. All the mentioned sources are unreliable. Hanooz 16:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- If the photo is really taken in 1909 could changing the copyright tag to "PD-old-100-expired" help? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) What do you think? Hanooz 23:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- If the photo is really taken in 1909 could changing the copyright tag to "PD-old-100-expired" help? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess you can acess the paper using https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. All the mentioned sources are unreliable. Hanooz 16:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Republication of an historic image does not restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The Kandovan tunnel was built in four years from 1935 to 1939. On 11th of May 1935 the first dynamite was used to create an opening from where workers continued digging with pick and chip-axes. It was inaugurated on 17th of May 1938." I think the date is correct. If someone found a 1909 version, they should post it so we can compare the two. I think the PD-Iran license is the correct one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Thanks. We have only one credible source which states that this is a 1909 photo of somewhere in Gachsaran (not Kandovan) and the photo comes from the British Petroleum Archive in Warwick, Britain. Hanooz 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The Kandovan tunnel was built in four years from 1935 to 1939. On 11th of May 1935 the first dynamite was used to create an opening from where workers continued digging with pick and chip-axes. It was inaugurated on 17th of May 1938." I think the date is correct. If someone found a 1909 version, they should post it so we can compare the two. I think the PD-Iran license is the correct one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
- @Hanooz: Can you upload that image so we can all see it and compare. Why would the shift from 1935 to 1909 make the image under and active copyright, and the current license invalid? --RAN (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I also added "PD-UK-unknown" since it comes from a British archive, and I changed the description, since we have a link from a reliable source. We have no link to the Iranian archive, as far as I can tell. --RAN (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Are you asking for deletion because it was mislabeled? --RAN (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![[2]](https://pasteboard.co/IwoPgxq31Imd.jpg){kind=link}
- Now seems fine if we assume this is a BP photo. Hanooz 01:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per above discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Not PD-textlogo.
Yann (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As the French painter of the picture died in 1963, French copyright will still last until 2033, with URAA-restored American copyright expiring in 2046. Mere ownership of the physical painting does not imply ownership of the copyright, unfortunately. Felix QW (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Found here before upload - https://twitter.com/nhl/status/1399403900956938240?lang=gl - granted not exactly the same but that tells me its taken from the web and needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. [3] does not give photographer credit, but shows image was online since 2015, while Commons upload was 2021. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Supermæn (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Supermæn (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Not a work of that YouTube channel. This photograph is used in the YouTube video, but that doesn't mean the YouTube channel (of a radio station) is the creator or own the rights of the portrait photograph of the interviewed politician. Frodar (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a better SVG file Janitoalevic (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: not a reason requiring deletion; "better" file not identified in listing nor at photo page. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This photo is edited, as obvious from the picture and as the person pictured in it admitted in an online conversation with him, and it is not his own work. It has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, uncat. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photograph by Farhad Rajabali. Not sure if the flickr uploader has used the right license. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, Flickr user does not have rights to license (since deleted from Flickr). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not used on any page. Apache287 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Not a deletion reason, but was this ever an official logo of w:WinCo Foods? If not, it could be deleted as out of scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: false license claim, apparently OOS. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Free file? 191.126.167.171 23:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no indication of free license at source page. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The rationale for upload is that they received permission from the copyright holder. However, I am not seeing a ticket which supports that. Onel5969 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons and that author has already emailed confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#Email_message_template_for_release_of_rights_to_a_file Rohanstorey (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023041610001301 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 06:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 11:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Foto Martin Lätt
[edit]Photo taken by Martin Lätt, a freelance photographer, not a work from the Estonian Foreign Ministry, thus the CC license is invalid
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52693473152.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254569.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254669.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694482718.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254634.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52693992481.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel. Here: https://news.err.ee/1608889583/energy-equipment-from-estonia-reaches-ukraine is an Estonian energy news website that credits "Martin Latt/Estonian Foreign Ministry" He is obviously working for the Estonian Foreign Ministry.
Also, the article points to the Estonian government's involvement in this quotation, "In the last months, Estonia focused on providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine, as well as military and political support, to assist Ukraine in dealing with attacks on its energy infrastructure. Generators for public spaces, electrical components, battery banks and voltage stabilizers have arrived in Ukraine thanks to collaboration between companies and several ministries. The transport for both shipments was organized and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
- These "critical" electrical equipment parts were delivered by the Estonian government into the Ukraine during war. These equipment parts are crucial for Ukrainian national defense.
- Only a photographer granted official Ukrainian government permission could take photographs of this militarily important electrical infrastructure within Ukrainian territory. A quote from the article above states, "The transport for both shipments was organized and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." -- Ooligan (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- https://ee.linkedin.com/in/martinlätt His website states he is a "Freelance Photographer" which is consistant with his contract work for the Government of Estonia with his open access to an electric infrastucture area under active Ukrainian military security during a war. Ooligan (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- CC license is
OK , although there is no freedom of panoroma in ukraine Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Ukraine and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Estonia . SO,----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Delete. - Keep - OK on both counts. Pictures taken on commission basis, not own freelance basis, so can be licensed as stated. There was a consensus that utilitarian structures are not covered by FOP restrictions as there is no architectural distinctiveness - this electrical equipment is purely functional. See final paragraph of the FOP - Ukraine link stated above. Thanks. FotoFree (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- actually you are right. Keep. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- actually you are right.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Foto Martin Lätt
[edit]Photo taken by Martin Lätt, a freelance photographer, not a work from the Estonian Foreign Ministry, thus the CC license is invalid
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52693473152.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254569.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254669.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694482718.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52694254634.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt - 52693992481.jpg
- File:2023 Estonian visit to Ukraine - Electric equipment, Foto- Martin Lätt.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel. Here: https://news.err.ee/1608889583/energy-equipment-from-estonia-reaches-ukraine is an Estonian energy news website that credits "Martin Latt/Estonian Foreign Ministry" He is obviously working for the Estonian Foreign Ministry.
Also, the article points to the Estonian government's involvement in this quotation, "In the last months, Estonia focused on providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine, as well as military and political support, to assist Ukraine in dealing with attacks on its energy infrastructure. Generators for public spaces, electrical components, battery banks and voltage stabilizers have arrived in Ukraine thanks to collaboration between companies and several ministries. The transport for both shipments was organized and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
- These "critical" electrical equipment parts were delivered by the Estonian government into the Ukraine during war. These equipment parts are crucial for Ukrainian national defense.
- Only a photographer granted official Ukrainian government permission could take photographs of this militarily important electrical infrastructure within Ukrainian territory. A quote from the article above states, "The transport for both shipments was organized and financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." -- Ooligan (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- https://ee.linkedin.com/in/martinlätt His website states he is a "Freelance Photographer" which is consistant with his contract work for the Government of Estonia with his open access to an electric infrastucture area under active Ukrainian military security during a war. Ooligan (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- CC license is OK ,
although there is no freedom of panoroma in ukraine Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Ukraine and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Europe#Estonia . SO,----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 05:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Delete. - Keep - OK on both counts. Pictures taken on commission basis, not own freelance basis, so can be licensed as stated. There was a consensus that utilitarian structures are not covered by FOP restrictions as there is no architectural distinctiveness - this electrical equipment is purely functional. See final paragraph of the FOP - Ukraine link stated above. Thanks. FotoFree (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- actually you are right. Keep. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 07:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- actually you are right.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It's an extract become unnecessary by importing the entire document today. --Etienne M (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Thank you, I'm new and I made a mistake Because I didn't know how to give a reference but I tried to fix the problem Rahaavard (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Rahaavard: , can you please state a date for the photo? The page says it was taken 2009, which is obviously wrong. The photo appears to be made before 1979, can you confirm? If so, PD-old-Iran is okay. --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. It was taken obviosly before 1979. Rahaavard (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Rahaavard: , can you please state a date for the photo? The page says it was taken 2009, which is obviously wrong. The photo appears to be made before 1979, can you confirm? If so, PD-old-Iran is okay. --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- old enough to be in the public domain in Iran and obviously published before 1979. Hanooz 14:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, L'écrivain est mort il y a 56 ans CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The book is not free, but the cover is PD-France. --Yann (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Photo floue, mal cadré, avec une drôle de façon de masquer le visage d'une autre personne. C'est moi qui ait prise cette photo. Mais elle n'a pas les qualités nécessaires pour être digne d'une encyclopédie. Cette photo était utilisée seulement sur la page Web de Jean-Marc Cardey.Il n'y a aucun intérêt à la garder dans Wikipedia commons et plus généralement sur le Web. Gilgames (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. Although there is no necessity to delete, the photo is of poor quality and it is understandable that the photographer, and probably the subject, consider that photo unsuitable. It does not seem really useful more generally. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Question. @Gilgames : Vous n'avez pas proposé la suppression de l'autre version de cette même photo : File:20180419 Jean-Marc Cardey.jpg. Faut-il comprendre que vous voulez que Wikimedia Commons la conserve ou avez-vous oublié de la proposer ? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- "مجله اطاق بازرگانی" (= Chamber of Commerce magazine) can be seen on the file. This is in the public domain in Iran. Hanooz 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Hanooz. PD-Iran. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- "مجله اطاق بازرگانی بهمن و اسفند ماه ۳۹" (= Chamber of Commerce magazine, Bahman-Esfand 1339 SH) can be seen on the file. This is in the public domain in Iran. Hanooz 14:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Hanooz. PD-Iran. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- "مجله اطاق بازرگانی فروردین ماه ۱۳۴۰" (= Chamber of Commerce magazine, Farvardin 1340 SH) can be seen on the file. This is in the public domain in Iran. Hanooz 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Hanooz. PD-Iran. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Сомнительно, что это фотография именно загрузившего. Дата указана явно неверная. — Redboston 08:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a 1940s Russian photograph. Without knowing its publication history, we have to delete it. Undelete in 2066. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 80.215.138.252 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: recreation of a previously deleted copyvio file Kadı Message 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Laut Bildunterschrift im Artikel zu Sebi Jaeger auf de ist das Bild von einer Gisela Guertler aufgenommen worden. Copyright? Xocolatl (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs VRT from Gisela Guertler. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The GIF credited European Space Agency (ESA). Though some ESA files are freely licensed, not for this one. The Youtube link also marked with a standard license, which is not OK 175.159.182.171 11:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fotografie byla poskytnuta umělcem (Filip Míšek), který mě požádal o nahrání na Wikipedii. Smpa (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- V tomto případě, protože nemohu tyto informace ověřit, můžete se prosím obrátit na tým pro reakci dobrovolníků, abyste vyřešili situaci, jak je vysvětleno na této adrese?: [4] CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs VRT. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Atakhanli as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.agroupconsulting.com. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The file is unused anywhere so we have no idea about the source country, which means we cannot judge if it's above TOO. Since it's unused, I'm going to call it out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Herbythyme as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Scene from film per description - highly unlikely to be copyright free Polarlys (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems to be the photo of a film set. --Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Buongiorno, sono il direttore artistico della manifestazione. I materiali e le foto che ho inserito sono di pubblico utilizzo, per la diffusione e la conoscenza del progetto del Giro della Rua.
- Grazie, saluti, Davide Fiore DavidFlos (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This does have camera EXIF, I kinda feel this should have VRT confirmation. No hits on TinEye. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: EXIF on this picture is consistent with that of uploader's other images and no hits on TinEye, so no evidence of copyvio. —holly {chat} 18:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
upload with logo by mistake Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL) (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
-20230414153600-File:Jaworzno_z_lotu_ptaka_8.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Misspixels (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: photos of existing photos, screenshots, all missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission.
- File:Michel Gagne Elie Fallu-02.jpg
- File:MICHEL-BOISBRIAND-FALLU-05B.jpg
- File:MICHEL ET RENÉ-01D.jpg
- File:Atelier de l'Île 1983.jpg
- File:CYMX Œuvre réseau de l'artiste Isabelle Gagné.jpg
- File:ISABELLE GAGNE.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Cette photo appartient aux archives de mon père Michel Gagné, décédé en mars 2023, que j'ai moi-même numérisé. Merci de m'indiquer la marche à suivre pour la faire valider. Misspixels (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Cette photo appartient aux archives de mon père Michel Gagné, décédé en mars 2023, que j'ai moi-même numérisé. Merci de m'indiquer la marche à suivre pour la faire valider. Misspixels (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Désolée pour la répétition des messages. Les photos de Élis Fallu et René Lévesque avec Michel Gagné sont numérisées à partir de photo originales du patrimoine familial de mon père Michel Gagné. Je croyais possible de les verser dans le patrimoine commun. Merci de m'indiquer la bonne marche à suivre et désolée si j'ai ma saisi! Misspixels (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Misspixels: Bonjour, Pour chacune des six photos de la liste ci-dessus, veuillez indiquer le nom du photographe. Dans le cas où vous êtes vous-même la photographe qui a pris la photo originale, pas de problème. Mais dans les cas où le photographe est quelqu'un d'autre, alors il faut créditer ce véritable photographe et non vous-même et il faut alors aussi fournir une preuve que le titulaire des droits d'auteur (ce photographe lui-même ou ses ayants droit) a émis la licence libre que vous voulez utiliser. Veuillez noter que le fait que des exemplaires de photos se trouvent ou pas dans les archives de Michel Gagné ou ailleurs n'a pas d'incidence. Dans tous les cas, il faut identifier le photographe et obtenir une licence libre du titulaire des droits d'auteur de ce photographe. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour, merci pour les précisions, je vais ajuster le tout selon vos bonnes recommandations. Dans le cas de photos comme par exemple celle nommée «MICHEL ET RENÉ-01D.jpg», la source est ma mère décédée aussi. Que faire? Misspixels (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Misspixels: Bonjour, Pour chacune des six photos de la liste ci-dessus, veuillez indiquer le nom du photographe. Dans le cas où vous êtes vous-même la photographe qui a pris la photo originale, pas de problème. Mais dans les cas où le photographe est quelqu'un d'autre, alors il faut créditer ce véritable photographe et non vous-même et il faut alors aussi fournir une preuve que le titulaire des droits d'auteur (ce photographe lui-même ou ses ayants droit) a émis la licence libre que vous voulez utiliser. Veuillez noter que le fait que des exemplaires de photos se trouvent ou pas dans les archives de Michel Gagné ou ailleurs n'a pas d'incidence. Dans tous les cas, il faut identifier le photographe et obtenir une licence libre du titulaire des droits d'auteur de ce photographe. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notez que l'image suivante est mon propre travail d'artiste CYMX Œuvre réseau de l'artiste Isabelle Gagné.jpg
- J'ai moi-même pris la photo et créé l'oeuvre dans le cadre du projet CYMX. J'habite à côté des lieux qui sont le sujet de cette photo. Merci de bien vouloir supprimer la demande de supression si possible! Misspixels (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notez que l'image suivante ISABELLE_GAGNE.jpg est mon propre autoportrait, il s'agit de moi dans une de mes oeuvres prise au déclencheur. Je suis l'artiste Isabelle Gagné. Merci de bien vouloir annuler la demande de suppression si possible. Misspixels (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; we can safely assume that Misspixels has the right to license these photos. —holly {chat} 19:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a video-art/special effect artist in his work place, taking pictures on the set. As stated in the commons in similar cases in the past, the copyrights for the makeup (including the women artist he's taken picture with, dressed as a religuious jewish man) and the set's decoration, are ones of the production company (in this case, see more details in w:en:Eretz_Nehederet ). It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
"© All rights reserved" on mynewsdesk since 2016 valepert (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Hmmm "since 2016", but what of 2014? What would be the use of license reviews if we ignore them? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I was hoping to ask the reviewer but he has been globally banned in 2017. we still can assume good faith for this review or we need to acknowledge the wrong licence on the external source before 2016. --valepert (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Mynewsdesk is a COM:bad source so the original free work claim was probably bogus. Jonteemil (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I was hoping to ask the reviewer but he has been globally banned in 2017. we still can assume good faith for this review or we need to acknowledge the wrong licence on the external source before 2016. --valepert (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and ordered a universal replace with File:Anna Sahlene EM1B3589 (34754593824).jpg. —holly {chat} 19:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Previously deleted. See here. It is the only contribution of the user. It is also a cropped version of the file on a Getty page. Wouter (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Hulton Archive was not the copyright holder, Hulton was a collector of images that sold his collection to Getty. The copyright holder was Bruno of Hollywood and to be eligible for copyright in 1963, would have to renew, no renewal found. We house several hundred Bruno of Hollywood images. The previous deletion rationale was incorrect. --RAN (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The deletion rationale for the deleted photo that formerly used the same filename was not necessarily incorrect. The photo is probably not the same. See the logs. The photo uploaded on 12 October 2021 and deleted on 25 November 2021 was likely one of the PA images photos taken at the London Heathrow airport. The photo later uploaded on 27 March 2022 probably merely reuses the same filename. It can be checked by an admin. (Notifying Infrogmation as closing admin of the other DR.) -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per RAN. This is not the same image that was deleted before. —holly {chat} 20:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, subject died in 1998 per https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D8%B6%D8%AF, so the image is possibly not in PD per COM:Iran. --Ellywa (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Old photos, obviously not an own work.
- File:انتخابات نهمین دوره اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:سخنرانی محمد خسروشاهی، رئیس اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:سناتور علی وکیلی در جمع بازرگانان.jpg
- File:طاهر ضیایی و جلیل شرکاء.jpg
- File:کنفرانس در اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:اهداء نشان افتخار به بازرگانان در اتاق بازرگاني.jpg
- File:شمارش آراء انتخابات اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:ملاقات اعضاي اتاق بازرگاني و صنايع و معادن با نخستوزير اميرعباس هويدا.jpg
- File:انتخابات اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:اعضای اتاق بازرگانی تهران در دیدار با نخستوزیر.jpg
- File:Tehran Chamber of Commerce.jpg
- File:عنایت بهبهانی، رئیس اتاق بازرگانی تهران.jpg
- File:ابوالحسن صادقی.jpg
- File:انتخابات اتاق بازرگانی تهران، از راست به چپ احمد جلیل زاده، مهین افشار و علی رضایی از اعضای اتاق.png
Kadı Message 05:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Question How old would they have to be to be public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please compare {{PD-Iran}}; they might be eligible. In the other case, we should pick a reasonably soon Undelete date, maybe 2050? --Enyavar (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:طاهر ضیایی،وزیر صنایع و معادن.png, PD-old (Iran) actually applies? --Enyavar (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please compare {{PD-Iran}}; they might be eligible. In the other case, we should pick a reasonably soon Undelete date, maybe 2050? --Enyavar (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. These images are too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago. In addition, no evidence is given these images are PUBLISHED more then 30 years ago. Therefore these images must be deleted, regrettably. --Ellywa (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada
[edit]- File:John Turner 1968.jpg
- File:Turner 1968 cropped.jpg
- File:Northrop Frye.jpg
- File:Vivien Leigh 1958.jpg
- File:Jean Chrétien 1967.jpg
- File:OrderofCanadaFemale.jpg
- File:Turner and Trudeau at the 1984 Liberal leadership convention.png
- File:Geills Turner (cropped).png
- File:Turner in 1984 (cropped).png
- File:Turnercrop.png
- File:USS BUCK ammo transfer to HMCS HAIDA off Korea.jpg
- File:Various ethnic groups from many areas on Canada Day and the Centennial of Confederation.jpg
- File:Lester B. Pearson at desk.jpg
- File:Lester B. Pearson at desk (crop).jpg
- File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 1.jpg
- File:Lester B. Pearson May 1963.jpg
- File:Thrill show at CNE in Toronto that was also presented at Expo 67.jpg
- File:CN Tower and skylines.jpg
- File:International Airport Toronto 1973.jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 3.jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 2.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The following files are under copyright and not suitable for the Commons. All of these image details state: 'Copyright: Assigned by author' or 'Copyright:Library and Archives Canada/Government of Canada' and were assumed to be somehow free solely because it says 'Restrictions: Nil" under the files on the LAC site & incorrectly using the {{Copyrighted free use}} template. I was unsure of this so I reached out to a LAC employee via email and they had this to say in a reply:
"Good morning,
The information found on the Wikimedia page that you refer to is incorrect https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turner_1968_cropped.jpg. A Library and Archives Canada (LAC) licence is required for use of this work.
If you look at the source of the image, as recommended in your link, the source file File:John Turner 1968.jpg - Wikimedia Commons clearly states Library and Archives Canada does not allow free use of its copyrighted works.
Please let us know which LAC images you would like to use and we will assess and provide any necessary licences for your intended purposes. There is no fee for associated with our Crown or LAC licences.
We appreciate you having brought this to our attention and will notify the team responsible for our images on Wikimedia.
Best to you..."
From this information, I don't think these files are free and should be deleted as copyright is retained. The only LAC images that can be uploaded to the Commons must clearly state 'Copyright:Expired' - not 'Copyright: Assigned'.--PascalHD (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not an expert ....but we had a talk about Duncan Cameron a few times before...its wonderful its all open Terms of use:Photographs: All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction. Moxy (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Despite some parts of the LAC website referring to "no restrictions", LAC does not allow free use of its works which are under copyright (see mailing list and past deletion discussions). This means that no image from LAC should be used with the CopyrightedFreeUse template. Only public domain LAC images are allowed on Commons..." per the category notice https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Library_and_Archives_Canada
- The photos still retain copyright - "Archives Canada does not allow free use of its copyrighted works..." is stated quite clearly. It's a mere assumption that the short phrase 'no restrictions on use' automatically grants someone unlimited copyright free use.
PascalHD (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- Before deleting, though, can't someone go over the individual images and see if the library will grant permission? Their letter indicates that they very well might, for at least some of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds nice but I'm pretty sure one of their conditions on use is 'No modifications' which would not be in line with Commons policy. PascalHD (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Before deleting, though, can't someone go over the individual images and see if the library will grant permission? Their letter indicates that they very well might, for at least some of them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Despite some parts of the LAC website referring to "no restrictions", LAC does not allow free use of its works which are under copyright (see mailing list and past deletion discussions). This means that no image from LAC should be used with the CopyrightedFreeUse template. Only public domain LAC images are allowed on Commons..." per the category notice https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Library_and_Archives_Canada
- Usually that means no modifications to the file we host, misrepresenting it as the original file. We always maintain the original file, even if we create cropped versions. --RAN (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Must have missed an image, this was one should go too https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Child_pushing_a_stroller_down_the_street_near_Lebreton_Flats.jpg PascalHD (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: As seen in the "What links here" tool for File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg, this file was mentioned, with others, in the discussion of last year Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Drapeau Expo 67 MIKAN 4943081.jpg, discussion which, I commented, could hopefully serve as a test case for what Commons wants to do with the photographs of the CCWE in general. That discussion for File:Jean Drapeau Expo 67 MIKAN 4943081.jpg was closed as kept. I suggest to continue consistently with the same decision and keep File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg as a CCWE photo and copyright expired after 50 years. (Or alternatively start a new discussion to delete and forbid the CCWE photos). -- Asclepias (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notice how the {{PD-Canada-Crown}} says ‘Published’ and not ‘created’ 50 years ago? Only Crown works that were published follow the 50 year expiration rule. If a work was never published it maintains perpetual copyright under the crown or government, even if it is older than 1949. What you see here from what I’ve nominated is some images that are unpublished crown works, and Copyright assigned works. Assigned works means it came from a private individual who donated their photos to the lac. These assigned photos were not taken under the direction of the government, hence the ‘Private’ source.
The only images that are permissible for the Commons must state Copyright: Expired. If the source is private, it follows {{PD-Canada}}. If the source is Government, it follows {{PD-Canada-Crown}}. PascalHD (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)- Section 12 of the Copyright act: “Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.” PascalHD (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notice how the {{PD-Canada-Crown}} says ‘Published’ and not ‘created’ 50 years ago? Only Crown works that were published follow the 50 year expiration rule. If a work was never published it maintains perpetual copyright under the crown or government, even if it is older than 1949. What you see here from what I’ve nominated is some images that are unpublished crown works, and Copyright assigned works. Assigned works means it came from a private individual who donated their photos to the lac. These assigned photos were not taken under the direction of the government, hence the ‘Private’ source.
- Please stay focused on this specific file discussed in this subsection. Its source is "government". This file has nothing to do with a private source, nor with a private donation, nor with copyright assigned to LAC (and as such, it is outside the scope of a deletion request titled "Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada", which already includes too many different situations to be in one DR, but nevermind). Did you read the previous discussion linked above? The question of publication in the context of Crown copyright is specifically one of the questions discussed. The idea is that the public relations photos of the CCWE were published. Public relations material is made by definition to be published and it can reasonably be said to have indeed been published at the time for which they were to be used. I don't know what useful purpose would be met by assuming that the CCWE PR material would have been unpublished. But even if one were to assume that some photo might not have been published at that time (in this case 1967), it would still anyway have been available to the public through the national archives in 1969 at the dissolution of the CCWE. You're welcome to disagree, of course. To have an in-depth serious discussion on those points, and get the good general picture of the whole situation of the CCWE fonds, was actually why those points, and others, were submitted last year. But please address the points already discussed. Some other details were also noted, for example that some LAC notices for the photos of this fonds are now updated to "Copyright expired", whereas some other notices are not updated yet. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- I nominated all these files as they were incorrectly using the Copyright Free Use template. I checked the source on these photos, all of which state copyright is not expired. I even reached out to the LAC themselves - and if the copyright holder is saying you cannot use their copyright material freely, that’s grounds for deletion. I’m simply following the Commons policy. Look, I am not a fan of the way the Canadian government handles their Copyrights. In my opinion, all government works should be Public Domain like the USA. I thinks it’s quite ridiculous that the government hasn’t at least embraced an open license.
In regards to the CCWE Fonds, like i mentioned the government holds permanent copyright on unpublished works. In my view, only some of those images would have been published (the ones that say copyright: expired) and the rest weren’t. The LAC site is frequently updated when copyrights expire, so it’s unlikely they missed these ones. I don’t think merely being available through archives would be considered as published.
We don’t have to agree & I welcome others opinions and points of view on this situation. PascalHD (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)- In retrospect, I can support separating out the Government sourced images from the Private/Copyright: Assigned images, as they probably deserve a separate deletion nomination.
Files in question:
File:Thrill show at CNE in Toronto that was also presented at Expo 67.jpg
File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg
File:Various ethnic groups from many areas on Canada Day and the Centennial of Confederation.jpg
File:USS BUCK ammo transfer to HMCS HAIDA off Korea.jpg PascalHD (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I can support separating out the Government sourced images from the Private/Copyright: Assigned images, as they probably deserve a separate deletion nomination.
- I nominated all these files as they were incorrectly using the Copyright Free Use template. I checked the source on these photos, all of which state copyright is not expired. I even reached out to the LAC themselves - and if the copyright holder is saying you cannot use their copyright material freely, that’s grounds for deletion. I’m simply following the Commons policy. Look, I am not a fan of the way the Canadian government handles their Copyrights. In my opinion, all government works should be Public Domain like the USA. I thinks it’s quite ridiculous that the government hasn’t at least embraced an open license.
- Please stay focused on this specific file discussed in this subsection. Its source is "government". This file has nothing to do with a private source, nor with a private donation, nor with copyright assigned to LAC (and as such, it is outside the scope of a deletion request titled "Copyright assigned files from Library and Archives Canada", which already includes too many different situations to be in one DR, but nevermind). Did you read the previous discussion linked above? The question of publication in the context of Crown copyright is specifically one of the questions discussed. The idea is that the public relations photos of the CCWE were published. Public relations material is made by definition to be published and it can reasonably be said to have indeed been published at the time for which they were to be used. I don't know what useful purpose would be met by assuming that the CCWE PR material would have been unpublished. But even if one were to assume that some photo might not have been published at that time (in this case 1967), it would still anyway have been available to the public through the national archives in 1969 at the dissolution of the CCWE. You're welcome to disagree, of course. To have an in-depth serious discussion on those points, and get the good general picture of the whole situation of the CCWE fonds, was actually why those points, and others, were submitted last year. But please address the points already discussed. Some other details were also noted, for example that some LAC notices for the photos of this fonds are now updated to "Copyright expired", whereas some other notices are not updated yet. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. Let's start with the last point, i.e. making the material available through archives. The analysis will, I'm afraid, be somewhat lengthy, but I hope understandable. Making copies available to the public is the very definition of publication, in section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act [5]: For the purposes of this Act, publication means [...] making copies of a work available to the public. This was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., [2019] 3 SCR 418, [6] (the only SCC decision examining specifically Crown copyright). In the Keatley case, the documents in question were plans of land surveys which were deposited in a Land Registry Office. Their conservation and access was thus under the control of the government. Members of the public could request copies. The courts (the trial court, the Court appeals and the Supreme Court) held that those plans in the custody of the Office were available to the public and thus met the definition of being published per section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act and met the notion of having been published by or under the control of the government of section 12 of the Copyright Act. The seven judges on the bench for that SCC case were unanimous in that conclusion and on this point about publication (although two groups of judges arrive at the conclusion through slightly different paths of reasoning on some other points).I submit that the situation is essentially identical for the public archives. Indeed, similarly, the material deposited in the Public Archives (succeeded by the National Archives circa 1987, succeded by Library and Archives since 2004) is under the control of the government and is available to the public, who can obtain copies on request. The precise modalities of availability have evolved over a century, but the essence is the same. The old Public Archives Act (RSC 1957, c. 222) was rather short and thus, before 1967, it may have been more informal. In 1967, the federal cabinet of ministers adopted the principle more officially, further formalized in its 1973 directive. The National Archives Act [7] and the now current Library and Archives of Canada Act [8] include the mission to facilitate access of the pubic to the material. I don't think it necessary to dig into what precise modalities were in force when the CCWE material entered the archives, perhaps circa 1969-1971, as compared to 2023. It is sufficient that availabily did exist. That's where the mention "Restrictions on use: Nil" is useful. In short, IMO, unrestricted government archives are published, in the sense of the Copyright Act and applying the view of the Supreme Court. A nice consequence of public archives being considered published is that it nicely counterbalances the atrocious notion of perpetual copyright, which would otherwise be quite troubling. Government items eventually end up in the public archives and thus being published, excluding explicitly restricted material, perpetual copyright is avoided.The above is about the archives point. But, as I previously said, IMO the CCWE information/public relations material can be considered having been published already by the CCWE itself. The interest for Commons is not so much the whole CCWE fonds, but this photo and the other material in the specific section of the fonds that contains the material of the Information Branch of the Public Relations Department of the CCWE. The mission of the Information Branch was to keep the public informed by various means, brochures, pamphlets, folders, press releases, etc. By its nature of material destined to information of the public and public relations, the material of this section of the fonds was, at least, available for the public in the sense of the Copyright Act and as interpreted by the Supreme Court.I understand why you make the DR. Indeed the "copyrighted free use" tag is not the correct tag. I made DRs in the past for that reason. However, in some cases like this one, it can be replaced with a proper tag, such as PD-Canada. I think you are a bit too optimistic about what LAC can do on the numerous items with its limited budget and staff. Various inconsistencies can occur in notices. As you say, LAC doesn't issue free licenses on their copyrighted material, but the point is that the public domain material is not their copyrighted material. We can try to determine that according to the legislation and to the facts in each case. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- You bring forward some great points. I was simply following what the LAC site said in regards to the copyright status. I had not considered the possibility that certain works could be potentially Public Domain or incorrectly noted on the site.
These works that are stated as Copyright: Government/LAC definitely need more investigation, and could very well be public domain. I can support keeping the 4 files mentioned above, for further in depth discussion. There’s plenty of other images I’ve seen on the Archives site I’d love to upload, but have stayed away from due to the uncertainty, would love to determine their status.
However the rest of the files that are Copyright: Assigned, must go. Previous DRs support this. PascalHD (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) - Also... if merely being available through the archives is considered as published, than its safe to say that every single 'Government' sourced image which states Copyright: Expired or Copyright:Crown/Government would then be considered published and PD as long as it over 50 years old - as it would have been available through the Archives to the public and therefor safe for Commons. Perhaps a few things would not have, but the vast majority would have. Interesting... I suppose the LAC is probably following what is stated in the Copyright Act, regarding 'unpublished' works and not following what has been decided in the Court ruling from 2019. As these images may have not been published in the traditional sense (Book, Newspaper, Press release), they may not be aware that access to Archives is considered published. I really appreciate your in depth analysis, I feel like I actually learned something here - I was not quite aware of all this. My apologies for making such a mess of this, just when you think you know everything about copyright law- the rug gets pulled out from under you!
Well, with that being said to summarize... I think this is the logical conclusion. - I think this is correct?
- Keep - The Government sourced images - Based on points brought forward by Asclepias
- File:Thrill show at CNE in Toronto that was also presented at Expo 67.jpg
- File:Daniel Johnson Sr. infobox.jpg
- File:Various ethnic groups from many areas on Canada Day and the Centennial of Confederation.jpg
- File:USS BUCK ammo transfer to HMCS HAIDA off Korea.jpg
- Delete - The Private sourced Copyright:Assigned images - Not works of the Federal Government, no Crown Copyright is/was vested. Original points brought forward still stand.
- File:John Turner 1968.jpg
- File:Turner 1968 cropped.jpg
- File:Northrop Frye.jpg
- File:Vivien Leigh 1958.jpg
- File:Jean Chrétien 1967.jpg
- File:OrderofCanadaFemale.jpg
- File:Turner and Trudeau at the 1984 Liberal leadership convention.png
- File:Geills Turner (cropped).png
- File:Turner in 1984 (cropped).png
- File:Turnercrop.png
- File:Lester B. Pearson at desk.jpg
- File:Lester B. Pearson at desk (crop).jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 1.jpg
- File:Lester B. Pearson May 1963.jpg
- File:CN Tower and skylines.jpg
- File:International Airport Toronto 1973.jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 3.jpg
- File:Bank St. & Sunnyside Ave. fire 2.jpg
- PascalHD (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it's the source that determines whether a photo is considered as a government work or not.
- For example, photo 3724787 says the source is private. However, it also says "Copyright: Crown".
- Another example, photo 3221814 says the source is government, while it says "Copyright: Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner Duncan Cameron." The photo was taken circa 1971, and I don't think Cameron was working for the government at that time. He joined the Archives in 1976 per the BAC-LAC biography: "In 1976, he joined the staff of the National Photography Collection of the Public Archives of Canada through an Executive Exchange Programme of the Public Service Commission." [9] Before that, he was a contract photographer for Time Life Inc. from 1963 to 1976, so the photo is certainly not Crown copyright.
- So you have to look at the text that comes after "Copyright:", not the source, to determine whether a work is under Crown copyright. FunnyMath (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The purpose of the ‘source’ is to indicate if it is a work of a private individual or the government. Yes, there are of course some exceptions, as you’ve shown. The LAC isn’t perfect. However, it’s generally a pretty good indication. As per your examples, some images are taken by a ‘private’ source and the copyright would have been transferred to the government. & Duncan Cameron, who appears to have worked as a photographer for Pierre Trudeau clearly retained his copyrights to his photos, not the crown. Majority of expired Crown copyrighted images can easily be identified through their Fonds being noted from a Gov. department and ‘Expired’ copyright.
I’m regards to my last post, the 4 Copyright: Government images I’ve marked as keep are being kept for a separate discussion as they should not have been included in this DR related to Copyright:Assigned files, as a mistake on my part. Those files deserve a new discussion as some great points were brought forward. PascalHD (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- The purpose of the ‘source’ is to indicate if it is a work of a private individual or the government. Yes, there are of course some exceptions, as you’ve shown. The LAC isn’t perfect. However, it’s generally a pretty good indication. As per your examples, some images are taken by a ‘private’ source and the copyright would have been transferred to the government. & Duncan Cameron, who appears to have worked as a photographer for Pierre Trudeau clearly retained his copyrights to his photos, not the crown. Majority of expired Crown copyrighted images can easily be identified through their Fonds being noted from a Gov. department and ‘Expired’ copyright.
- You bring forward some great points. I was simply following what the LAC site said in regards to the copyright status. I had not considered the possibility that certain works could be potentially Public Domain or incorrectly noted on the site.
- Thank you for the reply. Let's start with the last point, i.e. making the material available through archives. The analysis will, I'm afraid, be somewhat lengthy, but I hope understandable. Making copies available to the public is the very definition of publication, in section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act [5]: For the purposes of this Act, publication means [...] making copies of a work available to the public. This was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., [2019] 3 SCR 418, [6] (the only SCC decision examining specifically Crown copyright). In the Keatley case, the documents in question were plans of land surveys which were deposited in a Land Registry Office. Their conservation and access was thus under the control of the government. Members of the public could request copies. The courts (the trial court, the Court appeals and the Supreme Court) held that those plans in the custody of the Office were available to the public and thus met the definition of being published per section 2.2(1) of the Copyright Act and met the notion of having been published by or under the control of the government of section 12 of the Copyright Act. The seven judges on the bench for that SCC case were unanimous in that conclusion and on this point about publication (although two groups of judges arrive at the conclusion through slightly different paths of reasoning on some other points).I submit that the situation is essentially identical for the public archives. Indeed, similarly, the material deposited in the Public Archives (succeeded by the National Archives circa 1987, succeded by Library and Archives since 2004) is under the control of the government and is available to the public, who can obtain copies on request. The precise modalities of availability have evolved over a century, but the essence is the same. The old Public Archives Act (RSC 1957, c. 222) was rather short and thus, before 1967, it may have been more informal. In 1967, the federal cabinet of ministers adopted the principle more officially, further formalized in its 1973 directive. The National Archives Act [7] and the now current Library and Archives of Canada Act [8] include the mission to facilitate access of the pubic to the material. I don't think it necessary to dig into what precise modalities were in force when the CCWE material entered the archives, perhaps circa 1969-1971, as compared to 2023. It is sufficient that availabily did exist. That's where the mention "Restrictions on use: Nil" is useful. In short, IMO, unrestricted government archives are published, in the sense of the Copyright Act and applying the view of the Supreme Court. A nice consequence of public archives being considered published is that it nicely counterbalances the atrocious notion of perpetual copyright, which would otherwise be quite troubling. Government items eventually end up in the public archives and thus being published, excluding explicitly restricted material, perpetual copyright is avoided.The above is about the archives point. But, as I previously said, IMO the CCWE information/public relations material can be considered having been published already by the CCWE itself. The interest for Commons is not so much the whole CCWE fonds, but this photo and the other material in the specific section of the fonds that contains the material of the Information Branch of the Public Relations Department of the CCWE. The mission of the Information Branch was to keep the public informed by various means, brochures, pamphlets, folders, press releases, etc. By its nature of material destined to information of the public and public relations, the material of this section of the fonds was, at least, available for the public in the sense of the Copyright Act and as interpreted by the Supreme Court.I understand why you make the DR. Indeed the "copyrighted free use" tag is not the correct tag. I made DRs in the past for that reason. However, in some cases like this one, it can be replaced with a proper tag, such as PD-Canada. I think you are a bit too optimistic about what LAC can do on the numerous items with its limited budget and staff. Various inconsistencies can occur in notices. As you say, LAC doesn't issue free licenses on their copyrighted material, but the point is that the public domain material is not their copyrighted material. We can try to determine that according to the legislation and to the facts in each case. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In my dealings with the Toronto Archives, the "no restrictions" seems to mean that a person has physical access to the photo within the archive building; some old photos are too degraded to allow the general public to handle them, so they only allow digital access, in order to keep the photo safe. If it's handled too many times, it will either crumble to pieces or may get damaged by light etc. I think it's more to do with the right to see the "thing" (artefact, photo, statue, trinket etc) in person, rather than the right to use it for copyright purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- The right of reproduction mentioned (in my opinion) is to allow Joe Q Public, standing in the archives, to make a photocopy or other form of copy (digital photo) of the item from the collection, not to reproduce it for copyright purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This employee that responded is ill informed. Yes, Library of Canada work is generally under copyright, but the Duncan Cameron fonds has no such restrictions. The actual fonds is very clear. "All photographs except the 5 Time Canada cover lay-outs (accession number 1976-079) are open; no restrictions on use or reproduction."- SimonP (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion my conclusion is that the copyright claims of the archive are unclear and conflicting. Unrestricted use but there still is a copyright, what does that mean? So decided to delete all images per COM:PRP except those clearly crown copyright as listed by PascalHD (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2023. --Ellywa (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 04:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously not an own work. Kadı Message 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- please compare the eventual outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rahaavard --Enyavar (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:Iran. This image is too recent to assume the photographer has died sufficiently long ago (image is in PD after 50 pma). In addition, no evidence per COM:EVID is given this image is published more then 30 years ago. Therefore this image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)