Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/05/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regions of the Floridian State.png
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 2607:FB91:1937:8B3C:AC39:60F1:6826:5C01 01:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wutsje 03:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 2607:FB91:1928:4B05:AC39:60F1:50A9:1ECE 14:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader's request, vandalism by a known LTA from Florida. --Achim55 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Ggggggggggfttttftttttttfttt Bastianmalata (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader's request, vandalism by a known LTA from Florida. --Achim55 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 2607:FB91:197D:89A0:AC39:60F1:FDC0:6E30 15:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Uploader's request, vandalism by a known LTA from Florida. --Achim55 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 2607:FB91:C1B:1777:AC39:60F1:FACB:8DE4 15:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as usual. --Achim55 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Jkkkkkkkkkjj 2601:58A:8E81:DBD0:4128:A298:5A21:E65 18:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as usual. --Achim55 (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC) |
Uuuuuuuu 2607:FB91:19FC:CDC5:AC39:BE31:E281:2E81 17:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by known LTA from Florida. --Achim55 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hhhhhhhhhhhhhya 172.56.78.206 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by known LTA from Florida. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
File:This check.svg 2409:4043:4C96:A63B:0:0:989:215 02:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Invalid nomination. --Wutsje 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluded educational content, out of COM:SCOPE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Repeat uploading of out of scope/unsourced materials. --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluded educational content out of COM:SCOPE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Repeat uploading of out of scope/unsourced materials. --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Excluded educational content out of COM:SCOPE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Repeat uploading of out of scope/unsourced materials. --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
small size duplicate of File:67005 at Kings Cross 7.jpg 217.251.186.36 06:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete under CSD F8 (Exact or scaled-down duplicate). --bjh21 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: and kept as redirect. --Achim55 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 2607:FB91:1937:8B3C:AC39:60F1:6826:5C01 19:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Ufuhfhpjgfggggggggggggg 2607:FB91:1937:8B3C:AC39:60F1:6826:5C01 19:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism by known LTA. --Achim55 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Uuuuuuuu 2607:FB91:1988:9223:AC39:60F7:4FDB:D85 20:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
kept Vandalism nomination. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I nominated my file for deletion, because this is inaccurate. Nerdqwertyoof (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading week. Also the nominator is indefinitely blocked due to abusing multiple accounts. Taivo (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
In the book it says "Hak cipta dilindungi undang-undang" which means copyright is protected by law which means this image is copyrighted 180.251.232.85 07:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Andi Idjo Karaeng Lalolang c. 1957-1960.jpg Nurbaitaru (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
B 10 Gambar Rusak 223.255.230.33 02:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Tiene el símbolo © 186.172.184.223 20:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, © 2021 Vytvořil Expert Dev, s.r.o. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
And also
Trabajo propio? 186.172.184.223 21:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I was glad to see both processions of the King and the Queen, and this photo was taken from a more professional camera. I am pleased with your concern about any copyright issues on Wikimedia, but I assure you I took this photograph.
- Thanks,
- BillClinternet (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Espero que sea así. 186.172.184.223 21:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep
Comment I've struck my above comment per the evidence presented below. I must have been too hopeful last night that somebody had got such a high quality photo of the balcony. If the uploader did take it, all they have to do is upload the original unaltered version from the camera with EXIF intact (or even upload any other other photos that you surely would have taken while in London [with exif data]). Cakelot1 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - nah, its obvious it was taken off private forums, twitter or facebook and thus won't appear on tineye or other reverse search engines, lack of exif and low size leads to that conclusion, even phone camera's carry some form of exif data nowadays, if user can't post the full image with Exif then he is obviously lying and his future uploads will also be questioned.--Stemoc 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Stemoc,
- I suggest that you remain civil and saying "his future uploads will also be questioned" is unnecessary because you're not any type of administrator and based on your user page you aren't very active anymore on Wikimedia commons.
- About your comment, I really have no idea what that warning is, as it has never appeared to me before. But I did take that photo. Most of the photos on twitter and facebook are lower quality, and the more higher quality ones are posted by the Royal Family and more famed photographers. I trust User:Cakelot1's comment that it's not enough to delete a file.
- Considering your use of language and making an accusation and a threat in the same line doesn't make you look being civil. I don't want to turn this into a fight so please be more courteous.
- Thanks,
- BillClinternet (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I also stated, I think, in a talk page that I've only uploaded this image to Wikimedia Commons. Check one of Cakelot's links he provided. BillClinternet (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nope, we get dozens of cases of people claiming to own images they upload but most get ignored cause they aren't in use across wikipedia, this one is, so unless its copyright and validity is cleared up (which is something you seem like you are avoiding), its very clear this image was not taken by you, as FotoFree mentioned below, even if this image was cropped from the original it will carry the EXIF data which its not and doing this for a while, it feels like it was converted from .png to .jpg thus why its not carrying any exif data which implies this image was taken from an online source and not taken by you. I have seen images of this very angle and you would need to have a really good and expensive camera to get this angle and shot and since this is your very first 'camera" upload, I will have to assume you are not telling us the truth... so as asked earlier, please add the full image (zoomed out version ofcourse) because a lot of people are now cropping and using across wikipedia which will cause a lot of problem for US to fix... Stemoc 02:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry, I agree with Stemoc, lack of Exif and low resolution is a sign of web capture or screenshot from tv coverage. Screenshot at a random place in the footage would likely produce a 'unique' image not showing up on Tineye. Quoting uploader's own edit comments is no evidence imo. Using a 'professional' camera would undoubtedly produce Exif data including timestamp. If claims are true, I see no reason why uploader wouldn't have uploaded original shot and then crop it down as they seem proficient in using the crop tool... all crops would then carry over full Exif. Notable there are no other uploads of the full day either, eg crowd scenes which would also back up story. I strongly suggest original shot is produced to clear this up or a definite delete for me. FotoFree (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as a likely copyvio per Stemoc and FotoFree. Looks as if there were taken from part of an online video or a TV program given the nature of the image. Hurricane Noah (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I really honestly don't know what the warning is. I did take the photo, and I really don't know what the warning is even all about. If an administrator thinks that it is somehow viable evidence as to the deletion of the image, then that is fine. But the accusations of me screenshotting part of a news broadcast, and agreeing with Stemoc's idea of monitoring my future uploads, on top of his incivility, really doesn't make it plausible that I somehow faked it. I only called the camera professional because it was rather expensive, but yes, it is a bit old. I did also say that I did not get any procession or crowd shots, but one thing I do need to clear up is that I only wanted photos of the King and the Queen. I really hope this clears things up for some people, and I don't think that warning is plausible as to the deletion of the image, like CakeLot1 said. Stemoc also has various images that have been deleted for copyright issues so I think his claim is really invalid because it shows that he is incapable at recognizing photos suitable for the commons or not.
- Thank you for your thoughts and consideration, though. I hope that cleared somethings up for you all.
- Thanks,
- BillClinternet (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd also like to point out that if you compare news broadcasts to actual photographs, they don't look really alike. The broadcasts are at different angles than the photo I took if you examine them closely. BillClinternet (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep So far all of the votes to delete are based on nothing more than speculation. If someone has clear evidence of copyright violation, that would be different, but lacking meta-data or looking too professional is not evidence. RevDan (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Low resoltuion image, missing the entire EXIF data, plus the uploader's history of problematic uploads, I don't think I can COM:AGF here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I find it extremely unlikely that this is the uploader's original work, based not only on the lack of metadata but the comments that they've made in this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- How so?
- BillClinternet (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- You could easily clear this up by providing a full-resolution photo with EXIF and other metadata intact. Funcrunch (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- And also based on RevDan's comment, its based on some speculation. The only plausible evidence that is provided is the little error message, and that, still, is a speculation. BillClinternet (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just found a photo of Charles in an identical pose in this news story. Photo is credited to Getty. Still looking for the original, but I now more strongly believe that the uploader's contribution is not their own work. Funcrunch (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It does look identical, indeed, but if you compare the two, the fox news one depicts his forefinger pointing just under his white collar of his cape, but in my photo, it's one where the finger is more pointing at his gold necklace/regalia piece. From this difference, my photo was taken at a different angle than fox's.
- Thanks for the consideration.
- BillClinternet (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- May I ask how you got such a good photo? What sort of camera were you using, and where were you standing? Muzilon (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was standing just near the Victoria Memorial, towards the back of the crowd. If you look at the official photos of the crowd looking from the balcony, I was one of the guys in the stands there and I was taking some photos with a basic sony camera. I got it years ago in 2015 and it was the basic sony camera that anyone would get for around 1000-1500 dollars. It was a bit expensive for the time, but I added a really nice lense to it and touched it up and it worked well.
- Thanks, I am happy to share,
- BillClinternet (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Found it on the Getty site. I believe you used Photoshop to remove the Getty banner and slightly reposition the hand. Funcrunch (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per @Muzilon's !vote below, I had the wrong image. But you still stole it from a Getty photographer. Funcrunch (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- May I ask how you got such a good photo? What sort of camera were you using, and where were you standing? Muzilon (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Found the uploader's image on the Getty website. Funcrunch (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I think this is the precise Getty image in question - same photographer, same batch of photos. (The image located by Funcrunch is very slightly different from the upload here - note the King's mouth). Muzilon (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you - that is indeed the identical shot to what the uploader contributed (minus the getty images banner). Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is absolutely zero way. I took that photo. BillClinternet (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- So prove it by uploading the original with EXIF intact. Funcrunch (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I had to look at it a couple of times, but the kings mouth is slightly more open and the angle of the shot is slightly off. It is conceivable be that Samir was using video capture and the other image is a couple frames later, but it's not the same image RevDan (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, they appear to be taken a split second apart, and from the exact same location. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, Funcrunch's discovery is not identical to the upload here, but this Getty image looks like a perfect match to me. Muzilon (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the picture and Ban the uploader for violating copyright and lying about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not even joking. There is zero way that my image is on there. I am truly flabbergasted. BillClinternet (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can you prove that your real name is Samir Hussein? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you accusing Samir Hussein of stealing your work and posting it on Getty? Funcrunch (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- All of these accusations just for this moment. Have you ever thought that this photo wasnt copied by that other uploader? BillClinternet (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Prove it's your picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- All this based on a speculation about the EXIF? I took this on a camera from 2015.
- Please re-read all of my defense.
- BillClinternet (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you mean this photo which is currently featured on the Coronation article and home page of the English Wikipedia, it's 1. not the same as the image you linked to on Getty, and 2. The uploader, @KTC, has a long-established account with a number of quality images credited to them.
- Regardless, I'd worry about the accusations you're facing now, rather than accusing another editor. Funcrunch (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I took that photo. And if it is deleted then so be it, but I shall remain civil.
- Thanks for your thoughts,
- BillClinternet (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The KTC file has its metadata, which you refuse to provide for the photo you uploaded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- We'll see what the moderators have to say about this. Thanks for your thoughts and concerns.
- BillClinternet (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your sealioning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The KTC file has its metadata, which you refuse to provide for the photo you uploaded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Prove it's your picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not even joking. There is zero way that my image is on there. I am truly flabbergasted. BillClinternet (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just as the uploader's namesake "did not have sex with that woman"... Muzilon (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The point of the username is to make fun of him. Its merely a namesake.
- Thanks for your concern,
- BillClinternet (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- And also he said sexual relations not sex. BillClinternet (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- *facepalm* Muzilon (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Just as the uploader's namesake "did not have sex with that woman"... Muzilon (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Very clear copyvio now that we have a link to the original photograph on getty. Freedom4U (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyright violation. DrKay (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Clear copyright violation. Both this file and the ones derived from it should be deleted as soon as possible. Keivan.fTalk 06:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe that BillClinternet took the photograph: he's said this consistently, and I have no reason to believe that he's lying (it would be a strange thing to lie about). It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent; however, I think he should hold to Cakelot1's suggestion, i.e. to "upload the original unaltered image from they're [sic] camera with EXIF data intact." Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a court of law. Here, the burden of proof is on the claimant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted after request for speedy deletion, obvious case (https://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/king-charles-iii-and-queen-camilla-stand-on-the-buckingham-news-photo/1487960638). Uploader blocked for one month. --Polarlys (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot per Metadata, could be taken from a live video of Charles III's coronation A1Cafel (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Obviously copyright screenshot of coronation broadcast. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Clear screenshot of a non-free work (COM:F3). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Dffevvvdfff 23.125.225.56 20:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Vandalismo. 186.172.184.223 20:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Test or vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
© 186.172.184.223 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, source reads "MobyGames grants to You the right to use the MobyGames web site for your personal, non-commercial use. You agrees not to modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way commercially exploit the MobyGames web site unless authorized to do so in writing by MobyGames.". --Achim55 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Obviously copyrighted screenshot. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, I have probably misclicked when searching for the Report copyright violation button. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Kadı. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
It is highly likely to infringe copyright - the album cover is protected. Shenzhiming88 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Kadı. --Rosenzweig τ 21:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Book cover. DELETE. 186.174.218.129 22:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission since 30 April 2023. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Jest umieszczony na Wikimedia taki sam o lepszej rozdzielczości. Jurek.was (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This was created by accident and will be replaced by "Ethnic Origins in the United States.png" Noahnmf (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alizare114 (talk · contribs)
[edit] Delete as COM:OOS if Q113138130 is deleted, Keep otherwise.
- File:Alizare114(7).jpg
- File:Alizare114(6).jpg
- File:Alizare114(5).jpg
- File:Alizare114(4).jpg
- File:Alizare114(3).jpg
- File:Alizare114(2).jpg
- File:Alizare114(1).jpg
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speaking as a Wikidata admin, it’s certainly not notable without the SDC usage. --Emu (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Emu OK. I just removed them from the Wikidata item, now going to speedy them per COM:CSD#F10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily per COM:CSD#F10. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Placeholder uploaded by mistake Laserlicht (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 08:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
unused personal photo: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per ticket:2023050610001131. Ruthven (msg) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Low quality; self-promotion; generally out-of-scope Dogfennydd (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It’s neither of those, more like: WP:IDONTLIKEIT Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Commons policies are different to Wikipedia policies. There are several reasons this file fails to be suitable for Commons:
- it's a text-only image;
- it's not useful for an educational purpose;
- it's not in use anywhere on Wikimedia sites (other than the uploader's user page) and is unlikely ever to;
- it's self-promotion of the user's political beliefs.
- It also has a crazy list of "depicts:" structured data statements, almost none of the stated objects are depicted. Dogfennydd (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- It’s a poem related to a Wikipedia essay that got me blocked, there are many texts of poems on Commons. If you don’t think it “depicts” something in the structured data, change it. There are thousands of files on Commons that will never be used anywhere, are you implying I’m crazy for saying the poem depicts something that isn’t there? It’s not self promotion, it’s self-defense, evidence and educational. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Commons policies are different to Wikipedia policies. There are several reasons this file fails to be suitable for Commons:
- Delete per COM:SCOPE. Commons doesn't host text files unless they are in use on another wiki. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I plan to use it on another Wikimedia project when I appeal my block: “Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects, so scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope.” (See Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.) The poem’s format looks so much better as a graphic. Plus, it’s educational of what not to do on Wikipedia, lol. It’s also a Commons:User pages#Images and other content about the user, I just tagged it as such. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's immaterial that you plan to use it if you are reinstated at Wikipedia. Text files that are not logos and not in use are deleted from Commons, period. I don't think this falls under the same exception as personal images, but the closing admin will make that decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- There’s 20,863 images at Category:User page images, take a look at how some of those files compare to mine, stunning, that cat needs sorting! 7096 images not categorized at Category:Wikimedia screenshots look similar to this file nominated for deletion. Thanks for volunteering your time to share knowledge and make this world a better place! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's immaterial that you plan to use it if you are reinstated at Wikipedia. Text files that are not logos and not in use are deleted from Commons, period. I don't think this falls under the same exception as personal images, but the closing admin will make that decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It’s a good example of prose poetry and prose vs poetry.
- It’s tagged as a user page image, many of which are text images like mine (See also Template:User page image)
- There are thousands of Wikipedia screenshots and user talk page screenshots like it on Commons
- It is an example of a very traumatic disreputable event (getting blocked) that happened to me on Wikipedia while acting in good faith, like a negative Barnstar template. I think the Community should know why I’m blocked.
- Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- A text file that seeks to explain why you were blocked is not relevant to Commons. You can put that text on your Wikipedia user page if you have access to it and leave nothing here. And the rest of your arguments seem to amount to "if other files that violate Commons policies have so far slipped through the cracks, this file should be kept." Instead, you should request deletion of those files, if you are actually motivated by wanting to have files deleted because they violate COM:SCOPE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I listed other, better reasons for uploading the file:
- If I wasn’t blocked on Wikipedia, I’d post it here (it’s a good example of): en:Prose poetry;
- it’s a user page image please read Template:User page image:
- This image is used on a user page of a Wikimedia user and is stored on Commons according to the rules set out in Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only: the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed or Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project: the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.
- I see resumes and similar things posted in Category:User page images, can you provide diffs of text files posted there that “slip through the cracks” and deserve deleting? My image looks fine on my user page, don’t you think?
- Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- I listed other, better reasons for uploading the file:
- Users with large numbers of contributions are allowed to upload a certain number of pictures of themselves to use on their user pages. I have never seen it stated that text files can ever be hosted on Commons unless they are being used in an article (not a user page) on another wiki; quite the contrary, text files are routinely deleted as such. You should request deletion of all the text files of resumes, poetry or anything else that you notice being hosted here against the rules, but you won't. The closing admin will make the decision on what to do with this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- A text file that seeks to explain why you were blocked is not relevant to Commons. You can put that text on your Wikipedia user page if you have access to it and leave nothing here. And the rest of your arguments seem to amount to "if other files that violate Commons policies have so far slipped through the cracks, this file should be kept." Instead, you should request deletion of those files, if you are actually motivated by wanting to have files deleted because they violate COM:SCOPE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please reconsider Commons:Scope regarding poetry text files: Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource.
- Poetry is more than copy-paste words, it’s structure, form, paragraphs, indent, punctuation, number of lines, font, etc. Sometimes a picture of the words (poem) is worth 1000 words.
- The Wikipedia articles on poetry lack graphic illustrations — maybe because of rigidly enforcing Commons policy? See how well this article describes and illustrates 15 Types of Poetry To Share With Kids (Plus Examples of Each).
- Commons has three categories with examples that violate a rigid interpretation Commons policy: Category:Calligrams, Category:Acrostics and Category:Visual poetry, there are several more genres or styles that deserve Cats with illustrations that I can start working on: Blackout, Concrete, Elegy — to provide examples such as in the article cited above. Unfortunately I’m unable to add the files to the articles.
- As I wrote above, this file illustrates en:Prose poetry and en:Free verse.
Thank you for volunteering your time and knowledge. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not the place to argue for a change in policy. Do so at Commons talk:Project scope. And stop with your sarcastic remarks about sharing my time and knowledge. Helping to keep loads and loads of personal texts out of Commons is a worthy use of a very small amount of my time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You assume I’m being sarcastic and talking to you! I’ll post a note at Commons talk:Project scope. Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- How about posting a note about this discussion here: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry (I’m blocked from editing Wikipedia)? Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- A deletion request is not the place to argue for a change in policy. Do so at Commons talk:Project scope. And stop with your sarcastic remarks about sharing my time and knowledge. Helping to keep loads and loads of personal texts out of Commons is a worthy use of a very small amount of my time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete original works of writing by non-notable individuals are almost always out of scope (except for government documents and the like). For that matter, so are most original artworks by non-notable individuals, unless they are genuinely useful illustrations for articles. And the polemical aspect of this is only more reason to find it inappropriate: I don't want a situation where people can format their polemics as prose poems and thereby add them to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- How about as a user page file per COM:INUSE: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with you posting this as text on your user page (which also has the advantage of making this searchable) but see no valid reason for this to be in an image file. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Text formatting breaks lines incorrectly especially on mobile vs desktop. See: User:Raquel Baranow/Sandbox; File: much better. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with you posting this as text on your user page (which also has the advantage of making this searchable) but see no valid reason for this to be in an image file. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- How about as a user page file per COM:INUSE: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as per Jmabel. Yann (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
With text version the lines break in mobile view making the poem harder to read
[edit]First they came for the Nazis...
How about Zionists next?
Did God really give them that land or the United Nations,
are Palestinians in concentration camps?
Is criticism of Israel antisemetic.
Where do these WP:THOUGHTCRIME end?
If “racists” and Nazis don’t use reliable sources or follow policy, they get banned.
Why are there Laws against Holocaust denial, what are they afraid of?
Why don’t we block Trump supporters?
We should be skeptical and open minded not WP:BIGOT!
— Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2020; Posted to Jimbo’s Talk, blocked.
Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- With text version the lines break in mobile view making the poem harder to read
- With text version you can’t adjust the width making it (A) fit better on the page (B) make type bigger/smaller making it easier to read
- With text version poem template you can’t (A) wrap text around the poem (B) move the poem to the center or right of the page without also centering/ right-margining the paragraphs/ sentences
- The current Scope policy regarding poems is wrong!
Deleted. The only person disagreeing is the uploader, and none of her arguments appear to be based in Commons policy or guidelines; in fact, she seems to implicitly acknowledge that this is outside of scope when she argues that the Scope policy is wrong. I don't see any reason to drag this on longer. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Personal file collection, out of project scope.
- File:Polish 20201012 044752981.jpg
- File:Polish 20200805 051340242.jpg
- File:Polish 20200801 174901636.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 11:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Fitindia (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Non-free image taken from a website. TadejM (t/p) 20:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This file is out-of-COM:SCOPE as being solely composed of textual content. I'm also unsure about the own work claim, but this is moot in light of this being out-of-scope. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also File:2023 A5 BREVISIMO CV ISANCHEZ BAREA.pdf. --ПокровскийМ (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The statement "I own the image from my personal collection" doesn't really state this person is the copyright holder. What does it mean that they own this in their personal collection? The image looks to be a newspaper or magazine scan. Owning the newspaper or magazine does not mean they own the copyright to the image. There is also the claim "This is the first time I have uploaded the image to the internet." The upload date is March 16, 2015 but this tribute page uses the image from as early as 2013 predating the upload to Commons. The claim of being the copyright holder is very dubious. Whpq (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete because, given the information we currently have, it's more likely than not a scan from a magazine or newspaper like you suggested. That would also explain why it appears in another website. (Reposting my comment from Wikipedia files for discussion) The Quirky Kitty (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The photograph appears to show various pixel lines in the image, as if this were a photograph of a digitial screen. While the uploader may have taken the photograph of the screen, there is no COM:EVIDENCE that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image photographed by their photograph. As such, this should be deleted in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete tiny image size Dronebogus (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted character. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted characters. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted characters. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Blackman Jr. (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are low resolution photos without EXIF, book covers, scanned content from unknown source or maps that are unlikely to be self-made. The user has long history of uploaded copyvios and per COM:AGF we cannot rely on their Own work declaration. A free license evidence should be required for their uploads.
- File:Ethnic map of Poso Regency.png
- File:Orang Muslim Poso Pesisir.jpg
- File:Peta Etnis di Sumatra Utara.jpg
- File:Soa van Negorij Zoja.jpg
- File:Baileo Samasuru van Zoja.jpg
- File:Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo.jpg
- File:Kampong Soya di Atas in 1821.jpg
- File:Map of Zoja Kingdom (Ambon).jpg
- File:Peta Teung Negeri Soya.jpg
- File:Sampul Aja'ibul Hind (Terjemahan Aja'ib Al-Hind Barrihi wa Bahrihi wa Jaza'irihi dalam bahasa Melayu).jpg
- File:Keluarga Muslim Toraja (Rantebua).jpg
- File:Dili Malay distribution speakers in Timor Leste.png
- File:Peta Bahasa Melayu Indonesia Timur.png
- File:Peta penggunaan bahasa di Kabupaten Tegal.png
- File:Peta dialek bahasa Betawi.jpg
- File:Gulam Razool (Fijian footballer).jpg
- File:Walter in 2015.jpg
- File:Hutan Kota Pakansari.jpg
- File:LKS "Wiwaha Basa" Kelas VIII Kota Depok.jpg
- File:Pera Bahasa di Depok (Kecamatan & Kelurahan).jpg
- File:Aksara Bonda.jpg
- File:Angkatan Moeda Siliwangi (tahun tidak diketahui).jpg
- File:Aliforoes script in Netherlands.jpg
- File:Aksara Alifuru - Maluku.jpg
- File:Map of Songkhla language of Malay.png
- File:Perunggu FC skuad.jpg
- File:Sundanese-Baduy languages map.jpg
- File:The marori man being photographed.jpg
- File:Skullessence-20220804-0001.jpg
Ankry (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- File:Dili Malay distribution speakers in Timor Leste.png is a derivative work of maps, such as File:Fataluku.png, I have created. JPF (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- However, there is no mention of me as the author of the template. JPF (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Description said Photo by Mark Tantrum/ mark tantrum.com, not an employee from the Jetstar Airways, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Que colorido! 186.172.51.176 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LifetimeWiki as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: copyright source. Uploaded originally as a work of the Government of India under GODL, but only a direct link to an IP was given. Can anyone find the original webpage/licensing conditions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. "All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat." See 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LifetimeWiki as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: copyright source. Uploaded originally as a work of the Government of India under GODL, but only a direct link to an IP was given. Can anyone find the original webpage/licensing conditions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. "All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat." See 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LifetimeWiki as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://164.100.47.5/newmembers/photos/P1906.jpg Uploaded originally as a work of the Government of India under GODL, but only a direct link to an IP was given. Can anyone find the original webpage/licensing conditions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. "All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat." See 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Qué es ? 191.126.60.89 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal file outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
As per COM:ADVERT , self promotion Ts12rAc (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
low res, cropped file(?), no metadata, not in use, probably photo of non-contributor, bad file name. should be deleted. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Wrong CC license, accidental swap Beulagpinkeu (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mdaniels5757. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Antrugeon (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
A qué sirve esto? No scope. 186.172.184.223 19:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, unless someone wants to argue that the sign is copyrighted. Funny sign for locally notable eatery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Ikan Kekek. --Strakhov (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:Pentane-1,2,3,4,5-pentol-2D-skeletal.svg as high-quality vector replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:1,1-propanediol.svg and File:1,1-propanediol-skeletal.svg as high-quality vector replacements. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure with opaque background & colored atoms. Replaced by File:Glycolate v2.svg as high-quality alternative. Chem Sim 2001 (Maint.) (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Photo by Ian Jones, a freelance photographer based in London, not a work from the FCDO, thus the CC license is probably invalid, see also similar cases.
A1Cafel (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-20230506174300-File:Glicolato.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- To be a freelance photographer does not mean much in this context, in my honest opinion, and “probably invalid” much less. For instance, Cambridge definition of the word freelance gives us the example, “Most of the journalists I know work freelance.” It seems to me that what a journalist writes is not legally their copyright property, but rather belongs to the newspaper they work for. Similarly, freelance photographers may not own the copyright property of their photos, as it may belong to the client who hired them.
- In my opinion, it is therefore safe to say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not only hired Jones to take photos of Charles III of the United Kingdom but also compensated him for posting those photos online with the mentioned license. It is worth noting that we are not talking about a random Flickr stream; it is serious business. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this case said that even Governmental organization can perform license landuring. But to be clear, I have send a message to Mr. Jones to confirm the permission. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have done the same thing. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this case said that even Governmental organization can perform license landuring. But to be clear, I have send a message to Mr. Jones to confirm the permission. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Jones answered my email (I can prove it if possible and necessary):
- Hi
- Please contact UK Government Foreign Office who issued the photos. cc’d
- They will be able to advise on permissions.
- Kind regards
- Ian
- RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket#2023050710002254 RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep UK Government routinely use freelance photographers for this kind of job, and contractually retain copyright. Furthermore, the photographer has apparently not disputed this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have also received the email from Mr. Jones
Dear Mr Chung
I own the copyright to the photograph and have not given up the ownership of the images. Permission has been given for the British Government Foreign Office to distribute the photos on Flickr for end user personal use. No commercial use, no syndication rights.
Kind regards ian
- Permission was given to FCDO, but only limited to personal use, no commercial use. I'm afraid that the FCDO marked them with a wrong license. I will also forward this email to VRT. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- For reference, the VRT Ticket number Ticket:2023050710000407 --A1Cafel (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete “No commercial use, no syndication rights” clearly contradicts the requierements of the cc-by licence. Explicit denial from photographer within the ticket correspondence. I see a significant legal risk, hence the images should be deleted quickly. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz, have you checked my VRT? RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: you mean the one you mentioned above, with Ticket:2023050710002254? Yes, I have noticed it. It does not change the issue. We canot live with a permission given by a second party (i.e. UK Government Foreign Office) if the original photographer explicitly denies the permission. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, other editor, specially a VRT member, should send Jones an email. There is also a suggestion, on the other deletion request, about asking FCDO a question on the appropriate channel for such thing, and an eventual answer would be public. All options seem better than having to decide between two emails from different users—Jones told me I should ask UK Government Foreign Office about permissions, and it licensed it under a free license. (It is nevertheless funny to notice how Jones forgot to capitalize his own name on the second email, whose style differs considerably from the one I had receveid.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7 What do expect from Jones? To revoke his own statement that he retains his copyright and denies commercial use? He is a professional, aware of his copyright. His message to you imo sounds like the whole affair is getting on his nerve and he does not want to be bothered any more. I will certainly not be the VRT agent who writes to him again. Greetings, Mussklprozz (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, other editor, specially a VRT member, should send Jones an email. There is also a suggestion, on the other deletion request, about asking FCDO a question on the appropriate channel for such thing, and an eventual answer would be public. All options seem better than having to decide between two emails from different users—Jones told me I should ask UK Government Foreign Office about permissions, and it licensed it under a free license. (It is nevertheless funny to notice how Jones forgot to capitalize his own name on the second email, whose style differs considerably from the one I had receveid.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: you mean the one you mentioned above, with Ticket:2023050710002254? Yes, I have noticed it. It does not change the issue. We canot live with a permission given by a second party (i.e. UK Government Foreign Office) if the original photographer explicitly denies the permission. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz, have you checked my VRT? RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This whole conversation is a bit silly in my opinion. The FCDO clearly hired Jones to photograph the official event. I think it would be silly to assume that the FCDO just invited a freelancer for the heck of it. The second email does not sound legitimate and as a matter of law, if the FCDO is hiring Jones to photograph the event, they are the copyright holders. There is not "significant legal risk" and the FCDO alternates the licenses for its photos on Flickr meaning they likely knew what they were doing when they used this CC license.--Cliffmore (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nope. The copyright holder of a photograph is always the photographer and not the customer, unless otherwise explicitely stated by contract. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not quite. It's not as black and white as you think (lawyer here) but I just want clarity for everyone on how this works. I wasn't calling anyone silly but it's quite obvious that this is FCDO work. This is not the first time this issue has come up where that has been determined. Cliffmore (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Calling the opposing opinion silly does not contribute to the quality of your argument. --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buckingham Palace Reception (5 May 2023) also had the same discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Thanks. Any way to link the two discussions more closely, to exclude the risk of two contradicting admin decisions? Mussklprozz (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: I have added a see also template at the top. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel: Thanks. Any way to link the two discussions more closely, to exclude the risk of two contradicting admin decisions? Mussklprozz (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buckingham Palace Reception (5 May 2023) also had the same discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nope. The copyright holder of a photograph is always the photographer and not the customer, unless otherwise explicitely stated by contract. Mussklprozz (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please see Ticket:2023050910013168. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have added the permission badge to all of the files (and merged all tickets concerning this matter under Ticket:2023050910013168). --Mussklprozz (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators noticeboard#A1Cafel and email from photographer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per email chain in Ticket:2023050910013168. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Photo by Ian Jones, a freelance photographer based in London, not a work from the FCDO, thus the CC license is probably invalid, see also similar cases.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- To be a freelance photographer does not mean much in this context, in my honest opinion, and “probably invalid” much less. For instance, Cambridge definition of the word freelance gives us the example, “Most of the journalists I know work freelance.” It seems to me that what a journalist writes is not legally their copyright property, but rather belongs to the newspaper they work for. Similarly, freelance photographers may not own the copyright property of their photos, as it may belong to the client who hired them.
- In my opinion, it is therefore safe to say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not only hired Jones to take photos of Charles III of the United Kingdom but also compensated him for posting those photos online with the mentioned license. It is worth noting that we are not talking about a random Flickr stream; it is serious business. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this case said that even Governmental organization can perform license landuring. But to be clear, I have send a message to Mr. Jones to confirm the permission. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have done the same thing. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this case said that even Governmental organization can perform license landuring. But to be clear, I have send a message to Mr. Jones to confirm the permission. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for now, message the photographer first and if he says he released the images to the Royal Family or FCDO, then they can release the image under any licences they choose and i prefer it if he replies to the VRT and not to the person who nominated the images for deletion, since due-diligence was not followed in the previous DR, as unlike the previous case, this photographer has not asked for 'accreditation' "for use" thus its not the same as the previous case..--Stemoc 11:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Jones answered my email (I can prove it if possible and necessary):
- Hi
- Please contact UK Government Foreign Office who issued the photos. cc’d
- They will be able to advise on permissions.
- Kind regards
- Ian
- RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- yep, as i figured..just send that email to VRT linking this DR as well... Stemoc 17:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep UK Government routinely use freelance photographers for this kind of job, and contractually retain copyright. Furthermore, the photographer has apparently not disputed this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have also received the email from Mr. Jones
Dear Mr Chung
I own the copyright to the photograph and have not given up the ownership of the images. Permission has been given for the British Government Foreign Office to distribute the photos on Flickr for end user personal use. No commercial use, no syndication rights.
Kind regards ian
- Permission was given to FCDO, but only limited to personal use, no commercial use. I'm afraid that the FCDO marked them with a wrong license. I will also forward this email to VRT. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- and yet I do not believe your version of the story, I will take RodRabelo's email over yours....and lets not pester the photographer anymore as Rod's version of it clearly states the rights now belong to FCDO and they can release it under whatever rights they choose which is what happens when you get paid a LUMPSUM for taking images for someone else for an event.. Stemoc 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- You think I "create" a fake email, that's interesting. For reference, the VRT Ticket number Ticket:2023050710000407--A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- your words not mine lol, you are a deletionist and i have seen a lot of your type on this project for over a decade who will do anything to make themselves feel righteous..hook or by crook ..I explicitly said in my vote that the person who nominated these images should not be the one messaging the photographer and yet you still did it..bad form mate..now its Rod's "e-mail reply" against yours both of which say completely different things, good luck to the admin who takes this one up..which "truth" will you believe?... Stemoc 05:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have just sent the email I received to VRT. Ticket#2023050710002254 RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7. Did you reproduce the email exactly as you received it?
- @A1Cafel. Did you reproduce the email exactly as you received it?
- Assuming both emails are accurately reproduced above:
- Why would Mr. Jones write different names for the same government agency?
- 1. "... UK Government Foreign Office ..."
- 2. "... British Government Foreign Office ..."
- -- Ooligan (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I have, and Jones will be able to confirm that if anyone contacts him.
- https://ibb.co/PrC333X
- https://ibb.co/0f8J14Y
- https://ibb.co/GF8RM7P RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- your words not mine lol, you are a deletionist and i have seen a lot of your type on this project for over a decade who will do anything to make themselves feel righteous..hook or by crook ..I explicitly said in my vote that the person who nominated these images should not be the one messaging the photographer and yet you still did it..bad form mate..now its Rod's "e-mail reply" against yours both of which say completely different things, good luck to the admin who takes this one up..which "truth" will you believe?... Stemoc 05:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- You think I "create" a fake email, that's interesting. For reference, the VRT Ticket number Ticket:2023050710000407--A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- and yet I do not believe your version of the story, I will take RodRabelo's email over yours....and lets not pester the photographer anymore as Rod's version of it clearly states the rights now belong to FCDO and they can release it under whatever rights they choose which is what happens when you get paid a LUMPSUM for taking images for someone else for an event.. Stemoc 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep I agree with what @Pigsonthewing: , @RodRabelo7: and @Stemoc: said, being a freelancer doesn't mean you always own the rights and it's common for the UK government to contractually retain the copyright. Minerva97 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete Photographer's statement within Ticket:2023050710000407 “No commercial use, no syndication rights” clearly contradicts the requierements of the cc-by licence. We must decide following the explicit expression of will by the rights holder, not on assumptions about any agreements about which we have no evidence. --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- That alleged statement contradicts the earlier alleged statement (Ticket:2023050710002254) by the photographer, who deferred to the FCO, who issued these pictures with an open licence. What a mess. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep Images are on the official FCDO flickr with proper open license marking. If there is a licensing issue, it is something restricted between the photographer and his contractor and not with us. To assume that there is a incorrect licensing between them is to question "what is truth" beyond the bounds of reason. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 00:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep I would say keep as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I sent another email to Jones and he replied me. I think this puts and end to all of this. Later I’ll send it to VRT (I’m not home, and dealing with these things through a smartphone is hard.)
- Dear [redacted]
- Thank you for your correspondence regarding my photographs published by The Foreign and Commonwealth Office on their Flickr account.
- For clarification.
- I was commissioned by Buckingham Palace to photograph the Heads of State Reception on Friday 5th May.
- The photographs which are copyright Ian Jones were supplied to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office as requested by Buckingham Palace. The images were supplied with full usage rights, all global territories, all usage, in-perpetuity.
- All photographs were made freely available to the UK Government.
- I do not have any involvement in the UK Government Flickr accounts and cannot comment on the usage and distributions conditions which were placed by the the UK Government. In supplying the images to the Foreign Office I gave them a complete and total Global usage rights license.
- For further clarification, please could I ask you to contact The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (cc’d) as you are referring to a Flickr gallery which they are responsible for and can clarify the usage terms which they have in place.
- This is as much guidance I can offer regarding your enquiry and I hope it answers your questions.
- Kind regards
- Ian
- RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- This was the email I sent him (I think I accidently sent it to VRT before in fact sending to Jones, heh).
- Dear Mr. Jones,
- I would like to begin by offering my sincerest apologies for having to trouble you once again. However, I would appreciate it if you could clarify the legal status of the photographs published by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office’s Flickr account (see this album and this other album).
- The photographs in question are available under the CC BY 2.0 license. This means that they can be used almost unrestrictedly (even for commercial purposes), with only the requirement to give credit to the author (in this case, you). Of course, there are some other legal details to consider, such as personality rights, for example.
- In this regard, I would like to confirm whether you were hired by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office to do this work, so that the rights to the photographs were transferred to this organization. Alternatively, were you invited to the event, and are the photographs entirely your own creation, with the rights to them being, at first, exclusively yours?
- Once again, I apologize for insisting on this matter. I do not mean to trouble you, but it is important to clarify this issue.
- Sincerely,
- RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep Thanks @RodRabelo7 for your effort, and congratulations. That should solves it in deed. Please send this correspondence to VRT, per Ticket#2023050710000407. Then I - or some other VRT agent - can add the permission badges to the file descriptions. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Done Ticket:2023050910013168 RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, Albertoleoncio, DarwIn, Mike Rohsopht, Minerva97, Mussklprozz, Pigsonthewing, Stemoc, and Therealscorp1an: pinging those who have participated in this deletion request. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have added the permission badge to all of the files (and merged all tickets concerning this matter under Ticket:2023050910013168) Mussklprozz (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- and again A1Cafel has been proven as a liar and will do anything to get things deleted here, seriously admins, do your job, his attitude is net-negative and dangerous to this project through his lies and pestering of people her and those that provide images for free.....now I'm questioning all those images he has nominated the last few years and those admins who deleted them without following due-diligence.. Stemoc 06:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have no idea why there is a conflict in two emails, but I definitely email Ian Jones under the VRT ticket Ticket:2023050710000407. Any VRT volunteers can check if you don't believe it, and it is a serious offense to claim me of lying. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, Albertoleoncio, DarwIn, Mike Rohsopht, Minerva97, Mussklprozz, Pigsonthewing, Stemoc, and Therealscorp1an: pinging those who have participated in this deletion request. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators noticeboard#A1Cafel and email from photographer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Per email chain in Ticket:2023050910013168. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of a likely-copyrighted photograph. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of a likely-copyrighted photograph. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously temporarily-displayed and thus not covered by freedom of panorama. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted drawings. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted drawing. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of a likely-copyrighted photograph. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of likely-copyrighted photographs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of likely-copyrighted photographs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of likely-copyrighted photographs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously temporarily-displayed and thus not covered by freedom of panorama. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Created by Michael Bond (1926–2017) and thus not in the public domain. Derivative work of copyrighted drawings. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Even though works of artistic craftsmanship are covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom, this does not seem to be permanently displayed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Even though works of artistic craftsmanship are covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom, this does not seem to be permanently displayed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Michael Bond died in 2017, so Paddington Bear is not in the public domain. Derivative work of a copyrighted character. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted image. Not covered by freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivate work of copyrighted images. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a photograph likely to be copyrighted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a photograph likely to be copyrighted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurry image, unlikely to be useful. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a possibly-copyrighted imagine, per COM:PCP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images
[edit]These files are marked as "all rights reserved" on Flickr, but the photos should be {{PD-Art}} (except possibly for the frames). The question is then only the copyright of the underlying paintings. Reading the messy article w:Sardine & Tobleroni, it seems that the artists are still alive, making the images unfree.
Stefan4 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Files in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images
The Flickr user does not seem to be the copyright holder. Additionally, the files are listed as unfree on Flickr.
Stefan4 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly Delete, copyright violations ruin everything --Saviour1981 (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images
[edit]Derivative of work that has a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) license, incompatible with Commons.
Ytoyoda (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. --Sealle (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images
[edit]These are listed as "all rights reserved" on Flickr, but the Commons uploader claims to be the copyright holder. If the Commons uploader owns the Flickr account, then I suggest that he either changes the licence on Flickr to a free licence (such as {{Cc-zero}} as on Commons) or follows the instructions at w:WP:IOWN.
Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Files posted to Flickr by Randolph Black
[edit]These 102 files were uploaded to Flickr by Randolph Black prior to January 2021. They currently read "all rights reserved", but, for each of these photos, that was not always the case. Looking at the license history for each photo, these had all been previously uploaded under the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 before the user revoked that mark and changed the label to all rights reserved in 2021. In May 2023, these were all tagged by A1Cafel for license review, which came back as "failed license review" because the bot checks only the license on the images at the time of the review, but the previous mark complicates things. I've posted previously on the copyright village pump, but I only received one response. Previous community discussion that led to the affirmation of {{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} doesn't seem to have intensely discussed whether or not this public domain mark is (ir)revocable, so I want to bring these files up for community discussion rather than either simply remove the speedy tag on all of these as clearly OK or simply delete all of these as clearly not OK to have on Commons.
- File:Adamite r002 (36188455994).jpg
- File:Adamite r003 (36835759636).jpg
- File:Amethyst 0110x (24659805717).jpg
- File:Amphibole var Hornblende 01 10x (27828886009).jpg
- File:Andesite 01 10x (38760554815).jpg
- File:Anthracite Coal 01 10x (38960276634).jpg
- File:Apatite 01 (39387641762).jpg
- File:Aragonite 01 (38709602084).jpg
- File:Arkose 01 10x (38960269444).jpg
- File:Azurite 01 (38709594494).jpg
- File:Barite 01 (39387618402).jpg
- File:Basalt 01 10x (25785496958).jpg
- File:Bauxite 01 (38709592564).jpg
- File:Beryl 01 (27640579649).jpg
- File:Bituminous Coal 01 10x (24800381637).jpg
- File:Breccia 01 10x (38771994985).jpg
- File:Calcite 01 (27640575159).jpg
- File:Celestite 01 (39417640681).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 01 10x (27640566949).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 01 25x (24569521887).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 01 40x (27658570939).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 02 10x (24699497767).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 02 20x (39537328582).jpg
- File:Chalcopyrite 02 35x (24699485147).jpg
- File:Chalk 01 10x (27890898319).jpg
- File:Chert 01 10x (38771990585).jpg
- File:Conglomerate 01 10x (27890711949).jpg
- File:Copper 01 (27640561599).jpg
- File:Coquina 01 10x (39638698042).jpg
- File:Corundum 10x (25697319188).jpg
- File:Crocoite on Goethite r001 (36835767036).jpg
- File:Crocoite on Goethite r004 (36188449804).jpg
- File:Crocoite on Goethite r005 (36188445424).jpg
- File:Diatomite 01 10x (27890912589).jpg
- File:Diorite 01 10x (27879456709).jpg
- File:Dolomite 01 10x (24800504967).jpg
- File:Dolomite 10x (25697311428).jpg
- File:Epidote 10x (39537975912).jpg
- File:Feldspar var Microcline 01 10x (27808836979).jpg
- File:Fluorite 01 10x (38689611335).jpg
- File:Fossiliferous Limestone 01 10x (38772120595).jpg
- File:Gabbro 01 10x (39627405202).jpg
- File:Galena 01 10x (39585277441).jpg
- File:Garnet-mica Schist 01 10x (25785512598).jpg
- File:Geothite 01 10x (38689600985).jpg
- File:Gneiss 01 10x (39617697201).jpg
- File:Granite 01 10x (39627399402).jpg
- File:Granite 01 25x (27879448259).jpg
- File:Graphite 01 10x (39585268001).jpg
- File:Gypsum var Alabaster 01 10x (39585261351).jpg
- File:Gypsum var Satin Spar 01 10x (39585257941).jpg
- File:Gypsum var Selenite 01 10x (25730738078).jpg
- File:Halite 01 10x (38893026044).jpg
- File:Hematite 01 10x (25730727838).jpg
- File:Kaolin 01 10x (27828878529).jpg
- File:Lepidolite 01 10x (39576790652).jpg
- File:Limestone 01 10x (25797425298).jpg
- File:Magnetite 01 10x (39576785452).jpg
- File:Malachite 01 10x (27751434159).jpg
- File:Malachite 01 30x (39527836241).jpg
- File:Malachite 01 40x (27751430799).jpg
- File:Malachite 03 10x (38897877974).jpg
- File:Marble 01 10x (39617691701).jpg
- File:Mica Schist 01 10x (25785506398).jpg
- File:Mica var Biotite 01 (39417644811).jpg
- File:Mica var Muscovite 01 10x (38897871414).jpg
- File:Obsidian 01 10x (39658228821).jpg
- File:Olivine 01 10x (38897865194).jpg
- File:Oolitic Limestone 01 10x (25797412728).jpg
- File:Oolitic Limestone 01 25x (38772110325).jpg
- File:Opal 01 10x (25735474408).jpg
- File:Pegmatite 01 15x (39658225611).jpg
- File:Pegmatite r006 (37024004355).jpg
- File:Phylite 01 10x (39617687121).jpg
- File:Pumice 01 10x (39669405931).jpg
- File:Pyrite 03 10x (38897851704).jpg
- File:Pyroxene var Augite 01 (39387632832).jpg
- File:Quartz var Amethyst 01 10x (27828839269).jpg
- File:Quartz var Chalcedony 01 10x (27828833069).jpg
- File:Quartz var Chrysoprase 01 10x (39588029562).jpg
- File:Quartz var Crystal 01 10x (25746485088).jpg
- File:Quartz var Jasper 01 10x (39588023032).jpg
- File:Quartz var Milky 01 10x (39588019452).jpg
- File:Quartz var Rose 01 10x (39588015162).jpg
- File:Quartzite 01 10x (27840457419).jpg
- File:Rhodonite 01 10x (38909443254).jpg
- File:Rhyolite 01 10x (39669396151).jpg
- File:Sandstone 01 10x (27890851649).jpg
- File:Scoria 01 10x (39669390031).jpg
- File:Shale 01 10x (39669903991).jpg
- File:Slate 01 10x (38760564895).jpg
- File:Sodalite 01 10x (24749330467).jpg
- File:Sphalerite 01 10x (38721271245).jpg
- File:Spodumene 01 10x (24749333557).jpg
- File:Staurolite 01 10x (24749321417).jpg
- File:Sulfur 01 10x (39617721511).jpg
- File:Talc 01 10x (25746722478).jpg
- File:Topaz 01 10x (25746718698).jpg
- File:Tourmaline 01 10x (25746714948).jpg
- File:Travertine 01 10x (27890859209).jpg
- File:Tremolite 01 10x (25746708778).jpg
- File:Ulexite 01 10x (27840469989).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- If a concrete example would be more helpful in understanding the situation: let's use File:Amphibole var Hornblende 01 10x (27828886009).jpg as an example (Flickr link). On January 10, 2018 at 10:10:20 PM EST, according to the license history, the uploader changed the license from "all rights reserved" to "public domain work". The image was uploaded to Commons by Meisam on 22 June 2018. However, on January 24, 2021 at 6:24:10 PM EST, the uploader changed the license on the file back from "public domain work" to "all rights reserved". Was this revocation of the labeling of this file as a "public domain work" valid? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's revocable. At least in the United States, the PD declaration by Carol Highsmith was pretty final in the lawsuit she filed, and lost. If you don't specify revocable in a license, there is some argument, but if there was any consideration involved I think it's generally considered irrevocable. And in this case, it's a waiver of rights which is a more substantial step. Whether we want to respect the license change, not as sure, but sounds like it was two or three years left that way. Granted the treatment of this sort of thing may differ depending on country, which is why CC0 is a license as a fallback, so I can understand some differing opinions. But in places which allow you to waive the economic right, my guess is that it's not revocable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all. My experience is that Commons considers such declarations irrevocable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Recent unfree Flickr images
[edit]Not freely licensed, and {{PD-Guatemala-exempt}} does not seem to apply.
- File:Declarations from President Colom regarding the Rosenberg case - 12 January 2010.jpg
- File:Garifuna people.jpg
- File:Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales and Mrs. Marroquín Morales during Inauguration Day - 2016Jan14.jpg
- File:Guatemalan students - 21 February 2011.jpg
- File:President Colom with Mexican president Felipe Calderón.jpg
- File:President Álvaro Colom and Vice President Rafael Espada - 13 August 2009.jpg
- File:President Álvaro Colom with Chilean president Michelle Bachelet - 28 September 2009 (a).jpg
- File:President Álvaro Colom with Chilean president Michelle Bachelet - 28 September 2009 (b).jpg
- File:President Álvaro Colom with Jacobo Árbenz Vilanova.jpg
- File:President Álvaro Colom with Pope Benedict XVI.jpg
- File:Presidente Álvaro Colom - Rosa de la Paz.jpg
- File:Roberto Alcalde Rodriguez.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Marcus Cyron. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Some works in this volume are by British authors, and copyright in those works has not yet expired. Before file is deleted it should be localised to English Wikisource, as the 1916 publication date means it could be PD-US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep If appears to have been published in the USA and in UK according to the copyright page. US copyright law gives precedence to US as the copyright jurisdiction for simultaneous publication. --RAN (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: the "source country" in this case is the USA. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Xover as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: First published in the UK in 1916, and not published in the US until November 1919. As such any still non-expired pma. 70 copyrights in the UK makes this ineligible for hosting on Commons. A list of vitals for the included authors can be found on https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index_talk:Soldier_poets,_songs_of_the_fighting_men,_1916.djvu and includes at least one that lived until 1973.
It would appear the UK copyright takes precedence here. Converting to DR for easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Necesitamos permiso del fotógrafo. 186.172.184.223 20:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- please, just mark it with "permission needed". not nominate it for deletion. since it can take for months, this is the less time consuming and legal way to do it. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
copy vio, television poster Wiki Farazi (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See <https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21841200/mediaviewer/rm287194113/>. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The file is (admittedly) based off of this image. While the two images are indeed not identical, the png on which this svg is based appears to be non-free: Canada's government does not release its works into the public domain and the source website's terms of use explicitly state that Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the copyright administrator. As such, this is a close two-dimensional derivative work of a copyrighted two-dimensional artwork lacks evidence of a free license, and this file should be deleted as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- This file is in the public domain, it is for informational purposes and it is not intended to be commercialized, the author is the Canadian Heraldic Authority.
- If there is something missing, please let me know and I will change it as soon as possible.
- If on the other hand there is no other option but to delete it, then I support the deletion of this archive. Amartin2671 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Works from the Canadian Heraldic Authority are not in the public domain, and heraldic elements made by them for the state would normally have a Crown copyright. Provide a source stating that this item has been released in the public domain. Leventio (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 18:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Works by Adele Renault
[edit]- File:2021 Birds of Paradise.jpg
- File:2023 Bananas 1.jpg
- File:2023 Bananas 2.jpg
- File:2022 Installation view.jpg
Non-free content, derivative works, out of bounds of FoP. All images contain copyrighted painting or murals by Adele Renault, photographed in the United States and Belgium at temporary exhibitions. --19h00s (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; (remark: artist still living). --Wdwd (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It is my old artwork. I want to upload my new ongoing paintings so want to remove my old artworks. Gretchenandrew (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
It is my old artwork and I want it to be deleted please. Gretchenandrew (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: the artist has articles about them in Wikipedia in 6 languages, so clearly in project scope; far too late to request deletion for courtesy only with no other reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Commons is not for PDFs of original research. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This image seems to be a cropped version of one which appeared in this interview in them.us in 2021, where it is credited to Pvssyheaven. I am not completely sure that it should be taken down, but it does seem like this image may have been uploaded by someone other than the original photographer, though the uploader gave the source as "own work." LemonOrangeLime (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Author: Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (SPRF) per metadata, permission required. ПокровскийМ (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Author: Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation (SPRF) per metadata, permission required. ПокровскийМ (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
"Added company logo from company press kit", NON Commercial free use Jbergner (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Painter Dimitrios Pelekasis died in 1973, so the painting will be in public domain in 2044. C messier (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, but if this photo was taken in 1969, it isn't in public domain, as the copyright term duration in Greece is 70 years. C messier (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File from the internet, not own work Leokand (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Found online and unlikely to be own work. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The poster needs to be available with a compatible license, but there is no proof of it, and thus this derivative work has to be deleted. Also, no freedom of panorama in Greece. C messier (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bonitopedro (talk · contribs)
[edit]PNG-format images. I suspect these are not self-photographed images of the uploader.
- File:Marilaque Highway Street Sign.png
- File:TFDP, FLAG, ABC, and KAAKBAY.png – author field claims "Danilo Gallerdo", which is linked to Bonitopedro's user page.
- File:Gen. Manuel T. Yan.png – author field claims "Pedro Raymundo", which is linked to Bonitopedro's user page. Does Bonitopedro have two real-life names? Doubtful identity, only scammers do this (having two personal names with no valid reasons), COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle rolls in. Plus there is a background image of a scenery that makes it a COM:Derivative work.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. File:TFDP, FLAG, ABC, and KAAKBAY.png had its souce and author changed, but I could not find it on the stated source website - fails COM:LR. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bonitopedro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Blurry png images. I suspect these are not self-photographed images of the uploader unless he uploads original versions/resolutions of images with complete Exif metadata for verification purposes.
- File:Eulogio Rodriguez's Tomb (Puntod ni Sen. Amang Rodriguez at and Kanyang Asawang si Doña Juana Rodriguez).png
- File:Amang's childhood portrait.png
- File:Amang Rodriguez's First Floor.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
copyvio from https://gloriagallery.net/johannes-van-vught Hoyanova (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- This picture was taken from the site of Johannes van Vugt himself: https://www.johannesvanvugt.nl/
- I was at an art event and could not find a wiki entry, so i decided to make one.
- I can email him for permission? 2A02:A210:A44:6E01:8DCD:4D08:5E6E:4FA 11:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: failed COM:LR and not notable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright Baptiste Fernandez/Icon Sport Remy34 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
15 KB, WhatsApp? 186.172.199.43 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: too poor quality to be useful, and likely screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio: According to this website, this is a photo by Martin Kroll and not by Christoph Glatz. 2003:C0:8F42:1C00:B581:B71F:B691:570C 11:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
OOS personal image uploaded by a non-contributor. Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possibly, this is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:DW and COM:PCP. It is possibly a copyrighted image. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete As the image description notes, this was during a solo flight. I.e., Mack Rutherford was alone in the cockpit. Unless the uploader is Mack Rutherford themselves, they don't hold copyright to the image. Rather, Mack Rutherford does. Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Likely above the threshold of originality. Especially since copyright protection for logos in Iran is very low. Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
nl:Pararius is 4 times deleted. Probably the company is not notable and its logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
At least from what I can tell there's no way to know exactly what this is a logo for and it was uploaded by non-contributor from Facebook anyway. So it be deleted as OOS unless someone can figure out exactly what it's a logo of. Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Not the uploaders own work since it comes from hereand it's likely above the threshold of originality for Mexico in the meantime. Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted since it's a screenshot of a commercial website. Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This clearly isn't the uploaders own work since it can be found others places on the web, including the teams website, and the image isn't below the threshold of originality either. So it should be deleted as COPYVIO. The same goes for the following images that were uploaded by the same user and clearly aren't their own work:
- File:Martinez Sturgeon Cap Logo.jpg
- File:Austin Weirdos Logo.png
- File:Dublin Leprechauns Cap Logo.png
- File:33thread.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maxime PPPPerr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. The filename "Capture d'écran" ("screenshot" in French) of the PNG is already an indication. The JPG file is essentially the same picture. The image seems to have been made by photographer Pierre Gauttiniaux. A cropped version is visible on https://www.humanite.fr/en-debat/dette/eric-toussaint-la-dette-une-arme-de-domination-politique-depuis-deux-siecles-649784.
Henxter (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Person on the picture is not the author. Copyvio Masti (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of focus, not useful Mhohner (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/world-59568025 images from BBC
- File:121787947 activist-nc.png.webp
- File:121787959 midwife-nc.png.webp
- File:121787965 tabla player-nc.png.webp
- File:121893662 h sad-removebg-nc.png
Uncitoyen (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Si es trabajo propio pq lleva un sello? 186.172.51.176 15:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Likely taken from city website judging by watermark. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Si es trabajo propio pq lleva un sello? 186.172.51.176 15:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Likely taken from city website judging by watermark. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Si es trabajo propio pq lleva un sello? 186.172.51.176 15:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Likely taken from city website judging by watermark. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Si es trabajo propio pq lleva un sello? 186.172.51.176 15:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Likely taken from city website judging by watermark. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Si es trabajo propio pq lleva un sello? 186.172.51.176 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Likely taken from city website judging by watermark. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work (F5). --Karim talk to me :)..! 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Historical photo, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Violation des droits d'auteur à mon avis Arn6338 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Violation des droits d'auteur à mon avis Arn6338 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
All of the texts that are presented here are under copyrights, despite their public display. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, all texts appear to be made by authors who are not yet dead for more than 70 years. No FOP in Greece. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious copyvio: Opera poster. 2003:C0:8F42:1C00:9163:FFD7:7354:D6F2 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Quién es este lolo? 191.126.60.89 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Seemed to pre-exist upload here; seems to have been from property listings, such as https://lid.zoocdn.com/645/430/c453d8c5160079f82079c5bc4d6a24c3ed9db62d.jpg or https://www.loopnet.co.uk/Listing/The-Promenade-Dunfermline/12836641/. Would need the copyright owner to contact COM:VRT. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
no permission see metadata - Author hylke greidanus photography Copyright holder hylke greidanus Hoyanova (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Map is speculative, what does "support" mean here exactly and which source determines the countries? HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyright? A much higher resolution (2700x1800) image can be found here. Wouter (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per sostituirlo con la stessa foto, tagliata diversamente Giuseppe Guida (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is useless without categories or a description. It is obviously not own work as claimed and is probably under copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Feysbukk 186.172.184.223 20:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition, at just 48 pixels wide the subject is entirely unidentifiable, and therefore the image is useless. Marbletan (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Marbletan. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Increíble huella? Quién lo dice? El mismo! Ja ja... 186.172.184.223 20:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- siempre hay que estar seguro de quien eres. gracias igual borre eso porque es mejor! voy aprendiendo Tony.musica (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This is my photograph and I do not want it published. 2603:7000:4D40:2B82:F1F7:34AA:8FF4:FFBA 20:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is my photograph and I do not want it published. 2603:7000:4D40:2B82:F1F7:34AA:8FF4:FFBA 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC) 2603:7000:4D40:2B82:F1F7:34AA:8FF4:FFBA 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Uploaded in 1019. "I don't like it any longer" is no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Es trabajo propio de una persona que subió un solo archivo? Lo dudo. 186.172.184.223 20:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Published on Facebook prior to Commons upload: [4], doubtful ownership claim Gyrostat (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
photo of non-contributor? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Applodion as Copyvio (Screenshot) and the most recent rationale was: As seen by the logos on the image, the photo was made by IS members who would hold the copyright. No indication that the photo was released into creative commons. Per the uploader's talk page, some ISIS videos were released under a free license, but the uploader was going to go and fix the listed author. Was this one of those videos, Hatab Khurasani? If so, can you provide a direct link? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- If the uploader can provide proof that the image was released under a free license, of course I would support keeping it. Applodion (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader has admitted on their talk page there is no free license or statement of license policy, only a general desire ISIS has to have their content distributed. Looking at this user's history, I have decided to open a discussion at AN/U. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Permalink:[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_105#User%3AHatab_Khurasani_uploading_copyvio_Islamic_State_propaganda]. DMacks (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité
[edit]Published between 1932 and 1995, so not yet in the public domain.
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité - Tables Générales.pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 01 (A-B).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 02.1 (Ca-Com).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 02.2 (Com-Cy).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 03 (D).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 04.1 (E-Esc).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 04.2 (Esp-Ez).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 05 (F).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 06 (G).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 07.1 (H).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 07.2 (I).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 08 (J-K).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 09 (L).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 10 (M).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 11 (N-O).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 12.1 (Pa-Ph).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 12.2 (Pi-Q).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 13 (R).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 14 (S).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 15 (T).pdf
- File:Dictionnaire de Spiritualité tome 16 (U-Z).pdf
Yann (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, [6]. --Rosenzweig τ 15:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Not available under a free license. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not yet able to clarify on license. Minhyh0987 (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Obvious amator.Best alternatives. Commons isn't a porn blog : COM:NUDE. ~ FAP (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion request (COM:PORN). Together with the others edits from this user i assume vandalism. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not in project scope, adds nothing distinct from images held of a similar nature.. BarkingFish (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- with respect, " Not in use, not in project scope, adds nothing distinct from images held of a similar nature" is not quite a valid rationale for deletion. i.) "not in use" certainly isn't an arguement for removal; even if "in use" would be an arguement for keep. commons is a media repository, we don't just serve as a "storage facility" for in-use materials. if that was common's only purpose, it wouldn't be worth running "commons" as an independent "project". ii.) sexual material is in scope. iii.) "adds nothing distinct from images held of a similar nature" is quoted from policy/guidelines, BUT by itself it is not a sufficient rationale to delete anything; taken in context, it is one of SEVERAL conditions that would have to be met, to possibly justify a deletion. if it were a valid rationale, by itself, HALF of the material on commons would be scrapped. Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Self-shot amateur picture. Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "not censored"; nominator is engaged in mass deletion of sexual content, including longstanding items, without regard for commons policy. rationales given for deletion are cut & paste repeats, with no consideration of the individual merits of the files; deletion rationales also show a lack of understanding/misunderstanding of relevant commons policies Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Useless self-shot. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom and others. @lx: aw. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Amateur and better alternatives are not reasons to delete. Commons is not a porn blog? I accept that, but have you tried watching new uploads to see how pathetically small the # of sex images is? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete hard to believe there was a time when the original keep rationale wouldn’t be laughable Dronebogus (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 23:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality and unused animation of ejaculation, can be replaced A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN Dronebogus (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Kadı Message 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Unclear original source of YouTube video Champion (Talk) 02:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete As you can observe by looking at the uploaders talk (User talk:Vichycombo), they seem to have difficulty understanding that just because they can find anthems on YouTube doesn't make them usable here. Tor this file it's self: 1) There isn't any indication that the added {{PD-Italy}} applies to the recording; 2) Neither of the YouTube links have the CC licences claimed here; They is no way that either the "Swiss Gaurd." or "Fictional Flags" YouTube channel are the copyright holders anyway. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anarchyte as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.umovefree.com/. This appears to be under COM:TOO USA, but it is only used in a (declined) EnWiki draft, so I'm unsure about whether it's within COM:SCOPE as being legitimately used or educationally valuable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hjart as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copied from https://trycklagret.se/products/dekal-leif-billy . Not "own work". TOO? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not PD as claimed - Renewal RE0000186779 - Covers one of the items in this issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also - RE0000169476 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging this up. I had been working from what seemed like a very thorough listing of renewals for this magazine at wikisource:en:Analog Science Fiction and Fact#Copyright, and no content from this issue was included in that list.
- As the issue itself was not renewed, most of the content is in public domain, and I would request that after removing the content still in copyright (which I'll do today), we keep the file, and revdel the previous versions of the file.
- This is similar to File:Amazing Stories Volume 15 Number 10.djvu and File:Amazing Stories Volume 16 Number 11.djvu, which again were uploaded in good faith after checking copyrights, but after finding they had a copyrighted article, I uploaded new versions redacting the renewed material, and listed them at wikisource:en:Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Amazing Stories v15n10 and v16n11 requesting any copyrighted versions be revdeled (no replies yet).
- @ShakespeareFan00: Can I ask whether you've come across any other renewals for this magazine (or others?) that aren't listed on their relevant Wikisource pages? If you could let me know, I wouldn't mind helping to add some there, to try to reduce the possibility of this happening again. ‑‑YodinT 10:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- This one issue was a chance discovery, I was not doing a systemic evaluation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've found this page has been created since I uploaded this issue. It shows that unfortunately all the fiction stories in this issue have been renewed (and so are in copyright until 2050). There are some non-fiction articles, but not enough to make me want to redact the rest of the issue. So unless anyone else wants to remove the copyrighted stories, I would support ShakespeareFan00's proposal to delete. ‑‑YodinT 19:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- This one issue was a chance discovery, I was not doing a systemic evaluation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from internet without free licence Ориенталист (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Widely used on the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Widely used on the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from internet without free licence Ориенталист (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from internet without free licence Ориенталист (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep meets PD-Russia. --RAN (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No evidence to be own work. Taken from the internet Ориенталист (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as emblem--Albedo (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of a free license. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Sean Carberry was NPR correspondent, no proof that this photograph is freely licensed HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The map is completely wrong. The represented data are completely invented, and the problem has been reported on the talk page since 2009. Yet, the map has been around and used on Wikipedia for 14 years! It's time to delete it. 37.161.246.233 19:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS. According to the talk page, the map was even created and "uploaded by a banned troll" (cit. user Dbachmann).--37.161.246.233 19:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- In this case, the INUSE policy should not be relevant at all. The map is a fake created by a troll, and it should be deleted forthwith notwithstanding its use in some Wikipedia articles, to which users likely added it unaware that it is fake.--37.161.150.84 13:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Question Where do you see an exception to "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough."? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- That rule is faulty, as it presupposes that a medium is "automatically useful for an educational purpose" if it is already in use on a Wikipedia article, which is not always the case, given that people may have been misled to think that the medium is good when it is not. The map in question is patently fake and created by a troll. Would you apply that rule to keep a map that shows that Africa is Europe, Europe is Africa, America is Asia and Asia in America if such a map were in use on any Wikipedia article? 37.160.5.194 10:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Would I is not the question. The rule doesn't have exceptions for inaccuracy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the policy is crap if it can’t prevent the spread of misinformation. Ignore it and delete. Dronebogus (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm surprised you're trying to make such an argument in a deletion requests thread. You have been here long enough to know that changes in policy need to be proposed on the appropriate talk pages. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: It's in use. If it's incorrect, take that up with the projects where it's in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work but too old. KEEP. 186.174.218.129 22:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. --RAN (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as Valid Samanthaterry3433 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately no freedom of panorama in Mauritius. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep we need some ethnic diversity here. Dronebogus (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, totally hideous in every possible way, including angle. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep due to diversity, and indeed the "dick" is thick, but hideous surely not. --Ras67 (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & "teenboy" implies some age risk. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Extremly low quality self-shot without surplus for the respective Category:Videos of ejaculation Elya (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:PORN We delete images which do not contribute anything to already existing collection. This is the only video of a male ejaculating completely without any manual stimulation of the penis. Thus by definition it contributes something. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the only other video we seem to have of ejaculation without manual stimulation is File:Nipple massage 2.ogv, which focusses more on the nipples than the penis. I agree it's a small video, but I think it's a useful one. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, quite unique and educational. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Although ejaculation is in scope, this animation is in poor quality and unused, plus the original version had watermark like "URL VIDEO CONVERTER" and "http://XXXXXXXXX.com", which means that this may be taken from a porn site, rather than own work A1Cafel (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete likely copyvio Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, unvalid rationale as I cannot read anything written in the original version of the file. Ejaculation without hands is in scope. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
VANDALISM! Mihai Popa Message me! 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Sutton, Surrey, Greater London - Erykah Badu mural street art Wellesley Road, Sutton - Flickr - tonymonblat.jpg
[edit]
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & also clearly labeled "C" in the metadata with different info than Flickr, so it was a problem at the Flickr upload time not ours. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
And also
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1971. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor Георгій Басюк. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not in use and looks more like a mural due to the respect of space of the paint, and that each panel is signed. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:GRAFFITI Oxyman (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is illegal graffiti rather than a mural? I don't think we can deny the artist's copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is a mural rather than a illegal graffiti? A public mural would be recorded and have it's details published which would be easy for you to point to as proof, yet you have not done so. In this case the artwork has encroached onto the street name sign in a manner quite unlike an approved artworkOxyman (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Commissioned artworks, see https://londoncallingblog.net/2017/10/03/new-plim-street-art-in-camden-town/. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:GRAFFITI Oxyman (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is illegal graffiti rather than a mural? I don't think we can deny the artist's copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is a mural rather than a illegal graffiti? A public mural would be recorded and have it's details published which would be easy for you to point to as proof, yet you have not done so. The overlap onto the drainpipe does not make this look like a professionals work Oxyman (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Commissioned artwork, see http://jenikya.com/blog/2017/01/dont-frets-mural-hog-butcher-t.html. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:GRAFFITI Oxyman (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is illegal graffiti rather than a mural? I don't think we can deny the artist's copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is a mural rather than a illegal graffiti? A public mural would be recorded and have it's details published which would be easy for you to point to as proof, yet you have not done so. Oxyman (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know this is illegal graffiti rather than a mural? I don't think we can deny the artist's copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Obviously art, limited to front of store with name of store and artwork. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of [Flag of Moskitia.webp] ActiveWindows (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sungodtemple as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Blood splat is pretty complex Kadı Message 11:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:HD 40307
[edit]Corrupted files. Normal version here
Юрий Д.К 11:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you sure that these are corrupted? The 2nd one shows fine on my browser, but the 1st one may be just too large (365 MB!) to show the preview properly... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @P199: I've uploaded File:HD 40307 test.jpg, do you see these 3 files as in the screenshot? P.S. We have files well above 365 MB and they looks properly (as scaled-down versions in their sources) Юрий Д.К 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, not the same. File:HD 40307g 39x27 CMYK-1.tif doesn't load for me (likely too large, times out), and File:JPL Visions of the Future, HD 40307g.tiff shows "normal" on my screen. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @P199: I've uploaded File:HD 40307 test.jpg, do you see these 3 files as in the screenshot? P.S. We have files well above 365 MB and they looks properly (as scaled-down versions in their sources) Юрий Д.К 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Complex book covers can be in Commons only with VRT-permission from copyright holder (cover artist?). Taivo (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Taivo, thank you for the attention to this photo, but the cover artist has no problems or claims concerning it. Copytron (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- That case maybe he can send VRT-permission, which proves, that he has no claims. Taivo (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Taivo, rights owner have sent VRT-permission, which proves, that he has no claims. He did this in July. This is why the picture was recreated. There is completely no need to delete it again. Could you be so kind to undo this.--Copytron (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- That case maybe he can send VRT-permission, which proves, that he has no claims. Taivo (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Restored per ticket permission. --Krd 11:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Likely above the threshold of originality. Adamant1 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. You can consult COM:Chile. Seems like Chile has quite low threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted since the threshold of originality in Hong Kong is extremely low. Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation of https://web.archive.org/web/20200328004511/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Cyprus-_Official_Depiction.svg 24.12.3.153 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by LifetimeWiki as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: copyright source.. Uploaded originally as a work of the Government of India, but only a direct link to an IP was given. Can anyone find the original webpage/licensing conditions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. "All copyrights are reserved with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat." See 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
DSS is copyrightː https://archive.stsci.edu/dss/acknowledging.html Lithopsian (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Lithopsian. --C messier (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
1970s or 1980s photograph. Too young to be public domain in Singapore which requires this which was probably created before 1987, to have been created in 1952 to be public domain, which it is clearly not. For Malaysia, this would have had to be both anonymous and published before 1973 to be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
How do you know, that the photographer is 70 years dead? For 1921 photos this is not obvious. Also the license claims publication before 1928 – how do you know that? Taivo (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The correct license would be PD-Azerbaijan. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ziya Gökalp was born in Turkey, died in Turkey and was father of Turkish nationalism. Why would PD-Azerbaijan apply? Taivo (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ooops: PD-Turkey --RAN (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I believe I need to repeat my other comment. Keep First of all, how do you know they aren't? This photograph was taken in Malta exile and anonymous since, as it can be seen from the copy, bears no insignia of photographer.
Secondly, you say that how you can prove that this was used before 1928. 1928-9 was the period of Turkish language-alphabet reform, thus it would have been rather hard for detect to some random photograph. However, this is one the most famous portraits of him, and, as it can be seen from the publication Resimli Ay, was published as late as 1924, the year of his death. (Tashrin-i Sânî ["Second Tashrin", November] 1924)
Questioning things is a good habit, but I believe requires few conditions: 1) Having a base to build your views over it. 2) Not being rude, and using a logical but courteous language. Your type of questioning lacks from both. Maybe next time you may consider doing some research before questioning and requesting a deletion offer. Especially considering that it's related with Turkey and Turkish, with a language and literature even to a degree unknown to foreign language studies. Beyaz Deriili (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)- Anonymous works can't use the license that is post mortem. There are licenses that cover anonymous works. --RAN (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This image is used on the cover of Competing Ideologies in the Late Ottoman Empire and Early Turkish Republic, and the publisher (Bloomsbury) credits the photo to "Historic Collection / Alamy Stock Photo". Alamy Stock clearly lists the photo as being a historic image in the public domain. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept, given that we have 1924 publication and that Alamy claims the photo be out of copyright, I withdraw the request. Taivo (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Красный библиотекарь (журнал)
[edit]- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 1.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 2-3.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 1.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 10-11.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 12.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 2-3.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 4-5.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 6.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 7.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 8.pdf
- File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1924, № 9.pdf
Editorial board of newspaper or journal/magazine, as corporate person, has corporate authorship copyrights (copyright of initial author) for composing of works included in issue only.
The initial copyrights for works included in issue have belonged to their real authors - natural persons, and these copyrights are expiring 50/70/74 years after author dearth (p.1-2 of {{PD-Russia}}). Alex Spade (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is the name of the author, so I can find a death date? If it was published "anonymously or under a pseudonym", it is public domain. --RAN (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The names of author are in table of contents. For example, for File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 1.pdf table is on page 130 of pdf, for File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 2-3.pdf it is on pages 207-208.
For example for 1923-#1, Н. Крупская (1869-1939), one of the editors-in-chief М. Сушкова (1893-1986), А. Покровский (1879–1942)[7]. Alex Spade (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- The names of author are in table of contents. For example, for File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 1.pdf table is on page 130 of pdf, for File:Красный библиотекарь (журнал), 1923, № 2-3.pdf it is on pages 207-208.
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This template was created for discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Battleship Potemkin for keeping of pre-1929 Russian/Soviet films. It was based on Minkult's and Rosarkhiv's opinions.
The further investigations (Alpha-StudioFilms, Alpha-AmateurFilms, Beta-AnyFilms, Final) have shown, that opinions are not based on copyright term for corporate authorship, but they based on old Soviet copyright term for any film.
The confusion was in that most of the studio films 1929-1943 are in PD due to both copyright term for corporate authorship and old copyright term for any film.
So, any old pre-1943 films is new point 3.a of updated {{PD-Russia}}/{{PD-Russia-1996}} (see also ru:Шаблон:PD-Russia/doc#Справка-Срок действия авторских прав на старые фильмы), and known cases of corporate authorship (checked in court practice) are new points 3.b and 4 (see also ru:Шаблон:PD-Russia/doc#Справка-Авторские права юридических лиц). Alex Spade (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Alex Spade: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-Soviet Russia-corporate authorship shows that the template is transcluded on a few files still. Please replace as appropriate and ping me when done. Thanks. —holly {chat} 20:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Done. One is File:Ivan Nagoy.jpg marked as copyvio now, and all others are on Commons:Deletion requests/Красный библиотекарь (журнал). Alex Spade (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Alex Spade: OK, I think we will wait for that DR to be resolved before taking action on this one. —holly {chat} 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Relocated this DR to the list dated May 6, as it is not useful to keep it included in the December 2022 list. Ellywa (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Last remaining files with template were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Красный библиотекарь (журнал). Alex Spade (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Alex Spade: OK, I think we will wait for that DR to be resolved before taking action on this one. —holly {chat} 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Done. One is File:Ivan Nagoy.jpg marked as copyvio now, and all others are on Commons:Deletion requests/Красный библиотекарь (журнал). Alex Spade (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 23:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Questionable own work claim, low quality file without metadata HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 93.149.132.242 as Copyvio (copyvio). I can't find evidence that this was previously published online, and the image has some plausible metadata, so it seems like a reasonable own work claim. Bringing it here for broader discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am the one who took the picture. I have removed all personally identifiable metadata for my own privacy. I have no idea why it is tagged by Copyvio. Please let me know of any information that is needed. RuatfelaChhangte (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I have analyzed on Copyvio myself and it does not have my work in its entry at all. Regardless, it IS my own work that I have taken from my own phone. Let me know if I need to take any further action. RuatfelaChhangte (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 22:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 93.149.132.242 as Copyvio (copyvio). I can't find evidence that this was previously published online, and the image has plausible metadata. This seems like it is reasonably the uploader's own work, so I'm bringing it here for broader discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I have commented on my other entry, I am the one who took this picture too. I have removed all personally identifiable metadata for my own privacy. I have no idea why it is tagged by Copyvio. Please let me know of any information that is needed. RuatfelaChhangte (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Update: As I have commented in my other entry, I have analyzed on Copyvio myself and it does not have my work in its entry at all. Regardless, it IS my own work that I have taken from my own phone. Let me know if I need to take any further action. RuatfelaChhangte (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Questionable own work claim, no metadata and low quality HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment "Low-quality" is not a reason to delete a photo that's in use in multiple articles. What makes the own work claim questionable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize for not having explained enough. When the uploader claims that they have taken the photograph themself (by using {{Own}}), there should be some indications to prove that. I forgot where I have read it exactly, but I know that metadata is one of them. Files that are taken from the internet are usually with low resolution/size/quality, because high-quality and professional-looking photographs are sold. If a photograph is taken by the uploader, why should they remove the metadata (any photograph taken with a digital camera has metadata by default) and reduce its quality? So this is one indication. Looking at other uploads by this user, I can see one with watermark and another taken from a fighter aircraft while flying. Should we consider that the uploader has taken all these professional-looking photographs (taken with expensive cameras) and removed the metadata and reduced quality, or that they have obtained it from the internet? HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not having metadata is not really evidence of anything, and is specifically stated in Commons:Deletion requests as not a deletion reason, as there are many situations in which metadata either ceases to exist or is not provided. Uploading a photo with a watermark is an issue. I suppose if we consider that the uploader could have been a soldier, it's unlikely that they were also in the Air Force, so your point about a photo taken from a fighter jet is also relevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: TinEye sources this image to Twitter before it was uploaded here. —holly {chat} 22:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yuhnuser62 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:The childhood of Erdogan.jpg and File:The childhood of Erdogan (colored).jpg: In this photo, it looks like he went to primary school here, probably the photo taken in the early 1960s.
- File:Erdogan at 19.jpg and File:Erdogan at 19 (colored).jpg: It says he started playing football in his high school according to Turkish Wikipedia, probably the photo taken in the 1970s.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
When I searched, I couldn't find who the authors exactly. In short, at least 70 years haven't passed since the publishing of the photos. I think the photos should be deleted as the authors are unknown. Uncitoyen (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- The author is not specified, only the photos found in the bio. The author can only be stated as Fars News Agency. But if it is indeed going to create copyright for Wikicommons, delete it. Yuhnuser62 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- As indicated in this photo : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani_by_Fars_01_(cropped).jpg Yuhnuser62 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think Fars News Agency (founded in 2003) isn't copyright holder of these photos while thinked about Erdoğan's life. Uncitoyen (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; the copyright holder is most certainly someone in Erdogan's family. —holly {chat} 22:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by DHN as no source (No source since). This could be a South Vietnamese government work and eligible for a free license, but the uploader has to specify the source. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
violation of copyright of authors NoJin (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Few years ago, I have taken some phototos of tableware produced by company Krásná jizba Q57632241 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 + 6. I uploaded them within following premise: All of them could be considered as COM:UA or COM:UTIL, because Krásná jizba was specialized on mass production of "nice things for ordinary people" (lower middle class?). We shoud consider, that those works have known designers/authors (Ludvika Smrčková (Q12034220), Otto Eckert (Q12043294)) and it is true, that Czech copyright law (Copyright Act (Q10859332), number 121/2000 Sb.) is not quite clear in cases of utilitarian works (cf. older consideration cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt Autorské právo/Fotografie věcí, užité umění). Yes, colleague NoJin has right, that there is possibility of issue. --Ad.Rejha (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Utilitarian objects cannot be copyrighted. —holly {chat} 22:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Incorrect subject CzarJobKhaya (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: I did a new crop from the original file with the correct person. —holly {chat} 22:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Karsten11 as Speedy (SD) because the photographer is unlikely to be dead 70 years. However, the source the image is taken from states that it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. D3rT!m (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The source is a wiki, and they source it to a SPD report, so that seems like license laundering to me. —holly {chat} 22:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Holly. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
