Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/05/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
I'm wrong to not choose "overwrite" during editing in CropTool Urang Kamang (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 01:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Fictional, out of scope N Panama 84534 05:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G1 deleted by user:Pi.1415926535. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Ich habe es aus Versehen hochgeladen. SLMapper (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Nominated for speedy deletion but was rejected by @Yann: (probably) due to the Youtube link noted in the file description being CC. However, the uploaded file is of different recording which is copyright 2008. Dogfennydd (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Guapo el joven pero quién diablos es? 186.173.34.86 13:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete not own work but taken from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7287299/mediaviewer/rm1332463105/?ref_=nm_ov_ph KylieTastic (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I made this image, but it seems that Wikimedia Commons doesn't need this. per COM:COURTESY Ox1997cow (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot of Copyrighted Game. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Иной автор Ил Т (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Official opening of Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy, Headington Oxford on 9th July 1965.png
[edit]{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Dorset House occupational therapy students in the Library, in a Nissen Hut at Churchill Hospital, Oxford circa 1950s.png
[edit]{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Miss G MacCaul, occupational therapist, working with an air-raid casulty in World War 2.png
[edit]{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
File:Evelyn Mary Macdonald in her office-cum-bedsitter at Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy, Clifton. Circa 1930s.png
[edit]{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|< Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June>}} Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and G7. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Es libre está tapa? 186.172.214.139 23:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, found elsewhere on the internet and unlikely to be own work. --Wutsje 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No libre. 186.172.214.139 23:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, found elsewhere on the internet and unlikely to be own work. --Wutsje 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Quién dijo que es libre subir está imagen?! © 2023 F1 186.172.214.139 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Instagram 186.172.214.139 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Instagram 186.172.214.139 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Fuente con © 186.172.214.139 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No es libre. 186.172.214.139 23:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No libre. 186.172.214.139 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Getty ... 186.172.214.139 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No libre. 186.172.214.139 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Elcobbola. --Rosenzweig τ 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deepakmeldodditby (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion. Commons is not your personal free web host. No contributions to wm projects.
- File:Deepak meldoddi.jpg
- File:No how.jpg
- File:King maker.jpg
- File:Rapper.jpg
- File:Youth team.jpg
- File:Deepak meldoddi tby leader.jpg
Achim55 (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Talha here. Cómo le puedo ayudar? 186.172.214.139 23:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement. --Wutsje 17:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
uploads images from various unfree sources with wrong claims on authorship, e.g. from
- https://pishraaneh.com/17549/%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B4%DB%8C%D9%86-l90-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%8C-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B5%D9%88/
- https://www.asriran.com/fa/news/869740/%D8%B3%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%BE%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%B3-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5-%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%A2%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B4%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3-%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AA
- https://www.fardanews.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF-23/1180698-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%87%D8%A7%DA%86-%D8%A8%DA%A9-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B4-%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%AA-%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%B3%D9%88%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%88-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%DA%86%D9%86%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3
Some files are re-uploads. --Polarlys (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ جلو.jpg
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ عقب.jpg
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ داخل.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-9.jpg
- File:Saipa-atlas-&-sahand.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-2.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-35.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-1.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-35.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-3.jpg
- File:Saipa Atlas back.jpg
- File:Saipa Atlas.jpg
- File:Saipa-Aria.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Saina-Facelift.jpg
- File:Saipa atlas 2022.jpg
- File:Zamyad-Karoon.jpg
- File:Vanet pathra.jpg
- File:Zamiad pathra plus.jpg.webp
- File:Vanet shouka.jpg
- File:Saipa-saina-face-lift-2020.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-side view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-front view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Three-sided view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-rear view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Saina-Facelift-toranji-5.jpg
Polarlys (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Polarlys: when there are proof that files are not free, request is not needed, speedy delete must apply. Panam2014 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am unwilling to look up the source of every individual file to tag as copyright violation. From a sysop point of view, mass processing this deletion request is much faster than acting on 20 different files. --Polarlys (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Polarlys he keeps uploading these kind of images, new images are uploaded. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am unwilling to look up the source of every individual file to tag as copyright violation. From a sysop point of view, mass processing this deletion request is much faster than acting on 20 different files. --Polarlys (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete. I spot-checked a bunch and easily found them online. COM:NETCOPYVIO applies. Given the uploader's history of files deleted as copyright violations, COM:PCP applies too. Marbletan (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
copyvio images, also look:
- File:Saipa Pazh Interior viow.jpg
- File:Saipa pazh rear viow.jpg
- File:Saipa Pazh front viow.jpg
- File:Saipa pazh.jpg
- File:2023-Rezvani-Vengeance-3.jpg
- File:2023-rezvani-vengence-2.jpg
- File:2023-rezvani-vengence-1.jpg
- File:2017 Rezvani Tank.jpg.webp
- File:2020-rezvani-tank-14.jpg
- File:2020-rezvani-tank-21.jpg
- File:Rezvani Tank.jpg
- File:Rezvani-hercules-6x6-3.jpg.webp
- File:Rezvani-hercules-6x6-rear-1.jpg.webp
- File:Rezvani beast alpha 1.jpg.webp
- File:Rezvani-beast-alpha.jpg.webp
- File:Rezvani beast alpha back.jpg.webp
- File:Rezvani beast alpha.jpg.webp
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ جلو.jpg
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ عقب.jpg
- File:ایران خودرو تیاف ۲۲ داخل.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-9.jpg
- File:Saipa-atlas-&-sahand.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-2.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-35.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-1.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-35.jpg
- File:Saipa-Atlas-3.jpg
- File:Saipa Atlas back.jpg
- File:Saipa Atlas.jpg
- File:Saipa-Aria.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Saina-Facelift.jpg
- File:Saipa atlas 2022.jpg
- File:Zamyad-Karoon.jpg
- File:Vanet pathra.jpg
- File:Zamiad pathra plus.jpg.webp
- File:Vanet shouka.jpg
- File:Saipa-saina-face-lift-2020.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-side view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-front view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Three-sided view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-rear view.jpg
- File:Saipa-Sahand-Saina-Facelift-toranji-5.jpg
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_QEUOP&oldid=754044081 ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I spot-checked a bunch and easily found them online. COM:NETCOPYVIO applies. Given the uploader's history of files deleted as copyright violations, COM:PCP applies too. Marbletan (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: primarily plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm wrong to not choose "overwrite" during editing in CropTool Urang Kamang (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Rosenzweig τ 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann, died in 1957. Still copyrighted in the country of origin (Germany) until 2028 (70 p.m.a. years: 1957 + 70 + 1 = 2028). Also applies to its cropped version. 81.41.175.237 01:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: primarily plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: single page of plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: single page of plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Brief biography of a non-notable individual. Outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if this text were to be needed anywhere on a Wikimedia project, it should be text on that project not a PDF on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: primarily plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition, the photograph in the file is missing necessary information regarding copyright status/permission. Marbletan (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 23:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright actif Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 23:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Mikel-Hunter (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot from some old porn video, most likely a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 23:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Fake for abuse, actor does not exists Mikel-Hunter (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot from some old porn video, most likely a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 23:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
fake for abuse, actor does not exists Mikel-Hunter (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot from some old porn video, most likely a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 23:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
fake for abuse, actor does not exists, no copyrights Mikel-Hunter (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: screenshot from some old porn video, most likely a copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 23:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright. The image is from Ian Mladjov's history site. Targatron (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Link? Čeha (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: from [1] ([2]), which says the "maps may be used freely for non-commercial educational purposes". So not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 00:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
A moderator Marshelec has requested this image be removed as they believe it is still in copyright. The image dates from 1939 and was taken in Hobart Australia. Vandemonian (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader. --Rosenzweig τ 23:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Azizbenalla (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The possible photographer (according with a photograph of Helga Goebbels with her father which appears to be taken the same day as this), Heinrich Hoffmann, died in 1957 and, for that, this file may still be copyrighted in the country of origin (Germany) until 2028 (70 p.m.a. years: 1957 + 70 + 1 = 2028). It is also possible that this photograph could be published together with that of Helda with her father in the Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung 30/1935, so we can assume it was published in 1935, so it is also still copyrighted in the U.S. until 95 years from its publication had been passed (1935 +95 + 1 = 2031) due to the URAA. This photograph can be undeleted on January 1, 2031 after expiration of U.S. copyright. 81.41.175.237 13:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Internet research indicates it is a photo by Hoffmann, also used for a cigarette card and collected in an album about Hitler. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Not own work Brunnaiz (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Polarlys. --Rosenzweig τ 23:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Original artist, Dan Benson, is not the uploader, no indication original image is free. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for COM:NETCOPYVIO. The source cited says it took it from Fandom wiki. There is no real guarantee it has a free license, here the uploader is not Dan Benson either. Günther Frager (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo of company of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 00:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Si es own work porqué la autora es Tonija? 186.172.214.139 17:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment si es el único problema, este se va a resolver una vez que el correo electrónico con el permiso sea revisado por COM:VRTS. No hay necesidad de una consulta de borrado. Günther Frager (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Gracias Maestro, Vd es un líder de opinión, una inspiración para los que tratan de aprender como funciona Commons. No nos quite su sabiduría nunca por favor. 186.172.214.139 17:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023052810005275 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Sanela.jpg” under ticket:2023052810005275. Filip (§) 20:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 23:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: primarily plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
picture taken from TV (WWE RAW september 26, 2022), not permission from WWE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Image en doublon Loïc432 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 23:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Mendocino_Pride_2023_-_Sarah_Stierch_-_9.jpg Brainy J (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 23:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This photograph was taken by Philipp Kester, a German photographer who died in 1958 [3] and therefore copyrighted in its country of origin. This file can be undeleted in 2029 when the German copyright expires. Günther Frager (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
While the PDF is in the Internet Archive, it was published in 2013 and not yet in the public domain. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 00:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Je me suis trompé ce n'est pas le bon pont,je posterai une autre image avec le pont qui concerne Marie-Jeanne Vallet à Paulhac.Signé Ethibaud Ethibaud (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion as requested by the uploader shortly after upload (8 days in this case). --Rosenzweig τ 23:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Archivo personal 186.172.214.139 23:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Had already been deleted as "Personal photo by non-contributor", but was then re-uploaded. --Rosenzweig τ 23:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The rubber duck sculpture was temporarily, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan, can be kept if the mural is removed A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Mongolia A1Cafel (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Mongolia A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings and 3D art. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Info redeleted as a blatant copyvio image. (non-admin comment) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Mongolia A1Cafel (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings. Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Mongolia A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings and 3D art. Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iceland A1Cafel (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iceland A1Cafel (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Iceland A1Cafel (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia A1Cafel (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope fan-made flag. I can't find any evidence that this is reconginzed as the "flag of furries" anywhere or by anyone other than the uploader. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope as low quality in a subject matter with a large number of better images The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope as low quality in a subject matter with a large number of better images The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
does not appear to be realistically useful for an educational purpose The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope as too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Fan-made icon. Not in use. Does not appear to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The author of this 1933 illustration from the German satire magazine "Kladderadatsch" is given as the magazine itself, which is nonsense, and the license tag used claims that no author is named. But it's clearly signed with "Johnson". That's Arthur Johnson, an American who lived in Germany for 65 of his 80 years, worked for said magazine from 1896 to 1944 and died in 1954. The illustration was published in Germany is still protected there until the end of 2024, plus it's still protected in the US (because of the URAA) until the end of 2028. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2029. Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This German illustration from German artist Oskar Garvens, first published in 1939, is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2035. Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This German illustration from German artist Oskar Garvens, first published in 1934, is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2030. Rosenzweig τ 12:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This German illustration from German artist Oskar Garvens, first published in 1937, is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2033. Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a poster, not own work. Drawing seems to be modern. Hence we have a copyright issue here. Lymantria (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This 1944 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2040. Rosenzweig τ 13:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Zu Weltwährungskonferenz, Goldenes Kälbchen (To The International Monetary Conference, American dollars, British pounds, Golden calf) 1944 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]This 1944 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2040. Rosenzweig τ 13:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Europa (Asian God threatens) 1935 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]This 1935 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2031. Rosenzweig τ 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:SIMPLICISSIMUS German satirical magazine 1930-11-03 'Ordensverleiung' (Schlact bei Vertheim) Caricature cover art by Erich Schilling of Hitler and Sturmabteilung Nazi party militia . No known copyright restrictions.jpg
[edit]This 1930 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2026. Rosenzweig τ 14:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Alte Fabel, Verse von Georg Deffner (Drawings to the text Old Fable) 1924 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]While the 1924 drawings in this file are in the public domain in both Germany and the US, the text is not: It's by Georg Deffner, who apparently died in 1987. So the text is still protected in Germany until the end of 2057, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2058. Rosenzweig τ 15:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The blog has taken it from an unfree source. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was uploaded with the author given as "Nazis" and a rather dubious web source. It's claimed to be from 1943, but accd. to this article it was actually taken in 1938. We need a much better declaration of authorship and original publication date and place to be able to determine the copyright status of this file. If we don't get that, we can only host this file 120 years after the photo was created, in 2059, and the file should be deleted until then. Rosenzweig τ 22:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Belgium 1963 Mi 1436y stamp with phosphorescent paper (Heraldic 'Rampaging Lion' and 60 face value).jpg
[edit] Delete: this stamp's licence is false based on c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Belgium#Stamps Ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGING. Rosenzweig τ 23:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The photographer of this photo, de:Walter Frentz, died in 2004, so the photo is still protected by copyright in Germany, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2075. Rosenzweig τ 03:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete: per nomination, 70 years since Frentz's death did not passed yet. 81.41.175.237 11:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, this scuplture was built in 2018 according to Google Search. Teetrition (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Wu De at a party conference in September 1977 a year after the purging of the gang of four.jpg
[edit]1977 photograph of high-ranking Chinese officer, unlikely own work of the uploader. 源義信 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader's public domain claim also fails for the photo having been created less than 50 years ago. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No permission from the website A1Cafel (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence of claimed license at source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, this mural is obviously an indoor work. Not OK even before the VP discussion in this January. Teetrition (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; no evidence of permission from the copyright holder of the toy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is a 3D work, though? --Enyavar (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No commercial FOP for artistic works in Taiwan, regardless if it's 2D or 3D. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. According to the label of this sculpture, the sculpture was made in 1999. Teetrition (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP for artistic works in Taiwan and the sculpture appears to be copyrighted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedily deleted by Wutsje, contested by Explicit at COM:UNDEL. Converting to DR to discuss whether above COM:TOO US. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep PD-text applies. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't seem to think so at the time you uploaded this file (link). What made you change your mind? Anyway, my opinion on this matter can be found here (the short version is here) and I don't think repeating myself here would be helpful. Wutsje 18:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. I uploaded it under a fair-use license to enWP, but frankly was not sure about the applicability of PD-Text. My opinion either way is not very strong, I just want to be able to have the image in the article, whether from Commons under PD-text or from enWP under fair use. I'm sorry that my simple upload is causing so many waves... --Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing copyrightable here. Ankry (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Plain text and a simple geometric shape. The threshold of originality in the United States is on the higher end of the spectrum and this cover does not possess the level of creativity required to warrant copyright protection. ✗plicit 01:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, as the cover is probably below COM:TOO-US The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per others. Very unlikely to be above COM:TOO-US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Appears to be a simple design COM:TOO USA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Latino nonsense 186.172.214.139 23:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- could you elaborate further? MartinWanks (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Another low quality penis photo. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete despite the nonsensical and racist rationale this is clearly not a quality image Dronebogus (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion; low-quality photograph of male genitalia. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Contraportada 186.172.214.139 23:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyrighted album cover. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arshita Arora (talk · contribs)
[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_La_Falaise_-_Jeffery_Stride_-_Musée_de_Cahors_Henri-Martin.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![60 File:Hotel "Hilton".jpg](#File:Hotel_"Hilton".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1944_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1935_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_Caricature_cover_art_by_Erich_Schilling_of_Hitler_and_Sturmabteilung_Nazi_party_militia_._No_known_copyright_restrictions.jpg){kind=link}
_1924_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_of_Harry_potter.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![168 File:Erich Schilling – Der "Sieger" von Antwerpen (The "winner "of Antwerp) Simplicissimus No. 16 April 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg](#File:Erich_Schilling_–_Der_"Sieger"_von_Antwerpen_(The_"winner_"of_Antwerp)_Simplicissimus_No._16_April_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1942_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1941_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_29._September_1938_"Der_Höllengeister_Tanz_zerstorb_und_ward_zunichte._Des_Friedens_Morgenglanz_diktiert_die_Weltgeschichte."_(1938_Munich_Agreement_Peace_vs_Spirits_of_Hell)_Satirical_cartoon_Low-res_No_co.jpg){kind=link}
_1937_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1936_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_-25_Sept._16_1934_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
![177 File:Erich Schilling – Der Straßburger Sender "Nicht entgiftet wird die Atmosphäre, sondern vergiftet!" (The Strasbourg Station) Simplicissimus No. 32 5.11.1933 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg](#File:Erich_Schilling_–_Der_Straßburger_Sender_"Nicht_entgiftet_wird_die_Atmosphäre,_sondern_vergiftet!"_(The_Strasbourg_Station)_Simplicissimus_No._32_5.11.1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1932_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1931_No_copyright.jpg){kind=link}
_1929_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_La_Falaise_-_Jeffery_Stride_-_Mus%C3%A9e_de_Cahors_Henri-Martin.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_La_Falaise_-_Jeffery_Stride_-_Mus%C3%A9e_de_Cahors_Henri-Martin.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_La_Falaise_-_Jeffery_Stride_-_Musée_de_Cahors_Henri-Martin.jpg){kind=link}
_La_Falaise_-_Jeffery_Stride_-_Musée_de_Cahors_Henri-Martin.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![03:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/05/28#c-A1Cafel-20230528034600-File:Hotel_"Hilton".jpg){kind=link}
![06:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/05/28#c-Krd-20230604065500-File:Hotel_"Hilton".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}
_1944_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1944_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1935_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1935_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Caricature_cover_art_by_Erich_Schilling_of_Hitler_and_Sturmabteilung_Nazi_party_militia_._No_known_copyright_restrictions.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Caricature_cover_art_by_Erich_Schilling_of_Hitler_and_Sturmabteilung_Nazi_party_militia_._No_known_copyright_restrictions.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1924_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1924_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
photo of non-contributors and spammy images. but i believe we need discussion for it.
- File:Sister is Living Near Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:Sister Is Living Near Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:Sister Living Near Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:This Sister Lives Near Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:This Sister Has Lived With Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswami Aala.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswami Official.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswami Offficial.jpg
- File:Hater Of Jatta Goswami.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswaml Real Brother.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswami Real Brother.jpg
- File:Jatta Goswami ReaL Brother.jpg
--modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Jatta Goswami has 9 subscribers on YouTube. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. This is effectively cross-wiki spam; there's at least half a dozen different accounts creating biography pages using these images. Omphalographer (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: cross-wiki spam and vandalism; COM:G3 and COM:G10. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
ESF-Semsûrî
[edit]- File:ESF 2015.svg
- File:ESF 2014.svg
- File:ESF 2013.svg
- File:ESF 2012.svg
- File:ESF 2011.svg
- File:ESF 2010.svg
- File:ESF 2009.svg
- File:ESF 2008.svg
- File:ESF 2007.svg
- File:ESF 2006.svg
- File:ESF 2005.svg
- File:ESF 2004.svg
- File:ESF 2003.svg
- File:ESF 2002.svg
- File:ESF 2001.svg
- File:ESF 2000.svg
- File:ESF 1999.svg
- File:ESF 1998.svg
- File:ESF 1997.svg
- File:ESF 1996.svg
- File:ESF 1995.svg
- File:ESF 1994.svg
- File:ESF 1993.svg
- File:ESF 1992.svg
- File:ESF 1991.svg
- File:ESF 1990.svg
- File:ESF 1989.svg
- File:ESF 1988.svg
- File:ESF 1987.svg
- File:ESF 1986.svg
- File:ESF 1985.svg
- File:ESF 1984.svg
- File:ESF 1983.svg
- File:ESF 1982.svg
- File:ESF 1981.svg
- File:ESF 1980.svg
- File:ESF 1979.svg
- File:ESF 1978.svg
- File:ESF 1977.svg
- File:ESF 1976.svg
- File:ESF 1975.svg
- File:ESF 1974.svg
- File:ESF 1973.svg
- File:ESF 1972.svg
- File:ESF 1971.svg
- File:ESF 1970.svg
- File:ESF 1969.svg
- File:ESF 1968.svg
- File:ESF 1967.svg
- File:ESF 1966.svg
- File:ESF 1965.svg
- File:ESF 1964.svg
- File:ESF 1963.svg
- File:ESF 1962.svg
- File:ESF 1961.svg
- File:ESF 1960.svg
- File:ESF 1959.svg
- File:ESF 1958.svg
- File:ESF 1957.svg
- File:ESF 1956.svg
Per uploader's request --Semsûrî (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia HuseynAZE99 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep it has high resolution, and it is one of the few photos we have from Kazreti, a village in Georgia. Günther Frager (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Günther Frager. HuseynAZE99, what made you think this is an unusable photo? Keep in mind, too, that there are other Wikimedia sites such as Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep @Günther Frager: I think he is just trolling and disturbing the project. @Yann: I think HuseynAZE99 ist Troll-User Nr. 4, see also File:2023-06-09 Dritte Pflanze im Kirschengarten in Tauberbischofsheim 5.jpg, after 3 other trolls before. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 14:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Likely COPYVIO since the book came out fairly recently and there's zero evidence that the uploader is the artist of the cover. Adamant1 (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
NO ES EL ESCUDO OFICIAL Ayllon2023 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- No valid deletion rationale. Wikimedia Commons does not care about that. Deal with it.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The source doesn't state it was published in 1927, the limit to be on the public domain in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep We are looking at a circa 60 year old, so I changed it to "circa 1915", to be eligible for a copyright, it would need to be registered and then renewed and no image of her under her married name or maiden name appears in either the registration database or the renewal database. --RAN (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Own work o autor David? 186.172.214.139 17:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion should be closed as here is a COM:VRTS in course. Günther Frager (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023061210006766 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Desingerica.jpg” under ticket:2023061210006766. --Miljan Simonović (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 11:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Si es own work quién es David? 186.172.214.139 17:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This discussion should be closed as here is a COM:VRTS in course. Günther Frager (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ticket:2023061210006766 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Lule Pljugica.jpg” under ticket:2023061210006766. --Miljan Simonović (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 11:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete: based on the 1980 issue date and Vietnam copyright terms, these stamps are still in copyright as it seems the artist, who was born in 1960, is still alive per some Vietnamese webpages, such as https://artworlddatabase.com/portfolio/tran-luong/ Ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The photo is probably from San Lorenzo Club. The user already submitted plenty of copyvio uploading photos available on official Twitter and Facebook accounts. Günther Frager (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; doubtful own work. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo is probably from San Lorenzo Club. The user already submitted plenty of copyvio uploading photos available on official Twitter and Facebook accounts. Günther Frager (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; doubtful own work. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Timofei Anufriev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright © ВСЕМИРНЫЙ КЛУБ ОДЕССИТОВ - Nostalgie © 2011 Дизайн и вёрстка - Devinora
-
and one from facebook post - unfree images, copyvio
- File:Заборная выставка. У оперного театра, 1967 г.jpg
- File:AlexAnufriev.jpg
- File:Сергей Ануфриев Портрет.jpg
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete
- -you can remove these now. i accidently opened DR.- ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sudharshan Srinivas (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope, not in use.
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
These images do not belong to the uploader, these images are for the TV series "Dong Yi" made in South Korea and its copyright belongs to "MBC" network.
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۹۵۴بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۷۵۴بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۸۱۹بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۶۳۷بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۳۰۱۱بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۷۳۲بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۷۰۹بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۵۳۶بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۳۱۲۱بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۱ ۱۶۲۹۰۲بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:بانوی دربار ملکه.jpg
- File:ملکه دربار جانگ.jpg
- File:بانوی دربار ملکه جانگ.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۹۵۲.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۱۰۴.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۹۵۸.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۱۴۲.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۲۱۷.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۳۰۴.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۴۲۴.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۱۴۴۸.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۳۲۷.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۴۳۲.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۸۳۲.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۰۵۲۵.jpg
- File:ملکه جانگ.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۳۷۵۰.jpg
- File:VideoCapture ۲۰۲۳۰۵۲۰-۱۷۳۶۵۱.jpg
CDrama500 (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Source unclear (looks like a screenshot), out of scope? Gyrostat (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete it seems to be taken from a video, and as Gyrostat pointed out the source is not stated to check if it has a CC-BY license. Apart from that it seems to be from a random Youtuber and thus out of scope for Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 03:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The picture appears to have been taken from the internet. Used in a deleted article about a little-known 14-year-old blogger. Khinkali (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I cannot understand the text, and maybe it has an exception for this photo. But the footer, that is in English, states: Copyright The Shizuoka Shimbun and Shizuoka Broadcasting System., All rights reserved. Günther Frager (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Bonita foto! Wendy, si esta es trabajo suyo por favor suba un archivo más grande en KBs para estar seguros de su propiedad. 186.172.133.94 02:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ya está hecho, gracias Wendy. Bibliotecario, por favor borrar solamente la versión anterior. 186.172.133.94 03:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If we accept that this is Wendy's photo, there's no need to delete either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- ¡Saludos! WendyAvilesR (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- ¡Saludo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept. There is no reason for its deletion --ℳaʐbeʟ (✉︎) 02:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
_of_Harry_potter.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_of_Harry_potter.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
_of_Harry_potter.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
_of_Harry_potter.jpg){kind=link}
Not educationally useful / personal photo LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful / personal photo LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful / personal photo LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful / personal photo LevandeMänniska (talk), 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons is not a private photo bucket LevandeMänniska (talk), 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons is not a private photo bucket LevandeMänniska (talk), 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Commons is not a private photo bucket LevandeMänniska (talk), 14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Unused art of non-notable artist, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as the description states it is a promotional photo, likely to be royalty-free, but not compatible with COM:Licensing. Günther Frager (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Personal file / self-Promotion. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 855 subscribers on YouTube, and this photo sucks (unsharp, full of magenta CA), so if I were him, I'd be pissed if I paid someone to shoot this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and not own work, credit in EXIF data not matching uploader. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Facebook 186.172.214.139 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete too low quality Юрий Д.К 21:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Low quality and COM:NOTUSED. This is an image I accidentally uploaded of the wrong person, and I can't envision it being used to depict its actual subject. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a low quality image that the uploader says was uploaded in error. Marbletan (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 | Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons. |
unnecessary use of licensed property 2600:8807:8080:D40:3864:504B:4E97:28B 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Also in use on 6 projects. However, might perhaps be replaced by File:Bayes theorem visualisation.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Achim55: The concept of suspicion of guilt is a far better example of Bayes theorem. Note that the contributions of the nominator, which exclusively pertain to the deletion of this file raises suspicion on their motivation and impartiality. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Before nominating for deletion (again!), please note that the community has decided to keep the current image – see en:Talk:Bayes'_theorem#RfC_on_illustration. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be an attempt to circumvent a community consensus. The
fairacceptable use of this item has been discussed. It has been found to be in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Constant314 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)- Comment Constant314: This is Commons, not Wikipedia, and there is no COM:FAIRUSE on Commons. Would you like to change your argument, or your vote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- No. Fair use was probably not the correct term. The owners of the intellectual property explicitly give permission for non-commercial use. Constant314 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Constant314, see COM:LICENSING. Commons requires permission for commercial use. So what do you say now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- On the face of it, those licensing terms look incompatible with Commons, unless I'm missing something. But please pardon my ignorance: How are Innersloth's policies relevant to this case? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: If you think that the file violates a policy, then you should make your case directly. I will stick with my vote for now. Constant314 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a reason to have an opinion about whether the file violates policy, but I thought I did you a service by engaging in a dialogue with you about the reasons you were offering for why it was OK. Don't you agree that you know more about Commons policies now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I do. Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have a reason to have an opinion about whether the file violates policy, but I thought I did you a service by engaging in a dialogue with you about the reasons you were offering for why it was OK. Don't you agree that you know more about Commons policies now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Innersloth does not own astronauts. I fail to see how this is a copyright issue. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if @Constant314's meaning of the term "fair use" here is the everyday one ("use that is justified within guidelines") as opposed to the legal one. I'll let them respond. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep User:Edward hahm (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2023 (PST)
- Delete I don't see we have a choice on this, regardless of how amusing it might be or whatever happened on EN. Commons does not allow fair use, or images that are restricted to non-commercial use. Pretty cut-and-dried. --Ipatrol (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- We are not claiming fair use, but instead that Innersloth has no claim over imagery of a generic astronaut. If you look carefully, the shape of the figure is also different from Among Us's. (Additionally, the concept of Among Us has prior art: en:The Thing (1982 movie). cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Info I'm not voting as I'm not a regular editor, but it seems to me some users arguing that it should be removed or must be removed are operating under a mistaken concept. This image is under an acceptable license (CCBY-SA) per COM:LICENSING - the only issue would be if this was a depiction of a trademark that would attract copyright protections.
- The image has been licensed by its creator (w:user:cmglee) - and the depiction of a small astronaut figure would, seem to me, to not meet the level of a trademark that might afford protection - indeed wikimedia has other works that depict trademarks that cover the exact same case, such as File:Stencil_de_among_us_por_"Raptor"_(2021).jpg or depictions of Mickey Mouse/the Mickey Mouse head such as Mickey_Mouse_head_and_ears 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 23:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trademarks are considered COM:Non-copyright restrictions; Commons doesn't delete files on the basis of trademark claims, only on claims of copyright. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this would be closer to COM:Fan-art, technically. 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trademarks are considered COM:Non-copyright restrictions; Commons doesn't delete files on the basis of trademark claims, only on claims of copyright. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The image has been licensed by its creator (w:user:cmglee) - and the depiction of a small astronaut figure would, seem to me, to not meet the level of a trademark that might afford protection - indeed wikimedia has other works that depict trademarks that cover the exact same case, such as File:Stencil_de_among_us_por_"Raptor"_(2021).jpg or depictions of Mickey Mouse/the Mickey Mouse head such as Mickey_Mouse_head_and_ears 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 23:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Comment I've noticed that some are referring to a discussion on EnWiki as having attained "consensus" or "community consensus" to keep this file due to a discussion on EnWiki. This is Commons, not EnWiki. Discussions on other wikis do not bind Commons in any way regarding whether a file is suitably licensed for hosting here or whether or not the file infringes on any copyrights. Moreover, while EnWiki might accept files hosted under claims of fair use, Commons does not (and is prohibited by the WMF board from doing so).The relevant question here is whether or not the drawing that clearly depicts an Among Us crewmate is either (1) not a derivative work of the Crewmate art owned by Innersloth or (2) is too simple to warrant copyright protection. I'd have to give these some thought, but this doesn't seem clear-cut. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Replying to this comment and also 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 above: Where the work of fiction makes use of commonplace pre-existing elements, taking one of those elements and imaginatively recreating it as an original work of fan art does not infringe any copyright, even if the recreation would clearly be understood to relate to the fictional universe created by the original author. (emphasis mine) from commons:Fan_art#There_is_no_copyright_in_a_commonplace_pre-existing_element may apply. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 19:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, but the image takes multiple pre-existing elements, not just one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate? As far as I can tell, only the astronaut figure is contentious. The dagger is totally generic, and Among Us does not have characters with bushy eyebrows. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, but the image takes multiple pre-existing elements, not just one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Replying to this comment and also 2A01:4B00:D204:CA00:E1A6:7272:3868:DB37 above: Where the work of fiction makes use of commonplace pre-existing elements, taking one of those elements and imaginatively recreating it as an original work of fan art does not infringe any copyright, even if the recreation would clearly be understood to relate to the fictional universe created by the original author. (emphasis mine) from commons:Fan_art#There_is_no_copyright_in_a_commonplace_pre-existing_element may apply. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 19:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion, no copyright issue. --Wdwd (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CarlesDelSalvador (talk · contribs)
[edit]so low resolution image+not in use+possible copyvio
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 21:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo, out of scope/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
No indication that this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. The source seems to be this one and was taken in 1942, There is no clear indication this is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing information (source, author, date,....) about the original photo; COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Not own work. The source seems to be this one and was taken in 1942, There is no clear indication this is in the public domain.| Günther Frager (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing information (source, author, date,....) about the original photo; COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
a photographic accident... much better alternatives available, eg. File:Cuxhaven 07-2016 photo01 Haus Marienstr50.jpg Joschi71 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, different season.
- @Joschi71 photographic accident hättest du dir sparen können, sowas ist unhöflich und abfällig Z thomas 22:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- ja, sorry, da hast du wohl recht... --Joschi71 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
possible copyvio (Fotografin Verena Rocksen erstellt. © 2021 by Studio-Lüdeking) M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Es ist ein Bild, dass von einem kommerziellen Fotostudio im Auftrag von Georg Bräunling – also von mir – gemacht wurde. Anders kann man gute Bilder nicht von seiner eigenen Person machen lassen; denke ich.
- Ich bin Georg Bräunling und ich habe das Foto, das von mir gemacht wurde, von der Fotografin auf meinen Wunsch hin machen lassen, gekauft und von ihr die alleinigen und ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte erworben. Was ist daran falsch? 2A02:8108:4240:584:546B:535A:EF62:942F 14:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission via COM:VRT. --Wdwd (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal file / self-Promotion. Out of project scope. GeorgHH • talk 16:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 855 subscribers on YouTube, and this photo sucks (terribly underexposed), so if I were him, I'd be pissed if I paid someone to shoot this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Sudhindranath Dutta died 1960. Source information needed. GeorgHH • talk 17:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible above threshold of originality in Japa Trade (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Adding c:File:Mushoku Tensei Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu Logo Japonés.png as well--Trade (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps post of 1928 stamps of the country are copyrighted by China Post or its affiliates unless we can find the death date of the artist, which personally I was unable to do and I assume no one else will be able to find it either. So this image should be deleted unless someone is able to come up with when the artist died and it fits in with the normal copyright term. The same goes for the following images:
Kept: Most likely, Chinese stamps are made as work for hire (i.e. work for Government), and thus are effectively anonymous works with a protection term of 50 years after publication. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps post of 1928 stamps of the country are copyrighted by China Post or its affiliates unless we can find the death date of the artist, which personally I was unable to do and I assume no one else will be able to find it either. So this image should be deleted unless someone is able to come up with when the artist died and it fits in with the normal copyright term. Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Is this a recent change? If I look at the map at Commons:Stamps I see China in a yellow color. Clarification underneath mentions: Yellow – Copyright of stamps expires 50 years after publication. @Adamant1: could you explain this? Vysotsky (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of. You can look through the edit history of the guideline to see when it was changed though. I linked to it in my original comment. I'm not sure what you want me to explain outside of that. It says what it says and I wasn't involved in creating the wording. At least not that I remember. So you'd have to take it up with whoever edited the article originally if you want more of an explanation then that. Sorry. I just follow the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps is based on wrong assumptions. The Copyright Law of China (2010) (English version at WIPO) has NO specific paragraph on stamps. As stamps in China are under government protection, it is highly unlikely that individual artists in China can claim copyright. It is therefore most likely that Article 21 (2nd par.) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China applies: "The term of protection for the right of publication and the rights provided for in Article 10, paragraphs (5) to (17), of this Law in respect of a work where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years [...]". I will propose a new text for the Commons page about copyright on Chinese stamps on the relevant discussion page (and yes, I have read the earlier deliberations on that page). Vysotsky (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's fine if you want to propose changes to the article, but I don't think that means what the guideline says should (or can) just be discarded until the changes are made (if they ever are) either. So I'd appreciate it if you voted delete since that's clearly what the outcome should be based on the current wording and then one of us can do an undeletion request if it turns out in 3 months or whenever that it's worng. Although I suspect it won't be, but whatever. Regardless, there's no reason to keep an image based on changes to an article that haven't even been made and that we don't know are correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- No, I want to have the image kept based on the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. If you look at the current map on top of Commons:Stamps, you will see China in a yellow colour (as I stated above), with the explanation underneath the image Yellow – Copyright of stamps expires 50 years after publication -exactly in line with China's Copyright Law, Article 21. I will propose a change of the accompanying text today. Vysotsky (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what the current map on top of Commons:Stamps says, but it contradicts the guideline and I assume the later would be the more authoritative, since it's actually a guideline and not just a short summary of one. It seems like your just picking the one that better suites the outcome you want instead of the one that probably should be followed though. In the meantime, I'm aware of what the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" but there's zero evidence it applies to stamps or that individual artists in China can't claim copyright. Not to say one way or another, but you can't expect an image that is probably copyrighted based on what the guideline says to kept while you figure it out just because you have a personal issue with the guideline.
- Otherwise there'd be zero point in doing this because anyone could vote keep and argue the DR shouldn't move forward while they "suggest" changes to the guideline based on their personal opinions. And Like I said, it's not like the image can't just be undeleted if it turns out the guideline is changed though. I don't think you suggesting changes to the guideline because you personally disagree with it on it's own justifies the image being kept. You can disagree with the guideline, and we can still follow what it says until it's changed. Again, if it ever is even changed. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Thanks for your answer. I am afraid your comments boomerang back to you. I refer to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, including a link and relevant paragraph number [Art. 21 (2nd par.)]. The current Commons guideline doesn't give any other links relevant to stamps from China, as far as I can see. If a Copyright Law doesn't mention stamps separately, the Law applies to stamps, unless jurisprudence on the matter tells differently. Vysotsky (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your talking about since [Art. 21 (2nd par.)] doesn't anything about stamps, which is my comment and this DR has to do with. What it does relate to though is how long the copyright lasts after the author has died, which according to the document is 50 years. I'm not really sure how that is a boomerang on this DR or the guidelines since the whole crux of both is that we have to assume stamps are probably copyrighted because we don't know when the authors of them died. So cool, the term of protection of a work of a citizen shall be the lifetime of the author and fifty years after his death. So what? That's exactly what I have been saying and what the guideline says.
- @Adamant1: Thanks for your answer. I am afraid your comments boomerang back to you. I refer to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, including a link and relevant paragraph number [Art. 21 (2nd par.)]. The current Commons guideline doesn't give any other links relevant to stamps from China, as far as I can see. If a Copyright Law doesn't mention stamps separately, the Law applies to stamps, unless jurisprudence on the matter tells differently. Vysotsky (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, I want to have the image kept based on the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. If you look at the current map on top of Commons:Stamps, you will see China in a yellow colour (as I stated above), with the explanation underneath the image Yellow – Copyright of stamps expires 50 years after publication -exactly in line with China's Copyright Law, Article 21. I will propose a change of the accompanying text today. Vysotsky (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's fine if you want to propose changes to the article, but I don't think that means what the guideline says should (or can) just be discarded until the changes are made (if they ever are) either. So I'd appreciate it if you voted delete since that's clearly what the outcome should be based on the current wording and then one of us can do an undeletion request if it turns out in 3 months or whenever that it's worng. Although I suspect it won't be, but whatever. Regardless, there's no reason to keep an image based on changes to an article that haven't even been made and that we don't know are correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of. You can look through the edit history of the guideline to see when it was changed though. I linked to it in my original comment. I'm not sure what you want me to explain outside of that. It says what it says and I wasn't involved in creating the wording. At least not that I remember. So you'd have to take it up with whoever edited the article originally if you want more of an explanation then that. Sorry. I just follow the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is you can't tell me when the author died. It's ridiculous to act that's some win on your side or that the image must be PD just because you can't tell if the author of the stamp is still alive or not. That's not how this or the law works. Especially in a case like this one where the stamp was created in 1960. So it's pretty unlikely the author of it has been for 50 years. Be my guest and figure out if they have died and what their death date is though. I'm more then willing to retract this if or when you can, but until then the guideline is clear that the image should be deleted if there's no evidence of either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Copyright Law of China (English version) doesn't say anything about posters made in China. Still the Copyright Law of China applies to posters in China, acc. to Art 3.4. compr. "works of fine art and architecture". Again: the Copyright Law in China doesn't specifically mention stamps. Still the Copyright Law applies to stamps, also acc. to art. 3.4 of the Chinese Copyright Law. Also again: I have seen no evidence whatsoever containing legal rules from China about stamps. Death dates of authors have no meaning at all in these cases, as the Copyright Law of China explicitly mentions a period of fifty years after publication by unknown authors in these cases (acc. to Art. 21 #2). I rest my case. Vysotsky (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd buy that. Except where did the whole "unless if that's issued before Jan 1, 1928 which is a PD-anon-expired case, we should de facto judge them as copyrighted by China Post or its affiliates (e.g. Beijing Stamp Factory)" thing in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps come from then? Did someone just make it up or what? Also where's your evidence that Art 3.4. compr. "works of fine art and architecture applies to stamps? Let me guess, you don't have any, "but posters"? You might not know this, but in most or all cases if the law of the country we are talking about doesn't explicitly have an exception for stamps we assume they follow the normal term of every other kind of artwork, which would be life + 50 years.
- The Copyright Law of China (English version) doesn't say anything about posters made in China. Still the Copyright Law of China applies to posters in China, acc. to Art 3.4. compr. "works of fine art and architecture". Again: the Copyright Law in China doesn't specifically mention stamps. Still the Copyright Law applies to stamps, also acc. to art. 3.4 of the Chinese Copyright Law. Also again: I have seen no evidence whatsoever containing legal rules from China about stamps. Death dates of authors have no meaning at all in these cases, as the Copyright Law of China explicitly mentions a period of fifty years after publication by unknown authors in these cases (acc. to Art. 21 #2). I rest my case. Vysotsky (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is you can't tell me when the author died. It's ridiculous to act that's some win on your side or that the image must be PD just because you can't tell if the author of the stamp is still alive or not. That's not how this or the law works. Especially in a case like this one where the stamp was created in 1960. So it's pretty unlikely the author of it has been for 50 years. Be my guest and figure out if they have died and what their death date is though. I'm more then willing to retract this if or when you can, but until then the guideline is clear that the image should be deleted if there's no evidence of either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- So unless the stamps were published Anonymously, but then we don't have any evidence they were because we just might not know who the artist is. You'd have to at least agree that just because we don't know who the artist is doesn't mean wasn't one. So what we need to prove they are de-facto anonymous works in all cases is something in the law saying they are, which we clearly don't have evidence of. Outside of that though I have to assume the artist hasn't been dead for 50 years since the stamp was published in 1960. And spare me the irrelevant off-topic side points about posters. That's not what the conversation is about. We have specific sections of articles and separate documentation for stamps for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, to add to that according to the document that you've cited page six article seventeen says "The ownership of the copyright in a commissioned work shall be agreed upon in a contract between the commissioning and the commissioned parties. In the absence of a contract or of an explicit agreement in the contract, the copyright in such a work shall belong to the commissioned party." I'd be interested to know why you think that wouldn't apply here since usually stamps are commissioned works and we have zero evidence of the terms of the contract when they were designed or if there even was one. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- So unless the stamps were published Anonymously, but then we don't have any evidence they were because we just might not know who the artist is. You'd have to at least agree that just because we don't know who the artist is doesn't mean wasn't one. So what we need to prove they are de-facto anonymous works in all cases is something in the law saying they are, which we clearly don't have evidence of. Outside of that though I have to assume the artist hasn't been dead for 50 years since the stamp was published in 1960. And spare me the irrelevant off-topic side points about posters. That's not what the conversation is about. We have specific sections of articles and separate documentation for stamps for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Vysotsky Geo Swan (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Most likely, Chinese stamps are made as work for hire (i.e. work for Government), and thus are effectively anonymous works with a protection term of 50 years after publication. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps post of 1928 stamps of the country are copyrighted by China Post or its affiliates unless we can find the death date of the artist, which personally I was unable to do and I assume no one else will be able to find it either. So this image should be deleted unless someone is able to come up with when the artist died and it fits in with the normal copyright term. The same goes for File:Ji7, 2-2, Postbox, Transports and Map, 1950.jpg. Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Vysotsky here. Geo Swan (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- You must be referring to Vysotsky's assertion that the copyright lasts for 50 years the death of the artist. I don't see why you wouldn't be since that has been his whole argument and what the legal document he linked to says. So, assuming that's the case then where is your evidence that the artist of this stamp has been dead for 50 years? Or are you voting keep simply to parrot what someone else said in another DR without actually reading what they wrote or looking for the information we need for this to be hosted on Commons? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Most likely, Chinese stamps are made as work for hire (i.e. work for Government), and thus are effectively anonymous works with a protection term of 50 years after publication. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan, can be kept if the mural is removed A1Cafel (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, if the mural is removed, this picture will possibly be out of Scope of Commons. Teetrition (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per Teetrition, COM:DM has a violation case to describe that why this isn't keep-able by cropping. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Der "Sieger" von Antwerpen (The "winner "of Antwerp) Simplicissimus No. 16 April 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_Simplicissimus_No._16_April_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_No._16_April_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1943 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2039. Rosenzweig τ 13:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The same is the case for:
- File:Erich Schilling – Der Garten Edens, Europa als Sowjetparadies, Atlantik-Charta (The Garden of Eden, Stalin caricature, Atlantic Charter) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Der hungrige Tschunkingdrache (The hungry Chongqing dragon) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Die Dreierkonferenz "Sie berät über den Frieden, den sie der Welt bringen möchte!" (The Three Party Conference, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Die Konkurrenz (The competitors, caricature of Stalin, devil) Simplicissimus 20 May 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res) (cropped).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Die Konkurrenz (The competitors, caricature of Stalin, devil) Simplicissimus 20 May 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Mars und Mord, teufel, Luftangriffe (Mars and murder) Simplicissimus 18 May 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Pierpont Morgan beim Teufel, Hauptanstifter von zwei Weltkriegen (Pierpont morgan with the Devil) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Pythia Stalin Wird Englands Größe und Macht erhalten? (caricatures of Churchill and of Stalin as Oracle of Delphi) 1943 No known copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Wer liefert wem? (Who supplies whom? caricatures of Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) Simplicissimus No. 5 Feb. 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res) (cropped).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Wer liefert wem? (Who supplies whom? caricatures of Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) Simplicissimus No. 5 Feb. 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Wilsons Geist (Woodrow Wilson's Spirit) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Der Mörder "Ich will doch nur den Frieden nach Europa bringen!" (The Killer, Red Army soldier kills Peace) 1943 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_20_May_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res)_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_20_May_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_18_May_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_No_known_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_No._5_Feb._1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res)_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_No._5_Feb._1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1943_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act «a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion» and should only be deleted if there is a «significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law». Is it the case here? Günther Frager (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a "mere allegation". --Rosenzweig τ 15:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. You'd have to somehow show that URAA doesn't apply with either simultaneous publication in the US (doubtful in 1943) and that the copyright was that was not renewed or that these cartoons were seized by the Alien Property Custodian. Germany was PMA 70 in 1996 so 1925 was the cutoff line, but now 1926 and 1927 German works are clear of URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, URAA always confuse me. Dover published some caricatures from Simplicissimus after the war, but for URAA only the first publication is what counts if I interpret you correctly. Günther Frager (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Britannien-USA.-UdSSR.-Allianz. (Britain-US-USSR-alliance, eagle, lion, bear) 1942 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1942_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1942_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1942 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2038. Rosenzweig τ 14:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also affected:
_1942_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Am Grunde der Ägäis (At the bottom of The Aegean) 1941 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1941_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1941_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1941 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2037. Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Das Plutokratenungeheuer, Kreta, britische Minotaurus (The Plutocrats Monster) 1941 atirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Der Fall Bolivien (The case Bolivia, caricature of Franklin D. Roosevelt) 1941 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_1941_atirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1941_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:ERICH SCHILLING - ALTMARK Simplicissimus 1940, Heft 10, Titeblatt 147 61408 1 l2x Schwarze Kreide, Graphit, Gouache 32x29 cm, Venator & Hanstein auction, No known copyright restrictions Satirical magazine Altmark incident Norway.jpg
[edit]
This 1940 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2036. Rosenzweig τ 14:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Altmark (Hijacking of the Altmark) 1940 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Der Schwedische Odysseus und die Sirenen (The Swedish Ulysses and the Sirens, King Gustaf V, Neville Chamberlain, British politicians) 1940 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Verkrüppelt (Storpiato) Goddam, jetzt habe ICH die englische Krankheit (Crippled, starving John Bull, destroyed navy) 1940 Satirical cartoon No copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Versailles-Ungeheuer (The Versailles Monster killed) 1940 23788929311 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Simplicissimus. 1940-03-10 German satirical magazine Cover Erich Schilling – Altmark (Hijacking of the German ship Altmark by British Navy in Norway) Political cartoon No known copyright.jpg
_1940_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1940_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Goddam,_jetzt_habe_ICH_die_englische_Krankheit_(Crippled,_starving_John_Bull,_destroyed_navy)_1940_Satirical_cartoon_No_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1940_23788929311_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Political_cartoon_No_known_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Der britische Schlangenbeschwörer (The British Snake Charmer controlling India, Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc. as snakes) 1939 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1939 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2035. Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Der Lügenfeldzug "Die Demokratien haben ihre treuesten Truppen restlos mobilisiert,um Deutschland einzukreisen!" (The campaign of lies) 1939 Anti-semitic No known copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Die volksdeutschen Opfer bei Chamberlain, "Ist das die Menschlichkeit, für die du kämpfst?" (The ethnic German victims at Chamberlain, nightmare) 1939 No known copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Englands Kampf gegen den Großdeutschen Stahlblock, Nazi-Stahllegierung (England's struggle against the Greater German steel-block, Churchill, Chamberlain) 1939 No copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Englische Heizer, chinesische Ofen (English heater, Chinese oven) 1939 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Mars staunt, Was - du Scheusal bist der britische Kriegsgott? (Mars marvel, British lies) 1939 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Sportfasching (Sports carnival, skiers in costumes) 1939 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_1939_Anti-semitic_No_known_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_No_known_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_No_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1939_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling (1885-1945) 29. September 1938 "Der Höllengeister Tanz zerstorb und ward zunichte. Des Friedens Morgenglanz diktiert die Weltgeschichte." (1938 Munich Agreement Peace vs Spirits of Hell) Satirical cartoon Low-res No co.jpg
[edit]_29._September_1938_%22Der_H%C3%B6llengeister_Tanz_zerstorb_und_ward_zunichte._Des_Friedens_Morgenglanz_diktiert_die_Weltgeschichte.%22_(1938_Munich_Agreement_Peace_vs_Spirits_of_Hell)_Satirical_cartoon_Low-res_No_co.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This 1938 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2034. Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Einäscherung Kantons, Der chinesische Drache (The Chinese Dragon burning down Guangzhou during the Second Sino-Japanese War) 1938 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Familienrat im Pazifik, Wettrüsten zur See (Family Council in the Pacific) 1938 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Torquemada wird interviewt, Großinquisitor, Stalinsche Justizmethoden (Torquemada is interviewed, hell) 1938 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_1938_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1938_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1938_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Lügengeschwader der Komintern (Lies Squadron of the Comintern, Stalin caricature) 1937 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1937_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1937_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1937 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2033. Rosenzweig τ 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Unkraut in Newyorker Ring (Weed in the New York Boxing ring) 1937 Antisemtic satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Schilling Erich - Der Filmstar.jpg
_1937_Antisemtic_satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Annäherung um jeden Preis, Herriot (Approach at all costs) 1936 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1936_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1936_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1936 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2032. Rosenzweig τ 14:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Höllenschmerz, Boschewismus (Hell pain, devil) 1936 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Marinanne und ihr Haß (Marianne and her hatred) 1936 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_1936_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1936_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Die Ost-China-Bahn, Ex oriente lux? (The East China railway, skeleton with torch on locomotive) Simplicissimus -25 Sept. 16 1934 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_Simplicissimus_-25_Sept._16_1934_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_-25_Sept._16_1934_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1934 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2030. Rosenzweig τ 14:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Der Straßburger Sender "Nicht entgiftet wird die Atmosphäre, sondern vergiftet!" (The Strasbourg Station) Simplicissimus No. 32 5.11.1933 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_Simplicissimus_No._32_5.11.1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Simplicissimus_No._32_5.11.1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1933 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2029. Rosenzweig τ 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:Erich Schilling – Greuel-Lügen, Die trojanische Ente ('Abomination lies') Simplicissimus August 1933 Satirical cartoon No known copyright.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Höllensorgen (Hell cares, Versailles devil gets Elixir Français) 1933 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
- File:Erich Schilling – Übung macht den Meister "Reuchskanzler wären wir nun – jetzt wollen wir mal das Hungergespenst stürzen." (Practice creates Masters) 1933 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
_Simplicissimus_August_1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1933_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Der Kampf mit dem Drachen der Not (The battle with the dragon of distress, Hitler caricature) 1932 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1932_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1932_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1932 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2028. Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:SIMPLICISSIMUS German satirical magazine 1932-07-10 Caricature cover art by Erich Schilling of Hitler as knight fighting a dragon. Der Kampf mit dem Drachen der Not. No known copyright restrictions.jpg
- File:Erich Schilling, Deutschlands Autarkie, 1932.jpg
--Rosenzweig τ 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – England und Indien, Simon-Berichte, Britisch-Indische Round-Table-Konferenzen (England and India, Round Table Conferences, Hindu god) 1931 No copyright.jpg
[edit]_1931_No_copyright.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1931_No_copyright.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1931 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2027. Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
_1931_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Erich Schilling – Mondkonferenz in sachen Raketenflug (Moon conference in matters of Rocket flight) 1929 Satirical cartoon No known copyright (low-res).jpg
[edit]_1929_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg){kind=link}
_1929_Satirical_cartoon_No_known_copyright_(low-res).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This 1929 work by German artist Erich Schilling is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2025. Rosenzweig τ 15:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also affected:
- File:SIMPLICISSIMUS German satirical magazine 1929-04-22 Caricature by Erich Schilling of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler i swastika pose. Hitler, Ein verhinderter Diktator. No known copyright restrictions.jpg
- File:SIMPLICISSIMUS German satirical magazine 1929 Berlin stellt sich um Auf der Börse. Caricature by Erich Schilling of Adolf Hitler and German financial elite jews. No known copyright restrictions.jpg
--Rosenzweig τ 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
No proof of authorization 2A01:CB14:B39:8B00:9D9D:4EC6:34E7:C2EB 10:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, no real reason for deletion; as stated in the website's footer, "Los contenidos de buenosaires.gob.ar están licenciados bajo Creative Commons Reconocimiento 2.5 Argentina License." (The contents of buenosaires.gob.ar are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Argentina License), authorization should not be required, unless it can be proven that this is not a work of the Buenos Aires City Government. nicolas talkpage 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 23:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
explanianed at VPC, the "e" icon left of "Environment Canterbury" can really beyond the very low COM:TOO New Zealand. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is certainly de minimis here. Yann (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm new to copyright on Wikimedia Commons, so I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but is there a possibility to move the photos to the English Wikipedia where they are currently being used (maybe also Wikidata). And would these photo's usages on English Wikipedia count as fair use / fair dealing? CoderThomasB (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not needed. This file is perfectly acceptable on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann Even those "e" security marks are de minimis?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see anything complex and preeminent enough to create a copyright for this picture. Yann (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann Even those "e" security marks are de minimis?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not needed. This file is perfectly acceptable on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis Dronebogus (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Going by the copyright guidelines for Nicaragua the license for these images is wrong because PD-NI-exempt doesn't apply to them. I assume what would in absence of that is the term of the publication date + 70 years. If that's the case, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, these images are copyrighted until at least 2,066. If not later because of the URAA. Although I'll leave it up to the closing administrator to decide which term to apply.
- File:DS Kim 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:DS Koo 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:JH Chang 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:JH Park 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:JW Song 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:KC Lee 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Kim Ki-tai 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Kim Tae-han 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Kim Yong-su 2020 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Mark Tewksbury 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Olympians 1995 stampsheet of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:SH Lee 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:TH Kim 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Vitaly Scherbo 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:YD Han 1995 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
Deleted: (per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD-NI-exempt). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Going by the copyright guidelines for Nicaragua the license for these images is wrong because PD-NI-exempt doesn't apply to them since they are copyrighted. I assume what would in absence of that though is the term of the publication date + 70 years. If that's the case, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, these images are copyrighted until at least 2,066. If not later because of the URAA. Although I'll leave it up to the closing administrator to decide which term to apply. Although it might actually be a year to late for URAA restoration. I'm not really sure, but I assume the closing admin would know.
- File:Angel Herrera 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Patrizio Oliva 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Petar Lesov 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Rudi Fink 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Slobodan Kačar 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
- File:Teófilo Stevenson 1996 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
Deleted: (per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD-NI-exempt). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Likely COPYVIO that should be deleted per COM:BOOK since there's zero evidence the uploader is the artist of the cover or that they own the right to it even if they are. The same goes for the following images:
- File:POWIDOKI Moda 2019 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg
- File:POWIDOKI Moda 2019 fot Sebastian Komicz.jpg
- File:POWIDOKI Przestrzeń 2020 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg
- File:POWIDOKI Re-konstruktywizm cover-1 2019 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg
- File:POWIDOKI Re-konstruktywizm cover-2 2019 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg
- File:POWIDOKI Sploty 2021 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all except File:POWIDOKI Re-konstruktywizm cover-2 2019 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg. Keep File:POWIDOKI Re-konstruktywizm cover-2 2019 fot Przemek Hajek.jpg as {{PD-shape}}. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed on one web site, that one famous artist's legal company posed prohibiton on publication of lyrics of this artist.
- So, nobody can publish lyrics of this artist's songs on lirycs sites.
- Does it make sense ?
- Any photo contains architecture, and other works protected by copyrights.
- So? Do i have to fly to the owner and ask for permission?
- Generally, photo was made by Azerbaijani President's press sevice, and is published oficially on the site of president
- ( https://president.az/en/articles/view/58418 )
- Do president also have to ask specific permission of the architector / owner of the building ? Xcite (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- The architect. Yes, that's right. You don't have to like copyright to understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Fair enough Leo Miregalitheo (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
That some blog does not name the photographer of a specific photo does not mean that that photo is "anonymous" in a legal sense or that the photographer is "unknown" as claimed here. On the contrary, he is known: per [5], this was taken from a 1941 edition of the Nazi propaganda magazine Signal, and the photographer is de:Arthur Grimm (Fotograf), who died in 2000. So the photograph is still protected by copyright in Germany (as well as the US), and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2071. Rosenzweig τ 02:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Question Isn't there something grotesque about protecting the copyright of Nazis, who didn't protect the rights of anyone? I would not feel comfortable requesting deletions or supporting deletions on that basis. These were stone-cold killers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright does not care about such moral questions. Even the copyrights of Hitler himself were recognized. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright is not a person and therefore is incapable of caring or not caring. I'm asking people to at least recognize how grotesque it is that we care about the copyrights of mass killers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright is made by people, and regardless if these people cared about such matters or not, they didn't write anything like "the works of morally reprehensible people are not protected by copyright" into the laws. At least not in Germany, and we're talking about German law here. The US does have some provisions about seized enemy property and such, but that does not apply here as far as I can tell. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're giving me a legal answer that I already know, but it's a kind of extension of the banal bureaucracy of evil in this situation, by which I do not at all mean to impugn you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright is made by people, and regardless if these people cared about such matters or not, they didn't write anything like "the works of morally reprehensible people are not protected by copyright" into the laws. At least not in Germany, and we're talking about German law here. The US does have some provisions about seized enemy property and such, but that does not apply here as far as I can tell. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright is a matter of law, not morality. The photograph is still in copyright in Germany (if it was seized during the war, there wouldn't be a US copyright). Delete per nom regrettably. Abzeronow (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyright does not care about such moral questions. Even the copyrights of Hitler himself were recognized. --Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; to paraphrase The People vs. Larry Flynt, "If copyright will protect the rights of a scumbag like this Nazi, it will protect all of you.". —holly {chat} 18:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This German propaganda poster is NOT under a CC license as claimed by the upload. The artist of this, Herbert Dassel, died in 2001, so the work is still protected by copyright in Germany, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2072. Rosenzweig τ 03:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Abzeronow (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is the concern regarding the banner or the stadium elements visible? If it's the later, I would think this image is okay since the banner is the focus and the portions of the stadium are incidental to the image and not the focus. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: The arch, though, which is clearly depicted in this photo was designed by Santiago Calatrava and is considered almost like a symbol to this stadium. If that part was cropped out, then, maybe it should be fine. 😕🤷♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: Upd: Now that I'm thinking of it, the name "eurokinissi" which is included in the file name, might most probably refer to a well known photo agency of the same name operating in Greece. So this, along with the lack of Metadata + low quality and resolution of the file, could most probably mean that we have a case of copyrights violation here. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe. I can find one instance of this photo being used outside of a wiki -- https://www.paok24.com/podosfairo/226606/odigies-pros-toys-opadoys-apo-tin-pae-paok/ -- but that article is from 2018 and this image was uploaded in 2015, so it could well be they just used this photo. I can find a few similar ones from 2014, but they show players on the pitch, which this one doesn't. Del under COM:PCP may well be the best course of action. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: I can even find more recent ones but coming from some major sports news websites of Greece. While the date alone could leave us wondering, however, we're talking about organizations that can have waaaay easier access to images of far better quality and resolution than this one. My take is that the original photo most probably was lost as the article accompanying it was simply and purely deleted, which, unfortunatelt, is quite a common practice among Greek media outlet, thus, at least in theory, leaving is in the dark regarding the exact copyrights status of this specific photo. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 14:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe. I can find one instance of this photo being used outside of a wiki -- https://www.paok24.com/podosfairo/226606/odigies-pros-toys-opadoys-apo-tin-pae-paok/ -- but that article is from 2018 and this image was uploaded in 2015, so it could well be they just used this photo. I can find a few similar ones from 2014, but they show players on the pitch, which this one doesn't. Del under COM:PCP may well be the best course of action. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: Upd: Now that I'm thinking of it, the name "eurokinissi" which is included in the file name, might most probably refer to a well known photo agency of the same name operating in Greece. So this, along with the lack of Metadata + low quality and resolution of the file, could most probably mean that we have a case of copyrights violation here. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: The arch, though, which is clearly depicted in this photo was designed by Santiago Calatrava and is considered almost like a symbol to this stadium. If that part was cropped out, then, maybe it should be fine. 😕🤷♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per likely copyvio of a news agency photo. —holly {chat} 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Georgia A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- There is no reason to nominate the image for deletion, it is a public building published in similar ways several dozen times.
- These nominations and similar ones are just a simple kind of vandalism. Matti&Keti (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Its being a public building does not mean that the architect of the building did not copyright it, such that people who use images of it for commercial purposes cannot be sued. But maybe you know something special about the status of this building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Question Do we have idea whether {{PD-GE-exempt}} applies or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Platz schaffen Frank John-Lorenz (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I redirected it to your new user name. —holly {chat} 18:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
explanianed at VPC, the "e" icon left of "Environment Canterbury" can really beyond the very low COM:TOO New Zealand. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:CHCH Mobile Phone Metrocard.JPG —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep de minimis Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
not uploader's own work: https://stevemunro.ca/2020/12/11/eglinton-east-waterfront-lrt-updates/ Joeyconnick (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. These are specially designed rubber duck with artistic differences, and they may exceed COM:TOO A1Cafel (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- This photo was made in a shop. These rubber ducks are not works of art. They are toys and were on display in a box. Weetjesman (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Weetjesman: In that case, it looks like COM:FOP Netherlands would be a question here, probably not applied to interiors of outlet stores within malls? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: The interior of a shop in a mall is probably considered a public space. —holly {chat} 18:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
1973 China photograph of General Zhu De, unlikely own work of the uploader. (see: https://history.ifeng.com/c/7nXLLyWHcKg) 源義信 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The bench and the camera angle make this image a 3D composition. However, there is a Chinese-language watermark on the bottom right that might indeed imply a copyright or an unauthorized uploading. Enyavar (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; the bench isn't part of the FOP concern. —holly {chat} 18:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Mongolia A1Cafel (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah. But I wonder if you could argue, at inventing a box-building with windows is not above COM:TOO and that whatever details makes this building unique can't be seen on this photo. --MGA73 (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- No idea about COM:TOO in Mongolia, but I still proposed deletion per COM:PCP--A1Cafel (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, made by Dennis Lau & Ng Chun Man Architects & Engineers (HK) Ltd. and Mongolia has no freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the copyright rules stamps of Nicaragua are copyrighted. While this one has survived multiple DRs because it's supposedly based on a painting from 1493, I think that reasoning is flawed because the original painting and the stamp are not at all similar. As can be seen by comparing the two images side by side. One example being the stained glass window and pillars in the background on the right, which are vastly different between the two. The painting next to the stage is also different. Same goes for the steps up to the thrown, the people sitting there, and the background. Also the people to the left are different. The only thing that seems similar is the general placement of the people near the thrown and in the crowd. As well as the objects in the room. Excluding the objects that have been completely removed in the stamp. Although even the crowd has a different look to them in the stamp. According to "Commons:Derivative works "A derivative work is one which is not only based on a previous work, but which also contains sufficient new, creative content to entitle it to its own copyright." Taken as a whole, I think the differences and editions in the stamp from the original contain enough sufficient new and creative content to entitle it to it's own copyright separate from the original. Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I must concur with the nominator. Many of the altered details seem clearly above the threshold of originality to me. Felix QW (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Per the copyright rules for this country stamps are copyrighted. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Description said AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, not a work from the 10 Downing Street, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Description said AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, not a work from the 10 Downing Street, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nicaragua#Stamps anonymously created stamps are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the publication datee. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2,047. Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A kategória összes eleme (kivéve az épület külső részét ábrázoló) jogsértő, ugyanis az ÁSZF ezt tartalmazza: "Kifejezett tiltás hiányában a Látogató fényképeket és felvételeket készíthet az Attrakción belül, feltéve, hogy ezeket kizárólag magáncélra használja, és nem értékesíti vagy használja fel semmilyen kereskedelmi vagy nyilvános célra. A jelen Általános Szerződési Feltételek elfogadásával Látogató beleegyezik abba, hogy szándékosan nem fényképez és/vagy rögzít videófelvételeket egyetlen személyről sem az adott személy engedélye nélkül, és az Attrakcióban érvényes összes fényképezési/filmezési korlátozást betartja." (English language: "Unless expressly prohibited, the Visitor may take photographs and make recordings inside the Attraction, provided that they are used for private purposes only and are not sold or used for any commercial or public purpose. By accepting these GTC, the Visitor agrees not to intentionally photograph and/or record video footage of any person without that person's permission and to comply with all photography/filming restrictions in the Attraction.") Az ÁSZF-ben foglaltak nem felelnek meg a szabad licenc feltételeinek, hiszen csak magáncélra készíthetők a képek és nem használhatóak fel semmilyen kereskedelmi vagy nyilvános célra, márpedig a Cc-by-sa licenc pont ezekre ad lehetőséget. Már eleve az tilos és jogsértő, hogy az internet felületén nyilvánosságra hozta feltöltő az ott készített képeket. A Szolgáltató engedélye nélkül az ott készült képek ilyen jellegű felhasználása jogsértő, Deleteek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mme_Tussaud_museum_(2847547733).jpg -- {{Licensed-FOP|1={{FoP-UK}} --Elekes Andor (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Miért is vonatkozna ezekre a képekre az Egyesült Királyság jogszabálya? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_Gaga_Madame_Tussauds_Sydney.jpg {{Licensed-FOP|1={{FoP-Australia}} --Elekes Andor (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Budapest is in Hungary, so:
{{FoP-Hungary}}
Delete Fauvirt (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Azért még várjuk meg, amíg Elekes Andor az összes olyan ország licencsablonját idemásolja, ahol van Madame Tussauds. Persze ebből még nem tudjuk meg, hogy egy Magyarországon alapított, Magyarországon működő és székhelyű cégre, akik a magyar jogrendszer szerint szabályozzák a működésüket (lásd ÁSZF), miért is vonatkozna akár az Egyesült Királyság, akár Ausztrália jogai. Mondjuk szerencsére ebben az ügyben Elekes Andor nem vitapartner. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - Elnézést kérek a jogászkodásért, igyekszem rövid lenni.
- Általánosan a Polgári Törvényköny (Ptk) szabályozza a tulajdonjogot, vagyis amikor valaki birtokol valamit, akkor mit enged és nem enged másoknak. Akik ezt megszegik, azoknak a Ptk. szerinti felelősségük van, amiért a hatóságok előtt felelnek. Ez szerződésszegés, vagyis Elekes úr akkor, amikor bemegy egy magánterületre és ott a feltételeket megszegi, akkor ezért ő felelősséggel tartozik (például, de nem kizárólagosan kártérítési felelősséggel). Ez a Toussauds és az ő kettejük boltja.
- A Szerzői Jog a szellemi termékeket és műveket védi, teljesen függetlenül attól, hogy annak mi a polgári jogi állapota. A védelem akkor keletkezik amikor a művet valaki („kreatív tevékenység során”) létrehozza, és megmarad, míg 70 éve nem virágzik a sírján a pitypang. Ezen szempontból teljesen lényegtelen, hogy az arról készült digitális másolatot jogszerűen vagy jogtalanul készítették: ha a szerző nem adott explicit engedélyt a felhasználásra akkor a felhasználás jogsértő. Mivel ezek technikailag szobrok, és nem közterületen találhatóak (a Freedom of Panorama kizárólag közterületekre vonatkozik, magánterületre, mint amilyen egy múzeum is, nem), ezért ezek szerzői jogi védelem alá esnek, és a jogsértés a szerző és a felhasználó (jelen esetben a Wikipédia és felhasználói) között áll fenn, így emiatt nekünk kell eljárni.
- I apologise for the legalese, I will try to be brief.
- Generally speaking, the Civil Code (Ptk) regulates property rights, i.e. when someone owns something, what they do and do not allow others to do. Those who violate this are liable under the Civil Code, for which they are answerable to the authorities. This is a breach of contract, which means that when Mr Elekes goes onto private property and breaches the conditions there, he is liable (for example, but not exclusively, for damages). This is the Toussauds and his business.
- Copyright law protects intellectual products and works of authorship, quite irrespective of their civil status. The protection arises when the work is created by someone ("in the course of creative activity") and remains until the dandelion blooms on his grave 70 years later. In this respect, it is completely irrelevant whether the digital copy made of it was made lawfully or unlawfully: if the author has not given explicit permission for use then the use is infringing. Since they are technically sculptures and not in public space (Freedom of Panorama only applies to public spaces, not private property such as a museum), they are therefore copyrighted, and the infringement is between the author and the user (in this case Wikipedia and its users), and we must act on that. [translation by DeepL and me] grin ✎ 09:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sajnos nem én vagyok a Madam Tussauds Budapest tulajdonosa (Kreinbacher József – https://index.hu/belfold/2021/06/16/madame-tussauds-budapest-penz/). Ha én lennék, akkor úgy döntenék, hogy nem rontják az üzletemet ezek a fényképek, h o z z á j á r u ln é k, hogy fennmaradjanak a wikipédián. Elnézve Tussauds világhálózat megjelenését a hálón, szerintem akár az anyacég javára is szolgálhatnának a fényképek (lehet, hogy ez csak menthető elfogultság a fényképeim javára, de komolyan mondom). Ettől függetlenül, számomra önmagában elfogadható, ha a jelentős beruházással létrejött produkció tulajdonosai elfogadhatatlannak tartják a fényképeket. A cég üzletszabályzata nem bír szerzői jogi jelentőséggel, de a wikipédia – szerintem – ettől függetlenül minősítheti jogellenesnek a feltöltést nem csak szerzői jogi alapon, hanem azon az alapon is, hogy jogellenes a feltöltése a cég üzletszabályzatának a tiltása következtében.
- 1.
- Megjegyezném, hogy a viasszobrokat készítők az Egyesült Királyságban élnek és ott is készítették a szobrokat.
- 2.
- A Madam Tussauds Budapest franchise rendszerben üzemelteti a vállalkozást, magyarán a hardware (ingatlan) magyar tulajdonban van, a software (üzleti, művészi) koncepció jogtulajdonosa viszont a Madame Tussauds London. Elekes Andor (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete According to point 10 of the General Terms and Conditions, photographs taken at the exhibition may only be used for private purposes. Neither public nor commercial use is permitted. This is clearly not in compliance with CCBYSA. --Pallerti (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: We don't care the venue's terms and conditions. We do care about copyright violations, and this wax figure is most certainly copyrighted by its creator. —holly {chat} 18:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No proof of authorization 2A01:CB14:B39:8B00:9D9D:4EC6:34E7:C2EB 10:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Video source on Vimeo is CC-BY 3.0 licensed RevengerTime (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The image does not have the license indicated to remain on Wikimedia commons, therefore it must be deleted JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please click on the "more info" text below the title to see a "cc-by-3.0" license, which is an acceptable license for Wikimedia Commons. nicolas talkpage 00:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, no real reason for deletion; the video source is "CC-BY 3.0" licensed. nicolas talkpage 00:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- review the video well and if it appears under the said license, copyright is not being infringed, I change my vote to : Keep JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete the source claims it is CC-BY and it is apparently from the director. However, this is an advertisement, i.e., it is likely a work for hire, and I doubt he has the copyright of it instead of 47st. The Vimeo channel has also advertisements by Coca-Cola, Levi, H&M, Vans, etc all with a CC-BY license. I can image it is a wrongly configured account that uses CC-BY as default license. Günther Frager (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment:If it should be deleted for that reason, then you would also have to delete: File:Lali 47st 2021.jpg File:Lali 47st 2021.jpg since the image comes from the same video that is mentioned
- JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: As the subject is Argentinian, I'm going to assume that Argentina law applies, which would categorize this as a collaborative work, so I don't think that the director by himself has the authority to license the video as CC-BY. Now it's possible this is a group decision by all involved parties, but I think we would need VRT verification for that. —holly {chat} 18:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The image should be deleted per COM:BOOK since there's zero evidence that the uploader has permission from the authors or publishers to share images of the book. The same goes for the following images:
- File:Zones sensibles éditions 2 (©Kefaire).jpg
- File:Zones sensibles éditions 3 (©Kefaire).jpg
- File:Zones sensibles éditions 4 (©Kefaire).jpg
- File:Zones sensibles éditions 5 (©Kefaire).jpg
- File:Zones sensibles éditions 6 (©Kefaire).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){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}
Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete all except File:Zones sensibles éditions 4 (©Kefaire).jpg, but Keep File:Zones sensibles éditions 4 (©Kefaire).jpg: I think those covers are not artistic works, but rather simple depictions of mathematics, and therefore {{PD-ineligible}}. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all but the one suggested by Mdaniels. —holly {chat} 18:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The photo is probably from San Lorenzo Club. The user already submitted plenty of copyvio uploading photos available on official Twitter and Facebook accounts. Günther Frager (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we assume good faith until the uploader gives us reason not to. —holly {chat} 18:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
On the internet since 2019 according to TinEye, and on this webpage https://www.musicalma.es/1a-discografia-de-musicalma-en-el-panorama-musical/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This German illustration from German artist Oskar Garvens, first published in 1933, is in the public domain in Germany, but not in the US where it is still protected (for 95 years from first publication) because the URAA restored its copyright there. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2029.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 12:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any licensing that shows that the image source is in the public domain only under German copyright law, but not under U.S. copyright law? Don't know much about this, but I've seen it before. CPallaske (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Garvens died in 1951, so on the URAA date in 1996, his works were still protected by copyright in Germany, which means they were protected in the US for 95 years from first publication. --Rosenzweig τ 19:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@CPallaske: If Commons doesn't like it, it can be uploaded locally on the German-language Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Hochladen (Why did no one suggest this before deleting it on Commons??). --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author of this ca. early 1940s photograph is given as Julius Jääskeläinen, but that is just the guy who colorized a B&W photograph, not the photographer. Without any information about the photographer, date and place of first publication etc. (creation was no later than 1944) we cannot determine the copyright status of the photo, and the file should be deleted. The photographer is probably one of the PK propaganda officers, and some of those lived into the 1990s or early 2000s, so there is a good chance the photo is still protected in both Germany and the US (URAA and possible first publication in the 1940s). Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- A possible photographer is named Igor Poul at this website called Traces of War if somebody knows more about war photographers or propaganda officers in the 1940s? VisbyStar (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Stamps of China are not PD in the United States per the URAA and therefore shouldn't be hosted on Commons. Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Kept: There has been no discussion about this image, therefore I do not see sufficient arguments for deleting it. The Wikimedia Foundation – through the statement of the Legal department - does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. The document on Commons at COM:URAA states “A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.” Nobody took the effort to participate in this discussion, therefore I decided to keep the image, because it has a correct licence for the country where it originated. In addition, the file page is showing a warning sign that a licence tag is missing which will show the image is possibly not in public domain in the USA which will prevent re-users from USA to use it freely without additional research. If you do not agree with this decision, you are kindly requested to nominate the image again for deletion in order to have a broader discussion about it. --Ellywa (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#Stamps post of 1928 stamps of the country are copyrighted by China Post or its affiliates unless we can find the death date of the artist, which personally I was unable to do and I assume no one else will be able to find it either. So this image should be deleted unless someone is able to come up with when the artist died and it fits in with the normal copyright term.
(BTW, I nominated this for deletion a while back based purely on URAA, which apparently didn't fly. So it's just a normal deletion request based on the lack of information about the artist) Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think you're correct. I recall having to remove this image during Cai Lun's FA nomination on WP, simply for copyright reasons. As the original uploader myself, its inclusion on the commons was an oversight on my part. – Aza24 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. It happens. There's a lot of a grey area around most of this stuff anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded as 'own work', which seems unlikely DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This photo was first published in a September 1941 issue of the Nazi propaganda magazine Signal, so the URAA restored its US copyright, and it is still protected in the US until the end of 2036. The author is claimed to be "unknown", but I don't think that is the case. You can see it in context here (single image here), and the photographer is named there at the bottom of the text (as Aufnahmen: ...). Unfortunately, the resolution is not good enough to actually read the name, and I couldn't find a better image of that page. Still, the author is clearly not unknown and anonymous, and unless we can find out the identity of this person and when he died, we cannot host this image before 120 years have passed from first publication. So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2062.
Also affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
duplicate, wrong license Xocolatl (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Xocolatl: Comment: also listed File:Linzhu1.jpg recently QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not simply a text logo. It is above the threshold of originality. oknazevad (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not in the U.S., in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Based on what? The fact that it's made up of simple shapes? Any complex design can be broken down into simple shapes ultimately. That doesn't mean that it is below the threshold of originality. This logo required creative effort to determine layout and composition. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Based on what is under COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The only thing I see there that is clearly above the threshold is the Major League Baseball logo, which we keep here with an argument of publication without notice. I am not sure the ornament at the bottom, presumably a stylised baseball base, would pass the threshold, and the rest should clearly be beneath it. Felix QW (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Easily below TOO in the US. —holly {chat} 20:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
On the internet since 2019 according to TinEye, and on this webpage https://www.musicalma.es/1a-discografia-de-musicalma-en-el-panorama-musical/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The stamps on this postal cover (I think that's what it is) look to be based on images that are PD due to age. However, the artwork on the side of the cover (or whatever) is probably copyrighted until at least 2,053. That is unless someone can find evidence of it being a reproduction of an image that is in the public domain. I looked around for it myself in a couple of places but wasn't to able to find a prior example. Although I don't speak Greek either. So maybe someone who does can find it. Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator Adamant1 has acknowledged he is "not an expert on ships by any means...". This ship is obviously of a pre-WW1 design.
- I looked for it, and the ship in the main image of File:70 year old post stamp of Lesvos.jpg is the Greek cruiser Georgios Averof. It was the flagship of the Greek fleet, that took Lesbos from centuries of control by the Ottoman Turks. The ship drawing looks like it was taken from File:"Averof" in dark gray paint, c.1913.jpg. I believe the individual in the collage is Pavlos Kountouriotis File:Pavlos Coundouriotis.png, the commander of the liberation fleet.
- Does a faithful drawing of Kountouriotis's old photo earn itself a new copyright?
- Does a faithful drawing from the 1913 photo of the cruiser earn itself a new copyright? Geo Swan (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 has acknowledged he is not knowledgeable on nautical matters From what I remember I said I wasn't an "expert" on nautical matters. Not that I don't have any knowledge of the topic. I'm sure you get the difference. I know you can't seem to resist misconstruing what I say and my position every time you have an opportunity to though. Anyway, how many times now have I asked to stop with the personal comments? Honestly, it's kind of weird that you spend so much time being critical of me and how I do things but yet you can't seem to do a simple thing like write a message without taking a jab at me by making false personal comments about how much knowledge I supposedly have about something or whatever the strawman of the moment happens to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment As to what Geo Swan has said that is actually on topic, it's pretty easy to by comparing the file I nominated for deletion and the one he claims it's based on that they are different images. For instance the ship in File:70 year old post stamp of Lesvos.jpg has a flag on the front. Whereas, the one in File:"Averof" in dark gray paint, c.1913.jpg clearly doesn't. The angle of the bow is different in both images to. Unfortunately it seems that Geo Swan was to busying worrying about how much knowledge of "nautical matters" I have to see if the ships in the images actually matched. Regardless, they clearly aren't the same ship. Let alone are they the same images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- You have acknowledged you aren't an expert on ships. So, let me say this in the nicest way I can, your assertion that "the angle of bow" in the two images is different, is incorrect. There is a bow wave in the photograph. It rides up the bow, making it a different shade of grey. When you take that into account the bows are, in fact, identical.
- To the right there is a very blurry image... I cropped the flag from the line drawing. My crop was 18x14 pixels. I suggest it was added on, for dramatic effect, but at 18x14, it is de minimis. File:70 year old post stamp of Lesvos (flag crop).jpg
- Your assertion that they "clearly aren't the same ship". Let me say this in the nicest way I can, the size and shapes, of the two masts and three smokestacks, and their relative positions to one another, is very very highly distinctive. In the nicest way I can possibly say this, your assertion is incorrect. Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- You have acknowledged you aren't an expert on ships Cough cough. Anyway, the bow on the ship in the image on the postal cover clearly slants backwards toward the ship. Whereas, the bow of the ship in the second image is curved in a half circle and points away from the ship at the top as can clearly be seen in in this image. As to your comment about smoke stakes, it's pretty routine for navy ships (as well as other kinds of ships BTW) to have three smoke stakes and for them to be round. So I'm not really sure what exactly that proves. Except ships have round smoke stakes sometimes. It's not that crazy that you could have found an image of a ship with smoke stakes that are round either.
- That said, even if I buy that they are the same ship, which I don't, that doesn't automatically mean the images are the same. One piece of evidence that they aren't is the waves in the first image that aren't in the second. Including the curved waved on the bottom left that clearly isn't in the second image. Also the waves in the first image are mostly parallel lines, but the waves in the second one are extremely choppy and not at all parallel to each other. So even if the images were of the same ship, they aren't the same picture. That said, I'm sure the closing administrator will be able to compare the images and make their own decision based on the evidence. So I'd appreciate it if we ended it there. it's not really worth discussing beyond what we have already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of deleting all of the cover, just cut away the left half and Keep the rest. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; to answer Geo Swan's questions, "faithful reproductions" do not generate a new copyright, but these are not -- they appear to be engravings based on photos or drawings, which makes them derivative works. —holly {chat} 21:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
protected logo, no author no permission, used for advertising on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- What is Belgium's threshold of originality? The logo is fairly simple and would likely be underneath COM:TOO USA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete We don't seem to have any information about TOO in Belgium, but based on COM:TOO Netherlands and COM:TOO France, countries which share some heritage with Belgium, I think the X in the logo probably puts it over the line. —holly {chat} 18:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per Holly. --Ellywa (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Copyrighted CGI. Nanahuatl (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Nanahuatl: Do you have a source to show it's a copyvio? How do we know that the uploader isn't actually the creator? —holly {chat} 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, found elswhere on the web. uploader made more uploads from other sources. --Ellywa (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Satirdan kahraman (talk · contribs)
[edit]per COM:DEMINIMIS
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- + user has a lot more files like this. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- additional files:
- @Satirdan kahraman ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- similar DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gogo a huhu ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- File:Pearl Milling Company Syrup.jpg for example, this file is OK for me. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep File:E-liquide.jpg (PD-text) and File:Old spice captain.jpg (below TOO in the US). Delete the rest. —holly {chat} 20:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted all per nomination and per COM:Packaging. imho not below TOO or in PD. --Ellywa (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
per COM:NUDE.
- File:APaintingBody100.jpg
- File:SexyPainting106.jpg
- File:SexyPainting105.jpg
- File:SexyPainting103.jpg
- File:SexyPainting104.jpg
- File:Sex Painting.jpg
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- but, actually... these are kinda interesting images. but still.. we need discussion. maybe we shouldnt need these images? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus maybe you are interested about that? i saw you previous DR that is about same user. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 22:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per original rationale, we have far superior inages of body painting. These are crudely rendered and primarily trying to emphasize the subject’s genitals Dronebogus (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this work, taken as a whole, has artistic value, and is also humorous. It probably isn't unique, but it may be a good example of body painting making creative use of the genitals. It might be better cropped to exclude the blurred face. Tetsuo (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not in use. --Ellywa (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Haworth & Macdonald 1940 Theory of Occupational Therapy. Published by Wilkins & Wilkins Co.png
[edit]
Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. VRT will be sorted in a week. There is no need to act precipitously on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Andy. I am unable to sort out VRT until after 6 June. I did a speedy delete on most of the images and they have been removed. My priority is publishing the entry on 1 June (Macdonald's birth date). I am happy to upload the 11 images when the copyright is properly authorised. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Occupational Therapy History Matters: What's the status on this now that it's four months later? —holly {chat} 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Holly, I will chase up again. I was told the copyright approval would take awhile but this is a long time. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Occupational Therapy History Matters: What's the status on this now that it's four months later? —holly {chat} 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been a loooong time. If and when VRT comes through, trivial to undelete. But for now, it's a license-fail, so commons can't host it. --DMacks (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Four occupational therapists who went to Argentina in 1959 to open a training school and support rehabilttaion services.png
[edit]
Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. VRT will be sorted in a week. There is no need to act precipitously on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been a loooong time. If and when VRT comes through, trivial to undelete. But for now, it's a license-fail, so commons can't host it. --DMacks (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Evelyn Mary Macdonald at the entrance to 'Mary Macdonald House' at Dorset House School of Occupational Therapy in Oxford in 1971.png
[edit]
Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. VRT will be sorted in a week. There is no need to act precipitously on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been a loooong time. If and when VRT comes through, trivial to undelete. But for now, it's a license-fail, so commons can't host it. --DMacks (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Dorset House occupational therapy students learning about bath transfers using assistive equipment, circa 1950s.png
[edit]
Problem: image licensed under a non-commercial CC licence. Unable to get authorisation and contact VRT until after 6 June. Please delete the image so can submit the biography on 1 June. Occupational Therapy History Matters (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. VRT will be sorted in a week. There is no need to act precipitously on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been a loooong time. If and when VRT comes through, trivial to undelete. But for now, it's a license-fail, so commons can't host it. --DMacks (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
obviously not a self picture – not „own work” Codc (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Why not "own work"? It would be very easy for me to set the timer on my phone's camera, lean it up against a wall, push the button, and then pose. However, the user's only contributions are to his user page, so COM:WEBHOST could apply. Still, we do allow for user page images and it's only 5 months old, so it's possible (if unlikely) this person might want to come back and edit articles. —holly {chat} 20:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: We routinely delete these sorts of "non-selfie picture of Person X not likely taken by Person X." They're welcome to come back and explain this specific request for clarification, but they have not since 5 months (this is a license issue, which is a more significant one than the WEBHOST/non-contributor-selfie issue). --DMacks (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
