Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/06/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_jpg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_de_la_República_Española.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
a clear violation of copyright, as it is taken from a non-free source. Fluttershy — talk 07:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia Omkarsingh98977 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Photo is out of scope. Person portrayed is not a famous person. An article about him was deleted in 2019, photo isn't used anywhere on a Wikimedia project. Mbch331 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 08:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
local errado de carregamento Rui Filipe Fernandes (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
please delete this logo from the site: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder-_und_Jugendhospiz_Balthasar because this ist not the logo of Kinder- und Jugendhospiz Balthasar, it is the logo of GFO and has nothing to do with the logo of Kinder- und Jugendhospiz Balthasar -- Balthasarhospiz (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; logo removed from WP article as requested. --Rosenzweig τ 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fallos en el vídeo subido Mariabeato4 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This is an old logo. The new one is already on wikipedia in use. So the old one is redondant and wrong. Samuel-ZARGES (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Keep Not a deletion reason! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Google Image Search shows this first and it is therefore beeing used by our retailers and anyone who wants to use our logo. But this logo doens't match our current Corporate Design. Samuel-ZARGES (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Historical logos are not being deleted. Renaming might be an option. --Leyo 12:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
© 2022 . 186.172.128.47 01:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Nazif haruna (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Photo is pulled from Twitter, not actually Poster's own property or copyright. Khaveman (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since 21 May 2023). Very simple logo, but is this under or over the very low COM:TOO UK? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-textlogo}}. --Yann (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
_jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_jpg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Carregamento inadequado Cosmo Skerry (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
_jpg.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Taivo. --Rosenzweig τ 06:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
_jpg.jpg){kind=link}
the name should be Richard L. Taylor, mayor of Plainfield, New Jersey. I accidently uploaded using the name of the subsequent mayor Patapsco913 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: file was renamed. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't think Commons is a venue for dubious original research. Tagishsimon (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete. Out of scope; Commons isn't a publisher of textual material in general, regardless of the content. Omphalographer (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's not quite the case, per Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats; but per that section, "a user-created original-research article that is making use of Commons as a free web-host may not be [in scope]" --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps it'd be more precise to say that Commons isn't a first publisher of textual material. It will publish copies of certain types of textual content which have previously been published elsewhere, but original texts like this one are almost always out of scope.
- My point is that the fact that this is original research isn't relevant. Even if this were a survey article, a dictionary entry, or a work of fiction, it'd be equally out of scope. Omphalographer (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's not quite the case, per Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats; but per that section, "a user-created original-research article that is making use of Commons as a free web-host may not be [in scope]" --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope—Vis M (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer want to publish it My studies of the endtimes (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Chameleon Post is an advertisement agency and the ones that produced the ad where this image was taken. In Vimeo it states it has CC-BY license, but it is unlikely to be true. For advertisements the copyrights belong to the brand (except the music) never to the company that was hired to produce the ad. The wrong license in Vimeo is likely due to a misconfiguration of the account. Günther Frager (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the image should be removed if it infringes copyright. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Chameleon Post is an advertisement agency and the ones that produced the ad where this image was taken. In Vimeo it states it has CC-BY license, but it is unlikely to be true. For advertisements the copyrights belong to the brand (except the music) never to the company that was hired to produce the ad. The wrong license in Vimeo is likely due to a misconfiguration of the account. Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Okay, that's fine. I agree the image should be removed if it infringes copyright. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Chameleon Post is an advertisement agency and the ones that produced the ad where this image was taken. In Vimeo it states it has CC-BY license, but it is unlikely to be true. For advertisements the copyrights belong to the brand (except the music) never to the company that was hired to produce the ad. The wrong license in Vimeo is likely due to a misconfiguration of the account. Günther Frager (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the image should be removed if it infringes copyright. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't find a CC license in the source page. Njzjz (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete: Official release by Xinhua News Agency - http://m.news.cn/2023-05/29/c_1129653393.htm
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The image was taken by Carlos Alvarez of Getty Images, not own work by uploader. (Source) Bookish Worm (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The image was taken by Carlos Alvarez of Getty Images, not own work by uploader. (Source) Bookish Worm (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The image was taken by Carlos Alvarez of Getty Images, not own work by uploader. (Source) Bookish Worm (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The image was taken by Carlos Alvarez of Getty Images, not own work by uploader. (Source) Bookish Worm (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: this file doesn't serve an educational purpose Eureka Lott 04:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Image appears to be copyright violation; see [1] and associated copyright in footer. Unclear if uploader is credited photographer; if so, proper release of license would be necessary for Commons compatibility. Kinu (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Small file, no EXIF 186.172.101.50 08:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal file of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Sgbaxtre (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- File:Overpriced Tech Decks proven by Critics!.pdf (duplicate of above file)
Outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Clearly copyrighted since the description says it's from a TV program and the source is Facebook. Adamant1 (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND. Not suitable for Commons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND. Not suitable for Commons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded exactly the same file but in better quality File:Gold GWTW logo.png Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:TOYS 186.172.128.47 01:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Romano Romanelli died in 1969 A1Cafel (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. Architect Cesare Ligini died in 1988 A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: primarily plain text. (Attempting to create an encyclopedia article.) Omphalographer (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- MY name is Yasuo Kanda, Glandson of Tomoo Kanda. I would like to know why this explanation is requested to be deleted. 神田泰夫 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tomoo Kanda received the Yhird Order of the Sacred Treasure for his achievements in revitalizing the industry. 神田泰夫 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tomoo Kanda received the Third Order of the Sacred Treasure instead of Yhird Order. This is a collection. 神田泰夫 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Tomoo Kanda received the Yhird Order of the Sacred Treasure for his achievements in revitalizing the industry. 神田泰夫 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that Tomoo Kanda's career was great enough just after Second World War, because he re-builted both shipping and aviation business of Japan from zero. 神田泰夫 (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you are trying to create an encyclopedia article about this person, you will need to create a page on the Japanese Wikipedia. You cannot create an encyclopedia article by uploading a PDF file. Omphalographer (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Diese Bild ist bei der Überarbeitung der Bilder "Wiedemar (Gemeinde Wiedemar)" doppelt in die betreffende Category geraten, es existiert schon ein größeres, überarbeitetes Bild. Dguendel 06:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, see File:Wiedemar, der Teich-2.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 11:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Political fantasy Enyavar (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it is totally blurry Tanvir Rahat (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: photo seems ok to me. --Rosenzweig τ 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Remigio Barbaro died in 2005 A1Cafel (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Marino Marini died in 1980 A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1967 by Melchiorre Bega (1898–1976). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2047 A1Cafel (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The building was completed in 1967 by Melchiorre Bega (1898–1976). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2047 A1Cafel (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Romano Romanelli died in 1969 A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [2]. Yann (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is not the place to establish your own self-made logos
- File:Comunitarismo-language.png
- File:Comunitarismo-C°2C°-Community to Community.png
- File:C° - Communitarian Symbol.png
Enyavar (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Scope: Word play invented by the uploader (?), not educational or even representative for US political ads.
Enyavar (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content. Raw text. Better hosted elsewhere. Headlock0225 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid deletion reason, absurd nomination. Юрий Д.К 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project scope under heading Excluded Educational Content Headlock0225 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- We host PDF articles usually on Commons. We having more than 3 million pdf files now. Юрий Д.К 19:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project scope under heading Excluded Educational Content Headlock0225 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content. Better hosted elsewhere. Headlock0225 (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid deletion reason, absurd nomination. Юрий Д.К 16:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project scope under heading Excluded Educational Content Headlock0225 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- We host PDF articles usually on Commons. We having more than 3 million pdf files now. Юрий Д.К 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- See Commons:Project scope under heading Excluded Educational Content Headlock0225 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Only if they're used on other Wiki projects. Delete per Commons:Project scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- We don't save any disk space by deleting it but make damage to Wikimedia projects. I may transfer it to Wikisource but the file will be completely orphan and can never be used by any Wikipedia in future. Юрий Д.К 18:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to argue for a policy change on this site, you need to start a thread on Commons talk:Project scope. And I don't think you'd succeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Only if they're used on other Wiki projects.
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Fantasy parliamentary diagram, out of project scope. Rosenzweig τ 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
This image contains an image from Google Maps/Earth. It is not allowed to upload images to Wikimedia Commons without explicit release from the copyright holder. This is also the case for derivative works using an unfree Map or Satellite image as basis. If you feel that this file was incorrectly nominated please respond. Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- this is my area, do google maps/earth have permission to take it? i don't think so. the real question is why google maps is taking pictures without permission.
- You can answer me if you have a real answer. Diag808 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (file had been renamed to File:Vue aérienne El Hameri.png). --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Clearly copyrighted, as the website it's taken from says "© 2023 UEFA Club Competitions Online Store." Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo is too blurry to be really useful. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The stamp on this postal cover is clearly copyrighted and the artwork of the walrus probably is to, if not the art in the postmarks. Although I'm not sure what their copyright status normally is. Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. 1988 works, definitely still copyrighted in Germany and the US. The stamp is by Paul Reißmüller, born in 1927 and perhaps still alive. The artwork on the envelope is signed M. Rauschert XII.88, identity of this artist unknown. The file can be restored with {{PD-old-assumed}} in 2109. --Rosenzweig τ 12:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- M. Rauschert is probably Martin Rauschert, German biologist, photographer and illustrator, born in 1934. --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Essentially a low quality duplicate of File:Cristiano Ronaldo, 2012 2.JPG Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Low quality duplicate of File:Lionel Messi (2009).jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: diagram of an undisclosed political entity's potential future seat apportionment. Appears highly fictional Enyavar (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: Single-time uploader doing self-promotion, unused file. Enyavar (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Metadata indicate the file came from Facebook. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
1943 German photograph. Source gives no author information so it's copyright status in Germany is unclear. It's US status is more clear, it's subject to URAA and not public domain yet. Abzeronow (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
useless test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
useless test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
useless test file Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 12:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_Espa%C3%B1ola.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_Espa%C3%B1ola.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1938 Spanish photograph. Could be public domain in Spain but we don't have a reliable source on it and so it's difficult to determine if the author was truly unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The inventor, who the uploader claims has given permissions, disputes this nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Encycloon#Vraag_van_Leo_De_Winter_over_Leo_De_Winter_(1_jun_2023_16:22) Dajasj (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:VRT permission needed to keep the file. --Rosenzweig τ 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
TinEye shows hits prior to upload on Commons and at larger resolution. Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Software installation instructions; outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if any of 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) 17:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation from [3], apparently published in 2017, while upload on Commons as recently as in 2022. A.Savin 17:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Personal file (homework assignment/essay). 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) 17:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Software installation instructions; outside of COM:SCOPE. Even if any of 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) 17:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Essay on how to be a good HR manager; 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) 17:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
File:FUZZY LOGIC-BASED CONTROLLER FRAMEWORK TO CONTROL A MOBILE ROBOT OVER THE BEHAVIOR OF ‘VIEWPOINT-ACTION’ UNDETERMINED ENVIRONMENTS NoCopy.pdf
[edit]The file is marked "Copy protected with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com" and the title indicates that copying isn't permitted. These requirements are incompatible with being hosted on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
These two documents appear to be the work of Oracle and are falsely claimed by the uploader to be "own work". The documents are marked "Oracle Internal & Oracle Academy Use Only" which is incompatible with being hosted on Commons. Marbletan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 11:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
that's ESA image, no way it's CC-BY 3.0, and no indication that it's CC-BY IGO 3.0 Artem.G (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as the terms and conditions states states material from the website is copyrighted and cannot be modified nor resold. Günther Frager (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, for the wrong license. All ESA images are offered under the ESA Standard License. (ref) So all we have to do is just changing the license and it will be legal again. Apologize again for misusing the license.--Impartial just (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. This ESA standard licence contains the clause If ESA images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval, and that is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 13:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Suspicious images (red rounded rectangles with the text "ПЕРЕЙТИ К ОПЛАТЕ" and "PROCEED TO PAYMENT", respectively); no clear use case.
Omphalographer (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo is copyrighted in Liechtenstein, its country of origin, since images are protected for 70 years after their publication when the authors are anonymous. The photographed person was born 61 years ago. Günther Frager (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 10:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The photography was published in Gazette Drouot a French magazine. The source credit the photo to DR (a news agency?). In any case this image is copyrighted in France as it was published in 2015 and works are protected for at least 70 years. Günther Frager (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment I correct myself DR is the abbreviation of «droits réservés», rights reserved in French [4] and it is used when the photo is copyrighted but the author is unknown. Günther Frager (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 10:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
What kind of map is it? Map of Empire of New Romania? Is it hoax? Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The source file on Flickr is presently under an "all rights reserved" status, but for two weeks in 2015 had a CC-BY 2.0 license, so this would be fine to host under CC BY 2.0 if this were to have been uploaded by the photographer. However, the source file on Flickr doesn't appear to have convincing metadata, and I'm concerned that this is an account that may upload photograhps to Flickr that they did not themselves take. Looking at metadata on other images, I see multiple different brands of cameras being used and photographs being produced of sites all across the world. It's fully possible that the Flickr account owner is actually a world-travelling professional photographer who uses multiple sets of camera equipment, but I think that there is significant doubt about whether or not the account is actually run by a single person who photographed all of those images. As such, this should be deleted for lacking sufficient evidence of a valid free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
No permission and spam crosswiki. See m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#user:MeryAM7 : Enrique Cabrera Supertoff (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Red lights for false own work 186.172.128.47 01:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader is subject of the photo, requires permission from photographer. --✗plicit 00:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Another own work 186.172.128.47 01:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader is subject of the photo, requires permission from photographer. --✗plicit 00:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality penis photo, also appears to be a screenshot, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- This image is my own work and any indication that it appears to be a screen shot likely was caused by my attempt to clean up and remove personal metadata from my image. I did not want to share personal data relating to my images based on users who are attempting to employ their personal content-censoring beliefs and views. Actually I believe that the metadata should be available but unfortunately there are people that would use any information at their disposal to reach the goal of complete censorship that suits their goals. CalusUse (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, decent, though smol. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep decent Dronebogus (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Mirando al cielo 186.172.221.97 23:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --✗plicit 00:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Aloo Amir, temo que te borrarán de Commons, ya que no haces nada como Wiquipedista. Crees que Commons es tu álbum privado de fotos? 186.172.221.97 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --✗plicit 00:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Porta Nuova (Milan)
[edit]This is a building in Italy by w:César Pelli who is still alive. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.
Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I received deletion requests about these two files: File:Unicredit Tower at sunset.jpg File:Unicredit Tower from Podio Square.jpg It's an own work. I knew nothing about the FOP, I'm sorry. Now, what can I do in order to avoid these two photos will be deleted. Thx --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Italian copyright law doesn't permit you to use photos of buildings unless you either have explicit permission from the architect, or the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. See for example Media:Sentenza tribunale di Milano 17-01-2004.pdf where a photographer was fined for using a photo of a house in Sardinia without permission from the architect. The images can only be kept if you get permission from the architect. See COM:OTRS or w:WP:CONSENT for instructions.
- The photos are in use on English Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia only uses United States copyright law (which allows photos of buildings), so you could upload them at en:Special:Upload instead. Be careful to include en:Template:FoP-USonly so that no one tries to move the files to Commons a second time. I don't know what policies Italian Wikipedia has for photos of buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you very much for your help. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Porta Nuova (Milan)
[edit]Reopened. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated: see COM:FOP Italy for full information. Architect Cesar Pelli died in 2019, still within 70 years of his posthumous copyright. See also the latest successful DR on an Italian architectural work by dead architects, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tomba Brion.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Blurry image of the siren 47.234.198.142 00:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Poor-quality image but useful information in the file description. Do we have any other photo of this siren? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: There's File:Whelen_Vortex_siren.jpg. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio like all the others this user uploaded, but no reverse image hits.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality and very low resolution better file:MB-Mon-03 Monet Argenteuil-am-Spaetnachmittag 1.jpg Oursana (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Claude Monet, 1875c - The Tow Path at Argenteuil.jpg File:Monet - Chemin de halage à Argenteuil (Towpath at Argenteuil, Winter), 1875-1876.tif Oursana (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality very low resolution better file:Monet - La Seine à Argenteuil - SFMOMA.jpg Oursana (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better File:Monet-ArgenteuilBasinWithASingleSailboat.jpg Oursana (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality very low resolution better File:Claude Monet - Automne sur la Seine Argenteuil (1873).jpg Oursana (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
No own work 186.172.128.47 01:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a real contributor 186.172.128.47 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Facebook art 186.172.128.47 01:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Most probably not work of the uploader, red lights 186.172.128.47 01:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better File:Effet d'automne à Argenteuil.jpg, File:Claude Monet 027.jpg, File:Monet - autumn-effect-at-argenteuil-1873.jpg, File:Monet - Herbst in Argentueil.jpg, File:Monet, Autumn Effect at Argenteuil, Courtauld Gallery.jpg Oursana (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.231.250 (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution, better File:Monet - Wildenstein 1996, 368.png, File:Monet w368.jpg Oursana (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution, better File:Monet - Straßenbrücke in Argenteuil.jpg, File:Pont Argenteuil Monet 1.jpg, File:The Bridge at Argenteuil.JPG Oursana (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Fails COM:Deminimis, copyrighted video game. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
-20230601022300-File:Sonic_the_Fighters_MAGFest_2023.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution, better File:Claude Monet - Les canotiers à Argenteuil - Nahmad collection.jpg Oursana (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Copy from https://massnahmen-nein.ch/komitee/ André Koehne TALK TO ME 02:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Without even looking at the source site, this is obviously a professional promo photo that would require crediting the photographer, and their consent. --87.150.14.156 05:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
bad black and white quality, better File:Claude monet le bassin dargenteuil114147).jpg Oursana (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
bad black and white quality, better File:Monet w 322 argenteuil.jpg Oursana (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better file:Claude Monet 016.jpg Oursana (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality with very low resolution, better File:Claude Monet 042.jpg, File:Claude Monet - Regattas at Argenteuil - Google Art Project.jpg Oursana (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality with very low resolution better File:Monet - Red Boats, Argenteuil, 1875.jpg, file:Red Boats, Argenteuil, by Claude Monet, 1875, oil on canvas - Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University - DSC00682.jpg Oursana (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not possible for this file released under CC-BY-SA or possibly a non-free logo unless if the uploader is the owner or the staff of that company. Vitaium (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:UniCredit Tower (Milan)
[edit]No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist César Pelli died in 2019
- File:Grattacielo Unicredit B.jpg
- File:Grattacielo Unicredit.JPG
- File:Grattacielo unicredit.jpg
- File:GrattacieloUnicredit.JPG
- File:Guglia torre Unicredit.jpg
- File:GUM 15.jpg
- File:La nuova Milano.JPG
- File:Milan skyscraper Unicredit.jpg
- File:Milano Cattedrale di Santa Maria Nascente Blick vom Dach auf den Torre Unicredit 2.jpg
- File:Milano Cattedrale di Santa Maria Nascente Blick vom Dach auf den Torre Unicredit 3.jpg
- File:Milano Garibaldi scorcio.jpg
- File:Milano Unicredit tower (27688930927).jpg
- File:New Unicredit HQ in Milan (6246958440).jpg
- File:Palazzo UniCredit di Piazza Gae Aulenti - Milano.jpg
- File:Palazzo Unicredit.jpg
- File:Paolo2.jpg
- File:ProgettoPortaNuova-Milano-27giu2012-7.jpg
- File:ProgettoPortaNuova-Milano-27giu2012-9.jpg
- File:Spire Unicredit.JPG
- File:The Spire in Milan.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit crepuscolo.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit in Milan 2016.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit, guglia lilla.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit, Milano.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit.jpg
- File:Torre UniCredit.jpg
- File:Torre Unicredit.JPG
- File:Torreunicredit.JPG
- File:TorreUnicreditmilan.JPG
- File:Torreunicreditmilano.JPG
- File:Torri Pelli Milano.jpeg
- File:UniCredit Bank Milan ( Ank Kumar, Infosys Limited ) 01.jpg
- File:UniCredit Bank Milan ( Ank Kumar, Infosys Limited ) 02.jpg
- File:Unicredit Palace (205282145).jpeg
- File:Unicredit Palace (205282147).jpeg
- File:Unicredit torre.JPG
- File:UniCredit Tower (17781181346).jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower (2732665).jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower (8870336393).jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower (Milan) 03.jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower 2.jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower 2014.jpg
- File:Unicredit tower e piazza.JPG
- File:Unicredit Tower Milan.jpg
- File:UniCredit Tower, Milan, Italy.jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower, Milan, May 2018 (01).jpg
- File:UniCredit Tower, Milan.jpg
- File:Unicredit Tower, Milan.jpg
- File:UniCredit Tower.jpg
- File:Unicredit towers.JPG
- File:Unicreditower.JPG
- File:Unicreditowers .JPG
- File:Unicreditowers.JPG
- File:Unicredittowermilan.JPG
- File:Unicredittowersmilan.JPG
- File:XV Aprile.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Torri Garibaldi
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Italy.
- File:Italy - Milan (7181611066).jpg
- File:Italy - Milan (7181611726).jpg
- File:Italy - Milan (7181612186).jpg
- File:Porta Garibaldi, Milano - panoramio.jpg
- File:Stazione Garibaldi di Milano, veduta generale.jpg
- File:Torre Garibaldi Corso Como.jpg
- File:Torri Garibaldi 002jpg.jpg
- File:Torri Garibaldi 2009.jpg
- File:Torri Garibaldi Night Version.jpg
- File:Torri Garibaldi stazione.jpg
- File:Torrigaribaldi.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vladislav zggg (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: Apparently fictional symbols
Enyavar (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. Don't request deletion of files that are in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lightningblade23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]how can all of them own work? low res+no metadata+user has another copyvio image. these all files need proof that they all free licensed.
- File:Masood Khan.jpg
- File:Raja Muhammad Zulqarnain.jpg
- File:Sardar Muhammad Anwar.jpg
- File:Muhammad Hayat Khan.jpg
- File:Sardar Ibrahim Khan (2).jpg
- File:Chaudhry Anwar ul Haq.jpg
- File:Khawaja Farooq Ahmed.jpg
- File:Sardar Tanveer Ilyas Khan.jpg
- File:Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan Niazi.jpg
- File:Raja Farooq Haider.jpg
- File:Sardar Yaqoob Khan.jpg
- File:Chaudhry Abdul Majeed Khan.jpg
- File:Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan.jpg
- File:Barrister Sultan Mehmood Chaudhry.jpg
- File:Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan.jpg
- File:Sardar Mumtaz Hussain Rathore.jpg
- File:Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan.jpg
- File:Khan Abdul Hameed Khan.jpg
- File:Nisar Ali Khan 1.jpeg
- File:CM Punjab Shehbaz Sharif (35771008313) (cropped).jpg
- File:Map of Kashmir Sarkar of Mughal Empire.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 14:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from website HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Paulo-pezzolano-tecnico-do-cruzeiro-durante-jogo-contra-o-csa-1667773499323 v2 1920x1280.jpg
[edit]
- Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
COM:NOTUSED Vandalism collage (see [5]) and unused logo whose description is vandalism group's logo. Maybe also spamming purpose.
Netora (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Autor Rafael Espinosa 186.175.139.110 15:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Autor Rafael Espinosa 186.175.139.110 15:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicado 186.175.139.110 15:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
no country or party stated,unused and unusuable files
- File:Svgfiles-2016-06-28-09-55-44-092672-9171718196582356841 (1).svg
- File:Svgfiles-2016-06-27-14-39-54-820928-3255691745443475367.svg
- File:Svgfiles-2016-06-27-11-52-54-188947-16599299479275040928.svg
- File:Svgfiles-2016-06-27-11-28-19-177541-9819263842978543092.svg
- File:Svgfiles-2016-06-27-07-49-50-941574-17807089990608900525 (2).svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:MISSING PIECE(o-key)
[edit]- File:1つの過去と未来のレッスン.jpg
- File:流木 - Driftwood -.jpg
- File:雲龍.jpg
- File:K・I.jpg
- File:Reality（リアリティ）.jpg
- File:G・I.jpg
- File:The Next Day.jpg
- File:A・N.jpg
- File:Kura tree.jpg
- File:コンパスのない砂漠.jpg
Works of art uploaded by User:MISSING_PIECE(o-key)(contributions) that are promotional(COM:ADVERT) and not useful for educational purpose(not COM:EDUSE). --Peka (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
c'est une image de moi qui ne devrait pas être accessible à tous Augustin59 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's request to delete a personal file should be honored, especially considering the subject of the photo appears to be a minor. Marbletan (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
copyright Alejandro Islas Abogado (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- copyright Alejandro Islas Abogado (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- copyright 186.96.29.9 21:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copyrights 186.96.29.9 17:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This 1992 photograph is public domain in Argentina, but not public domain in the US due to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See also Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kempes en Valencia. SCP-2000 08:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This 1992 photograph is public domain in Argentina but not the US due to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See also Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kempes en Valencia. SCP-2000 08:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This 1990 photograph is public domain in Argentina, but not in the US due to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See also Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kempes en Valencia. SCP-2000 08:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This 1992 photograph is public domain in Argentina, but not the US due to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. See also Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Kempes en Valencia. SCP-2000 08:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Unused image of table; could be rendered with wiki markup if needed. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JackBauer91 (talk · contribs)
[edit]not notable, see: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bora_Kartay_Alt%C4%B1nta%C5%9F
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 19:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- -please
Speedy delete if the wikipdedia page got deleted- ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 19:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not a selfie, thus Hans Prünster cannot be the author of this photo. Permission given by Alrun Prünster [6] unlikely to be the photographer or copyright holder as she was 8 years old in 1950. Günther Frager (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploading to show an example for a RD discussion. Not needed any more and serves no purpose as it is only an individual band PalauanLibertarian (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploading to show an example for a RD discussion. Not needed any more and serves no purpose as it is only an individual band PalauanLibertarian (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution, better file File:Monet - Argenteuil, 1872.jpg Oursana (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution better file:Monet - Bateaux de plaisance, Argenteuil, 1872-1873.jpg Oursana (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshot from a video CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hisham at a public forum 186.172.221.97 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hisham al 20 KB 186.172.221.97 22:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Hisham en otro archivo robado 186.172.221.97 22:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Una carta? 186.172.221.97 22:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Atletismo o bank meeting? 186.172.221.97 23:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. Maybe the filename and description should be changed, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Un joven desconocido 186.172.221.97 23:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Otro joven desconocido 186.172.221.97 23:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Khaled picture 186.172.221.97 23:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Este joven se ha hecho un artículo en inglés en Wiquipedia árabe?! 186.172.221.97 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Tiene un souq y bonitos dientes, puede quedar? 186.172.221.97 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better file:Claude Monet, The Artist's Garden in Argenteuil (A Corner of the Garden with Dahlias), 1873, NGA 72138.jpg, File:Le Jardin de Monet à Argenteuil (C Monet - W 286).jpg Oursana (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
,_1873,_NGA_72138.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better file:Claude Monet, The Artist's Garden in Argenteuil (A Corner of the Garden with Dahlias), 1873, NGA 72138.jpg, File:Le Jardin de Monet à Argenteuil (C Monet - W 286).jpg Oursana (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Dice ser Wiquipedista pero no ha hecho nada. 186.172.221.97 23:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Tiene sangre en su frente. 186.172.221.97 23:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Lee la descripción y a ver qué piensas de esta imagen... 186.172.221.97 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Esta foto la saqué para un pasaporte. 186.172.221.97 23:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/BritosGuillermo probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Xocolatl (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Xocolatl (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"胡道静"
[edit]Following Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SSID-13818483_小學生文庫_第一集（傳記類）_史可法.pdf, books by 胡道静 are copyvio.
- File:CADAL11102800 上海新聞事業之史的發展.djvu
- File:CADAL07000750 校讎學.djvu
- File:SSID-13951878 報壇逸話.pdf
- File:SSID-12437174 公孫龍子考.pdf
- File:CADAL07000031 上海新聞事業之中的發展.djvu
- File:CADAL07000753 新聞史上的新時代.djvu
- File:SSID-13943162 上海的定期刊物.pdf
- File:SSID-10516539 上海新聞事業之史的發展.pdf
- File:SSID-13948650 上海圖書館史.pdf
- File:SSID-10516777 新聞史上的新時代.pdf
- File:SSID-11392457 上海的日報.pdf
- File:CADAL07001106 公孫龍子考.djvu
- File:CADAL11106719 公孫龍子考.djvu
- File:SSID-10516812 報壇逸話.pdf
Midleading (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. Listed in Commons:Library back up project/deletion requests/restoration in 2054. Remember to restore the file in 2054. 維基小霸王 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: highly unlikely to be own work. PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep PD-UK-unknown is correct license. --RAN (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per user:RAN. --Wdwd (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Neveselbert (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain your case. Why do you think it is a derivative work and why do you think that makes it eligible for deletion? Without further details, this will likely close as keep by default. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see the notification. I don't see any evidence that this work, which is a derivative as a "Scan from the original work", is in the public domain as there is no evidence provided that this work was published circa 1905. Neveselbert (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Ok, let's break this down then. First off, we have a photo of unknown origin. While it may have been manipulated in the scanning process, there is currently no evidence of that. On Commons we treat scans that make minimal changes to the base work as de minimis; in general no new copyright is generated from the scan. Unless additional details are provided, I think we should set aside the derivative work argument for now as your main focus is on the status of the original work. The file was uploaded with a claim of own work and a date of 4 October 2022.[7] That date is a little odd as the file was uploaded on 3 December 2022 - the difference in date means the uploader made a conscious decision to set it rather than inserting the date of upload as we see with many false claims of own work. The date was then changed by RAN first to circa 1900[8] and later to circa 1905.[9] RAN's habit of changing the dates of files up for deletion has caused difficulties in previous discussions, as it often appears to be based more on intuition than any solid evidence. Until RAN clarifies their position, I am working on the assumption that the circa 1900 date is based solely on the appearance of Donald in this photograph (perhaps he looks 24 in this photo?). The circa 1905 date appears to be linked to him taking on the position of chief from after the death of his father - I am unclear whether there is any evidence in the content of the photo that he was chief at the time (is there some aspect of the clothing here meant to denote that?). The claim of this being an anonymous work has come from RAN rather than the uploader.[10] RAN also set {{PD-UK-unknown}} at the same time. However, the PD-UK-unknown template can only be used where we have made a reasonable enquiry about the identity of the author. As the uploader is still active on Commons but has provided no comment on the source of this file, I don't think we can say we have acted in a "reasonable" manner (a guess by an unrelated user on Commons is not a "reasonable" amount of effort when a better source of information is available). We don't know the date of creation of the image, we don't know if it was published or if the uploader found it in a private collection. The uploader also has a history of uploading copyright violations to Commons. @Fitzkarl: Can you please provide us with some details on where you found this image and anything you know about the date of creation, the photographer or a date of publication? In the absence of any further information, I will have to opt for deletion on the basis that we have not made a reasonable effort to justify the current licence on the file page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think it was taken after 1953, perhaps post-mortem, and the license does not apply? Do you think it was actually taken in 2022, and I should revert back to that date? Almost every image taken before cameras recorded the date are estimates, unless taken on a recognizable datable event. If you don't want changes made to images in the deletion queue, lobby to have them locked during the process. --RAN (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- 1953 (as it is recorded in {{PD-UK-unknown}}) is only a valid date for this discussion if this is an anonymous work or if a reasonable enquiry has been made to establish the author's identity. My point here is that we haven't asked the uploader what they know about the file, so we wouldn't stand a chance of defending our claim in any UK court on the grounds of reasonableness. You have not explained your basis for those dates I questioned, so I have to assume my hypothesis was correct on how they were generated. Now, for the sake of argument, we make a reasonable enquiry and the uploader tells us the image was taken in 1900 but also gives us the name of the photographer, whom we find to have died in 1960. That would mean the file is still in copyright in the UK until 2030. Without making a single enquiry of the uploader, we have assumed a work is PD when there is a reasonable hypothesis that it isn't. That goes against the precautionary principle. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have already done a reverse image search, and searched under this person's name looking to see if this image has a named creator, you can confirm the same thing in just a few nanoseconds of search time. Precautionary principle actually says there must be: "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". Theoretical speculation, that if we just search a little bit harder, and a little bit longer, we will find a named creator doesn't rise to the level of "significant doubt". The same theoretical speculation can be said of any of the >10,000 images using this license. Reverse image searching compares to over 1 billion images. A Google search by name looks in over 1 million scanned books, and over 100 million websites. --RAN (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- The image may have come from a private collection or a non-digitised book, so wouldn't show up in a reverse image search. The thoroughness of your search and the extensiveness of the Google database (as you point out) makes this more likely to be an unpublished image from a private collection. And yes, conducting a Tineye search was one of my first actions before commenting here. The uploader knows where the image came from but has not commented in the last discussion or on the file (despite being active in the last month). Independently of any information from the uploader you have made the decision that this is an anonymous work and applied a licence that requires you to make a "reasonable enquiry." My contention is that the "reasonable enquiry" here is to ask the uploader (who is still an active user) to provide details on where they obtained the image. If this was an older upload and the uploader had been inactive for a period of years, then our own searches could (perhaps) be judged the most reasonable action in the circumstances. The continued presence and silence of the authoritative source makes any independent searches void. The uploader wants the file here; it is reasonable for the uploader to tell us where they found it. As stated in the precautionary principle, a bad argument in these situations is, "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" which is effectively the argument you are using by unilaterally declaring this as an anonymous work. Now, I suggest we leave this for other editors and the closing admin to draw their conclusions. I am not going to be changing my mind that asking the uploader is the "reasonable enquiry" in this case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- For reference of the closing admin, the uploader has been active on the English Wikipedia since my previous comment. They should have received notifications for the messages on their talk page and my ping asking them to participate here. If they choose not to clarify the situation here before the discussion closes, I would ask for that to be considered as part of the closing comment (whether the decision is to keep or delete). From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- As some related evidence, the user uploaded another file for the 23rd Chief and gave relevant birth dates, source and author.[11] On checking the source, that image was clearly labelled as the 24th Chief[12] and our file here was renamed. As a user that uploads random screenshots of internet pages as own work and misidentifies individuals named in the source material when they do declare it, I am not sure it is safe to assume this particular image is of the 25th Chief (which throws out any guesswork on dating). From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The image may have come from a private collection or a non-digitised book, so wouldn't show up in a reverse image search. The thoroughness of your search and the extensiveness of the Google database (as you point out) makes this more likely to be an unpublished image from a private collection. And yes, conducting a Tineye search was one of my first actions before commenting here. The uploader knows where the image came from but has not commented in the last discussion or on the file (despite being active in the last month). Independently of any information from the uploader you have made the decision that this is an anonymous work and applied a licence that requires you to make a "reasonable enquiry." My contention is that the "reasonable enquiry" here is to ask the uploader (who is still an active user) to provide details on where they obtained the image. If this was an older upload and the uploader had been inactive for a period of years, then our own searches could (perhaps) be judged the most reasonable action in the circumstances. The continued presence and silence of the authoritative source makes any independent searches void. The uploader wants the file here; it is reasonable for the uploader to tell us where they found it. As stated in the precautionary principle, a bad argument in these situations is, "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter" which is effectively the argument you are using by unilaterally declaring this as an anonymous work. Now, I suggest we leave this for other editors and the closing admin to draw their conclusions. I am not going to be changing my mind that asking the uploader is the "reasonable enquiry" in this case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have already done a reverse image search, and searched under this person's name looking to see if this image has a named creator, you can confirm the same thing in just a few nanoseconds of search time. Precautionary principle actually says there must be: "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". Theoretical speculation, that if we just search a little bit harder, and a little bit longer, we will find a named creator doesn't rise to the level of "significant doubt". The same theoretical speculation can be said of any of the >10,000 images using this license. Reverse image searching compares to over 1 billion images. A Google search by name looks in over 1 million scanned books, and over 100 million websites. --RAN (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- 1953 (as it is recorded in {{PD-UK-unknown}}) is only a valid date for this discussion if this is an anonymous work or if a reasonable enquiry has been made to establish the author's identity. My point here is that we haven't asked the uploader what they know about the file, so we wouldn't stand a chance of defending our claim in any UK court on the grounds of reasonableness. You have not explained your basis for those dates I questioned, so I have to assume my hypothesis was correct on how they were generated. Now, for the sake of argument, we make a reasonable enquiry and the uploader tells us the image was taken in 1900 but also gives us the name of the photographer, whom we find to have died in 1960. That would mean the file is still in copyright in the UK until 2030. Without making a single enquiry of the uploader, we have assumed a work is PD when there is a reasonable hypothesis that it isn't. That goes against the precautionary principle. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think it was taken after 1953, perhaps post-mortem, and the license does not apply? Do you think it was actually taken in 2022, and I should revert back to that date? Almost every image taken before cameras recorded the date are estimates, unless taken on a recognizable datable event. If you don't want changes made to images in the deletion queue, lobby to have them locked during the process. --RAN (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see the notification. I don't see any evidence that this work, which is a derivative as a "Scan from the original work", is in the public domain as there is no evidence provided that this work was published circa 1905. Neveselbert (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Donald_Walter_Cameron_of_Lochiel,_25th_Chief_2.jpg&oldid=711965753){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADonald_Walter_Cameron_of_Lochiel%2C_25th_Chief_2.jpg&diff=720074903&oldid=720042788){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADonald_Walter_Cameron_of_Lochiel%2C_25th_Chief_2.jpg&diff=728606326&oldid=728589727){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Donald_Cameron,_24th_of_Lochiel.jpg&oldid=701845829){kind=link}
- Keep No valid reason for deletion first time, and now for the second time. Three speedy deletion were also denied. --RAN (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per {{Dw no source since}}, This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing. The author and source of all incorporated works must be given so that the copyright status can be verified. Neveselbert (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment without new evidence on when was this underlying work first published, {{PD-UK-unknown}} seems to be the reasonable work license for now. First condition states: "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1953)."
But the underlying work does not appear to be a photograph: it resembles more of a painting that is just included in a publication of some sort (a book or a post card?). Third condition states: "An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), or a literary work, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1953)." Still "1905" must be confirmed as the date when this underlying painting was first made to public, as a notice exists at the bottom of the licensing template: "Unpublished anonymous paintings remain in copyright until at least 1 January 2040."JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)- My apologies, it is indeed an old photograph (in sepia), not a painting. So likely, Weak keep. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is a highly compressed jpg with compression artifacts that give it an odd look. That is why I usually store scans as png files, despite the problems with contrast in thumbnails. --RAN (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- My apologies, it is indeed an old photograph (in sepia), not a painting. So likely,
- This was clearly published over a 100 years ago. I'm not entirely convinced that a search was done to verify that the photographer of this file cannot be found so I'm a Weak keep. I do agree with RAN that this was published before 1953 and was almost certainly published before 1928. Abzeronow (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've searched Google and TinEye for this image and found nothing. Neveselbert (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Licensing seems correct; from apparent age of person date range close enough to apply. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this work, which is a derivative as a "Scan from the original work", is in the public domain as there is no evidence provided that this work was published circa 1905. Neveselbert (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
no permission; taken from website : https://www.bruceofballater.co.uk/our-products/art/signed-print-of-sir-donald-walter-cameron-of-lochiel-25th-chieftain-of-clan-cameron Fitzkarl (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- can be viewed here. Fitzkarl (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and warn people who repeat useless nominations. This is the 4th nomination excluding the multiple speedy deletions that were denied. Please look for sockpuppet activity between accounts that are nominating. As before, republishing an historic image to your website does not transfer the copyright to you, or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Last time that I participated in this DR, I was unsure that a search for the photographer had been done. Now, we know the photography studio (George Crow & Co. Publishers, 34 St. Enoch Square, Glasgow), and the latest date it was published (1900). The Crow studio moved in 1900 to 136 Buchanan St. http://www.thelows.madasafish.com/cards/crowgco_136.htm Research on the studio turned up at least two photographers. George Crow and Robert Kerr https://digital.nls.uk/directories/browse/archive/85327533 I haven't found a death date for either, but since this was published in 1900 (and probably created around then), this qualifies for PD-old-assumed-expired, and probably qualifies as PD-UK-unknown because we may not be able to find out who the actual photographer of the image is. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep For the reasoning outlined by Abzeronow and the prior deletion nomination discussions. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Special Dinner At Heart Cup Coffee Gachibowli Restaurant - Wikiconference India 2023 - Hyderabad 08.jpg
[edit]
Possible copyvio Wasiul Bahar (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: derivitive work. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Das Logo ist veraltet 77.182.93.42 15:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Rosenzweig. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Doubtfully uploaders work, see 500+ older and bigger files on TinEye GeorgHH • talk 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo delle Poste (Rome)
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Italy.
- File:Palazzo delle poste - panoramio.jpg
- File:Palazzo delle poste-EUR.jpg
- File:Roma EUR Palazzo Poste con laghetto.jpg
- File:Roma EUR palazzo Poste Italiane.jpg
- File:Torridellefinanzeroma.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: These buildings seem below the ToO, in paticular for Italy. Ruthven (msg) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
no longer needed 140.213.64.110 (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Redirects are cheap. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
All the red lights are on. 186.172.128.47 01:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly not an own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
copyvio - no permission - used for advertising Hoyanova (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Lack of permission from the author A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023061110006375 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 22:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:Tsikhanouskaya in London Church 2023.jpg” under ticket:2023061310006424. Анастасия Львоваru/en 21:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Subject no longer looks like this Sio77nvd (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid deletion rationale. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Red lights, small, no EXIF, new user etc. 186.172.128.47 01:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP. can be undeleted with OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Wooden table and Christmas tree in Metadata 186.172.128.47 01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work as claimed, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of 13th Separate Jager Brigade Insignia.png Scu ba (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a uplicate of 13th Separate Jager Brigade Insignia.png Mihai Popa Message me! 11:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: INUSE, processed as a duplicate. --Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep To avoid selection bias, we need ethnic/age diversity, the category is almost exclusive to Caucasians. --RAN (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete we need good images irregardless of selection bias Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- What makes the image "bad" as opposed to "good"? Perceiving it as "bad" is an example of selection bias. The image is in focus and hires, the only difference from the others is that it represents a darker skin tone than the others in the category. If someone is editing a book on anatomy and physiology, they should be able to choose from a broad range of skin tones for images. --RAN (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- A simple search already yields 50+ results of penis photo of Caucasians. TBH, the basis of selection bias is weak. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- What makes the image "bad" as opposed to "good"? Perceiving it as "bad" is an example of selection bias. The image is in focus and hires, the only difference from the others is that it represents a darker skin tone than the others in the category. If someone is editing a book on anatomy and physiology, they should be able to choose from a broad range of skin tones for images. --RAN (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]Sorry, but this building of Zaha Hadid (living people) is too recent (2010) and Italy has no FOP exemption (for exterior and interior).
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).
- File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg
- File:MAXXI - Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo.jpg
- File:MAXXI 1499.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1501.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1502.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1504.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1505.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1506.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1508.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1510.JPG
- File:MAXXI 1511.JPG
- File:Maxxi interni.jpg
- File:MAXXI photo-10.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-2.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-3.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-4.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-5.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-7.JPG
- File:MAXXI photo-8.JPG
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete--Dega180 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]The building was completed in 2010 by architect Zaha Hadid (1950–2016). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright terms of Italy lasted for 70 years, and the images can be undeleted in 2087.
- File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Rome 31.jpg
- File:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Rome 32.jpg
- File:Calamita gravitazionale Gino de Dominicis.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 01.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 02.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 03.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 05.jpg
- File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG
- File:MAXXI.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete See also Commons:Deletion requests/Internal of MAXXI, where Ruthven deleted a number of photos but also decided to keep some (for reasons I respectfully disagree with). --Gnom (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In this case, the photos also represent recent artworks and some representative architectural element of the museum. --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:MAXXI
[edit]No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Zaha Hadid died in 2016
- File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg
- File:MAXXI (2017) Rome 31.jpg
- File:MAXXI (2017) Rome 32.jpg
- File:MAXXI - Museo nazionale delle arti del XXI secolo.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 01.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 02.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 03.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg
- File:MAXXI ingresso 05.jpg
- File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG
- File:MAXXI.jpg
- File:MAXXI0.jpg
_Rome_31.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rome_32.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Some files have already been deleted then undeleted (e.g. File talk:MAXXI ingresso 04.jpg). This kind of "blind" DR is counterproductive. --Ruthven (msg) 08:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The deprecated discussion is available here (Started by User:JWilz12345. As new evidence about the FoP issue appears, it is necessary to re-open the discussion. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruthven the "dead architects" exception has been voided after concerns from other users that the parliamentary pronouncement did not directly mention works by deceased authors, see COM:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/08#Question on the so-called de facto Italian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Re: undeleted then nominated again, per an admin here, there is no official policy that only limits deletion of a file once. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Right. In any case, some of these files can be kept:
- Keep File:Le MAXXI (Rome) 3.jpg (de minimis)
- Keep File:MAXXI Museum opening night 05.JPG (de minimis)
- Keep File:MAXXI.jpg (de minimis, the old building is centered in the frame)
- Ruthven (msg) 09:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't see a case for de minimis here. Gnom (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Gnom, even though the image only contains part of building, it still covers a rather large area of the image. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 10:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, I don't see a case for DM. --Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Press photo, Random photo from internet, Logo 140.213.64.110 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy: the sculpture is work by Giuseppe Tonnini (d. 1954). Eleassar (t/p) 11:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also, File:Melchiorre Cartoni Gianicolo 2011-03-27.jpg. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Giuseppe Tonnini died in 1954 A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Romano Romanelli died in 1969 A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [13]. Yann (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
improperly licensed company logo 331dot (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio ((c) emefka 2016) M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Per wikidata:Q5398861, author lived in Rhodesia and died in 1977. That is the predecessor state to Zimbabwe. Per COM:ZIMBABWE, the copyright is 50pma. That means Zimbabwe copyright expires in 2028 (1977+51), and US copyright expires in Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- (oops, clicked enter on deletion menu) US copyright expires in 2062 (publication date of 1966+96) Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Duplicates of File:Relation entre les familles du village El Hameri.png
[edit]
Old versions of File:Relation entre les familles du village El Hameri.png, this one is the last uploaded and the only one used in wiki article.
- File:Familles du village El Hameri.png
- File:Relation entre familles de El Hameri.png
- File:Relations entre les famillles de El Hameri.png
Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- what's mattet with this picture ? it's my own work Diag808 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- user:Diag808: no problem with this picture. It's just that you uploaded one that seams the same multiple time, with minor edits. Is it necessary to keep previous versions? Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Own work or old work? 181.43.5.222 12:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is not my own work, however I spent enough time to find this picture about this great scientist. It would be a big lost if we, in the scientific society, couldn't associate his achievement with his face. Otherwise he will be a name between others. I dedicated enough time to get pics about Hungarian scientists to keep their memories alive. If this does not meet with the policy of Wiki and there is no other way to keep these photos, i understand I am fine with it, but that also means to me there is no reason to stay as contribution to Wiki. Számkém (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Now you're threatening us to leave the place and I will be responsible for the loss of a valuable contributor. Oh help me God! 181.43.5.222 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why don't you better upload these files directly to the concerned Wikipedias as "fair use" and not cause an unnecessary drama in Commons? 181.43.5.222 12:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Számkém, if it's not your own work, don't state that it's "own work" on the file page! And then, what makes you think you have permission to upload it here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I doubt this small file is an own work. 181.43.5.222 12:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed not, uploader accepted. 181.43.5.222 14:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Tarun Samanta - Special Dinner At Heart Cup Coffee Gachibowli Restaurant - Wikiconference India 2023 - Hyderabad 06.jpg
[edit]
Possible copyvio. Doesn't fulfilled de minimis criteria Wasiul Bahar (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Not historically accurate. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Not historically accurate per Britannica entry here. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/107607.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The image was uploaded with a different license, I just changed it wrong, please forgive my mistake. Paf zet (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- NO. This image is from not free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/107607.html. You manually stated the license from the RIA project which existed between 2011-2012. This image was not a part of that project and the license cannot cover it. FlorianH76 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, the image was originally uploaded under a different license from a different source. Let's hear what others think. Paf zet (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- And the previous license which you stated before was also wrong because 50 years didn't pass after publishing this photo. FlorianH76 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, the image was originally uploaded under a different license from a different source. Let's hear what others think. Paf zet (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Florian A09 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Visit to Leinster House by Belarusian Democratic Opposition Leader Ms Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya - 5 May 2023 (52880440326).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright work, which is not trivial (De minimus). The photo's composition places this art purposely near the center Ooligan (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep
Focus now on Ms. TsikhanouskayaFurther crop to remove the entire artwork, and only Ms. Tsikhanouskaya left--A1Cafel (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)- No, your crop does not eliminate the Irish politician pointing at the artwork. The focus of this photograph is the artwork. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is looking at the artwork, not the camera. Her attention is on the art- the same focus as the photograph. -- Ooligan (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The artwork itself is blurred. Image is indeed focus on Ms. Tsikhanouskaya, whatever where she looked at. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- This artwork contains many individual photographs as a composite background. Each individual photo is assumed to be copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The art is a little "blurred," however people can easily recognized their copyrighted faces. Again, this unfortunately, is still not de minimus. -- Ooligan (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- The artwork itself is blurred. Image is indeed focus on Ms. Tsikhanouskaya, whatever where she looked at. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, your crop does not eliminate the Irish politician pointing at the artwork. The focus of this photograph is the artwork. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is looking at the artwork, not the camera. Her attention is on the art- the same focus as the photograph. -- Ooligan (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7.
- See: COM:De minimis#An_example
- First, for this De minimis "example" link, there is a similarity. Quote, "Assume we have a photograph with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently." This is a photograph of a composite artwork (copyright of artwork designer) and each photograph used within this artwork (copyright of one or more photographers) See also, Category:Photocollages
- Second, Quote, "In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area."
- So, where is states, "... the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, ..." I can just substitute one word- that this the photograph was taken deliberately to include the artwork. As I said above, she is looking at the artwork, not at the photographer. He is pointing toward the art while not looking at the photographer. The artwork was at the center of the original photograph, because the artwork is not incidental (not De minimis).
- Third, where it states, "... copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." This attempt to crop out the copyright infringement fails the test by "re-framing" or proportionally emphasizing the non-copyright area.
- Finally, "A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, ..." So, this uploader's crop fails this test. If this photo masked out the artwork, the photo would be the back of a politician's head and a poor quality profile of another politician.
- Please, see previous cropping efforts by the uploader here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arc de Triomphe, Wrapped, Paris (51549547634).jpg and here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charging Bull (3883546986).jpg
- -- Ooligan (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I see it now.RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Delete, indeed not de minimis. The politicians are clearly looking at the painting, making it one of the subjects of the image.- @RodRabelo7, No reply to my points, just a third version overwriting the failed second version.
- The remaining photo of the back of a human head is COM:OoS.
- Once again, Delete. --
- Ooligan (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- LMAO, new cropped version is simply hilarious. 🤣🤣🤣 RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- PLEASE HOLD ON, I want to try a version with a Gaussian blur and see if that can meet approval. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan, A1Cafel, and RodRabelo7: I've now done a Gaussian blur over the poster, and would appreciate if people have a look again. I think with this we can keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (UTC)
- I doubt the last ping went through, so: @Ooligan, A1Cafel, and RodRabelo7: . —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7, No reply to my points, just a third version overwriting the failed second version.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, thanks to Jmabel. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – Per latest version by Jmbabel. Revision delete of the 3 previous versions. TommyG (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment- @Jmabel and @Mdaniels5757, can this "Gaussian blur" overlay be used on other similar useful photos in the future to save them deletion?
- Is this Gaussian tool available or can it be made available for use on the Commons? --
- Ooligan (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: like most retouching, it is client-side. I download the full-res image, bring it into GIMP, select the relevant area (which is sometimes difficult it it's oddly shaped) and apply a strong Gaussian blur (which is one of their "blur" filters), and re-upload. Most advanced editing tools have this capability. GIMP happens to be free of charge. - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per @TommyG and @Jmabel's Gaussian goodness. Perhaps, @Mdaniels5757 may close this. -- Ooligan (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Ooligan: like most retouching, it is client-side. I download the full-res image, bring it into GIMP, select the relevant area (which is sometimes difficult it it's oddly shaped) and apply a strong Gaussian blur (which is one of their "blur" filters), and re-upload. Most advanced editing tools have this capability. GIMP happens to be free of charge. - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept current version; revdelled previous 3 versions (1 as OOS and 2 as not de minimis). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can you say this building is not protected because this building doesn't exceed threshold of originality? Italy has very high threshold of originality! Ox1997cow (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: a normal skyscraper. Below ToO. Ruthven (msg) 09:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The YouTube channel this screenshot is from is clearly not affiliated with Scott Wozniak, and the boilerplate fair use stuff at the bottom of the description implies Wozniak did not give permission. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I was not the original uploader, I just cripped the image. However, I will paste below what I already put on the full version of this image.
- The channel owner is friends with Scott, and Scott recorded something to be included in the video. The video was edited and released under Creative Commons by the uploader. There are many images on Commons that are from other YouTube video, or images taken during conferences or live shows and then released under Creative Commons. Removing this picture of Scott would imply we need to remove any image where full written permission from the subject hasn't been given for release under Creative Commons. That is why I believe this image is fine to stay. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- After watching the video closer, I've decided I agree with you, but I will leave this open for an admin's judgement. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Strugglehouse: Being friends with somebody is not a copyright release, and furthermore, in the description of the video it states:
QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 09:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
All clips and videos belong to their respective owners.
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 09:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
The YouTube channel this screenshot is from is clearly not affiliated with Scott Wozniak, and the boilerplate fair use stuff at the bottom of the description implies Wozniak did not give permission. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The channel owner is friends with Scott, and Scott recorded something to be included in the video. The video was edited and released under Creative Commons by the uploader. There are many images on Commons that are from other YouTube video, or images taken during conferences or live shows and then released under Creative Commons. Removing this picture of Scott would imply we need to remove any image where full written permission from the subject hasn't been given for release under Creative Commons. That is why I believe this image is fine to stay. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Strugglehouse: After watching the video closer, I've decided I agree with you, but I will leave this open for an admin's judgement. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Strugglehouse: Being friends with somebody is not a copyright release, and furthermore, in the description of the video it states:
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
All clips and videos belong to their respective owners.
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 09:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The YouTube channel this screenshot is from is clearly not affiliated with Scott Wozniak, and the boilerplate fair use stuff at the bottom of the description implies Wozniak did not give permission. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The channel owner is friends with Scott, and Scott recorded something to be included in the video. The video was edited and released under Creative Commons by the uploader. There are many images on Commons that are from other YouTube video, or images taken during conferences or live shows and then released under Creative Commons. Removing this picture of Scott would imply we need to remove any image where full written permission from the subject hasn't been given for release under Creative Commons. That is why I believe this image is fine to stay.
- —@Strugglehouse's response to a similar DR, relevant here Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. The "dead architects" exception as claimed by Italian parliament pronouncement is already deprecated. Artist Marino Marini died in 1980 A1Cafel (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The image file says that the artist gave permission. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ssilvers: there is no true permission. What was indicated was a false permission given by Italian parliament pronouncement claiming that Italian buildings by dead architects can be freely exploited. That was put into question months after it was initially accepted by Wikimedia Commons community. The pronouncement was questioned by other editors because there is no explicit mention on works of dead architects; what the Italian parliament only said was that works by living architects can only be used in low resolutions on website of purely educational or informative nature, as well as uses in researches, dissertations, and criticisms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Another ridiculous map of Super-Egypt, this is out-of-scope fiction. I already made the case in Commons:Deletion requests/File:الامبراطوريه المصريه عام 1435 قبل الميلاد.jpg Enyavar (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hint for those effectively able to edit the arabian wikis: I suggest to replace that map with File:Egypt_1450_BC_ar.svg --Enyavar (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The map does not contain anything ridiculous, so Thutmose imposed the tribute on Assyria, Cyprus, Hittia and the rest of the places needless to know. Thutmose write this in the walls of the Karnak temples. You will not understand Egyptian history more than I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed88z (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
-The eighth campaign of Thutmose III, which is considered the greatest of his conquests, was launched by the king against the kingdom of Mitanni, which had subjugated Assyria at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed88z (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Trust me, I am an expert, so you cannot know more than me." Nice argument. Your definition of Empire is apparently "all the places we traded with", my definition of Empire is "all the places we actually conquered with soldiers".
- I believe you are mixing ancient domestic propaganda and historical/archaeological evidence. Many ancient rulers redefined "having had contact with someone" as "ruling them". Based on ancient propaganda, Chinese Emperors ruled over Rome and Baghdad. Based on ancient propaganda, King David fanboys still produce maps like this. My point is that receiving gifts and tributes from other peoples does not mean to rule over them in an Empire. Alasiya is a prime example for that, because Egypt did not have the fleet to get to the island. Thutmose quite probably DID expand his rule to the 4th Nile cataract, after winning these victories against Kushites. Though, please check again where the 4th cataract is, and where you have painted the borders. Even the map I linked to above, is really generous, given that we have little evidence of the New Empire ruling any part of the red sea coast (the Late Period is another thing). Worse, controlling Punt and Axum? I wrote it before, your map is fantasy, and not even all that well made. Much less is wrong with this alternative, please use it, or another one of the many maps we already have in the New Kingdom category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You are saying something that stems from ignorance, frankly. There was no Aksum at that time. There was Punt and it was subject, and this is confirmed. As for Mitanni, we found Egyptian antiquities in Iraq proving that Thutmose's rule reached Mitanni. As for Cyprus, it paid the tribute, and this is recorded with very accurate calculations.--Ahmed88z (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I agree that this map is far from accurate, but it is in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Not historically accurate. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Amr F.Nagy: Full Support, but please replace this map with accurate ones in the arab and misr-arab WPs first. Falsified maps that are still used in projects, are considered "educational" for some reason by Commons policy. (Yeah....) Thanks for the initiative, --Enyavar (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Full Support as well. The editor (Ahmed88z) who added this map to the articles used a reference to back up the map but the map in his reference book does not look like this map / image at all. See here. I removed the map from one of the Arabic wiki articles. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE, as per the result in November, 2021. You folks need to replace this map with more accurate maps in all the Wikipedia articles. Files in use can't be deleted. Period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: As noted above, the file is in use on several WP pages, so it cannot be deleted for this reason. Also note that "Support" is ambiguous -- do you support keeping or deleting the file?. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support was a Delete of course, and the inuse cannot be helped as long as nobody in arz-wiki cares about keeping out misinformation, despite our notices in talk pages. @Jameslwoodward: just now, I removed the inuse from arz-wiki, will you now delete it or do we need another two months DR during which the image will be re-inserted so that so that it can be kept again? --Enyavar (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support was a
- Support was for a Delete of course, for me too. Fictional map. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support was for a
- @Jameslwoodward: This map is inaccurate. Please review. Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Enyavar. My understanding of policy does not allow me to do the obvious and remove the map when it was in use -- all I can do is hope that someone else will do it. Amr F.Nagy, in the future, please do not nominate maps or other images for deletion if they are in use and not copyright violations. Policy is very clear that such images must be kept, even if very inaccurate. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the records, I created this logo (كتيبة التيوس.png) myself using painter program for Tyous Team of Commandos. This was in 2021. I created the logo first for Arabic version of the article before somebody use it in the English article. anyway, eight month ago, the logo was deleted for copyright violations after more than two years in use. Amr F.Nagy (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo of someone, without explanation. He seems to be a student, who works part-time at A.H. (vakkenvuller?). This a pic for Facebook etc. not for Wikimedia Commons. Paulbe (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Foto sacada por otra persona 186.175.195.215 20:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal file outside of COM:SCOPE. Only used for attempted self-promotion on English Wikipedia. Marbletan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Never ever "own work". Not said who made it, not said when it was made. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep When you rephotograph an image, making a derivative copy, it is your "own work", even though it doesn't restart the copyright clock on the original. A 1908 image is in the public domain both in Germany and in the USA. The best solution in these cases is to not have a deletion nomination, but to fix the perceived error. {{Art Photo}} has room for info on the derivative copy and the original. --RAN (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment A 1908 photo is not always in the public domain in Germany, if that had been the work of a (then) 30-year old photographer who died at the age of 90 it would still be protected by copyright. That being said, a very similar photograph here is credited to photographer de:Wilhelm Höffert, who died in 1901. This photo looks like it is from the same photo session. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The source is doubtful however, we have two PDFs of that volume in Category:The Historians' History of the World Vol. III, and I could not find this photograph in either one. --Rosenzweig τ 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Found it in another edition here. --Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Obviously this photograph hasn't been shot in 1908, Wilamowitz looks younger. Getty's says 1897 which fits much better. With good reasons we can assume Höffert having been the photographer, so there is no copyright anymore. --Achim55 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Source is a copyrighted book. Unsure if such diagrams can be copyrighted or not. Günther Frager (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Cover art from an album published in Argentina in 1982 [14]. Images enter into the public domain in Argentina after 20-25 years of creation. Clearly it was not in the public domain in Argentina in 1996 at URAA time, thus it is still copyrighted in United States. I don't have the data from the photographer so I cannot say when we can undelete it. Günther Frager (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The photo is not from Pelo magazine nor from 1992. This photo was taken in December 19th 1998 on the concert the band gave in Racing Club Stadium, Buenos Aires, see this video from the concert [15] . The photo is not even in the public domain in Argentina today. Günther Frager (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's a photo of a band during a concert. All such photos about any given band look quite similar, they have the same people doing basically the same thing. To truly be the same photo, it has to be an exact duplicate, down to the specific details. You claim that the true source is that video, but can you please point the exact minute and second of that video with the image taken as a screenshot? Cambalachero (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Cambalachero I'm not claiming that the photo was taken from the video. I'm claiming that it was taken at the same occasion the video was filmed. I also claimed that the source was wrong.
- The band gave very few shows per year (3 in 1998) and in the video one can see that they are wearing the same outfits as in the photograph. The singer wears jeans and a squared blue and white shirt (see 1:11), the saxophonist wears a yellow shirt and a hat (see 1:21), the guitarist with the Gibson wears a dark suit with a red bandana (see 3:57), the other guitarist, that btw. is a guest musician, wears a white shirt with very particular decorations (see 2:16) and the bass player wears a black T-shirt (see 3:08).
- All the issues from Pelo magazine are available online [16]. Here is an issue from 1992 where the band appears in pages 14-16 [17]. The photographs are in black and white. The issue from 1999 that talks about this concert doesn't show this image [18] (pages 4-7).
- The photo is also widely available on the web, and thus we need a real source if we want to keep it. For example a lower quality copy was already present in 2011 [19] (the upload was in 2018)
- My conclusion is: the source is wrong (it was not published in Pelo); the year is wrong (it was not in 1992); and quite likely the PD status is wrong (only possibility is the author placing it in the PD). Günther Frager (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет подтверждения того, что сайт распространяется по свободной лицензии. — Redboston 09:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Сайты такого рода с 99,99% вероятностью распространяются по свободной лицензии, учитывая, что это государственный сайт. Тем более это скриншот сайта, а не текст с него или программный код.
- Поэтому считаю, что этот файл не подлежит удалению, так как не нарушает права.
- Для подтверждения я сделаю запрос в техническую поддержку сайта для разъяснения. Arkady2512 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Мы тут оперируем не вероятностью, а фактами. — Redboston 07:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Well-Informed Optimist. --Rosenzweig τ 12:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Architecte mort en 2001, donc batiment encore sous droit d'auteur (pas de liberté de panorama en France) Shev123 (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cher(e) Shev123,
- L'autorisation a été obtenue auprès des ayants droits de l'architecte Pierre Debeaux, préalablement à la mise en ligne de l'article.
- Restant à votre disposition pour plus de précisions.
- Bien cordialement, IndicibleEspace (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour Shev123,
- J'ai bien obtenu l'autorisation écrite des ayants droits de l'architecte Pierre Debeaux préalablement à la mise en ligne de l'article et des photographies.
- Pourriez vous mettre fin à la requête avec conservation des images?
- Merci beaucoup
- Bien cordialement IndicibleEspace (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
- Il faut suivre cette procédure pour vérifier l'autorisation : Commons:OTRS/fr (mail à envoyer à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). --Shev123 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is an VRTS email received for “File:Caserne Vion Toulouse Pierre Debeaux architecte entrée.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2023071610002841. —Vis M (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
pt: De acordo com o próprio título da imagem, ela é oriunda do LinkedIn do indivíduo fotografado, tornando-se muito improvável que ela de fato esteja sob uma licença livre. // en: According to the file's title, it's actual source is the LinkedIn of the individual photographed, making it very unlikely to be available under a free license. Solon 26.125 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Due to user behaviour, I would ask OTRS for this own work. 181.43.5.222 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; reverse image search shows it online 7 years before uploader's supposed creation date of image. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded as 'own work', but uploader confirms on their en.wiki talk page this is not the case. Also, the metadata includes an explicit copyright claim. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Bremps... 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. On the source website https://www.lakenhal.nl/nl/collectie/9313-14 is stated that it is not allowed to download images of this object. JopkeB (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible/unclear URV, possible missing permission: Original DR was on de.wp: (de:FILE:Hauptbüro_in_Meerbusch.jpg): Uploader can't be the photographer (photo from 2018; Uploader has been working for the company since this year. https://starkpartners.de/en/team-anna-slobodian-en/ see also imprint;) Wdwd (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Applies also to:
- --Wdwd (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The term and conditions [20] says the images have CC-BY license, but it also states "È fatto divieto di modificare le informazioni testuali, come anche gli elementi multimediali contenuti nel sito del Senato, nonché, salvo espressa autorizzazione scritta del Senato, di preparare con gli stessi opere derivate", translated it means derivative works are only allowed with a written permission from the senate. Günther Frager (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The term and conditions [21] says the images have CC-BY license, but it also states "È fatto divieto di modificare le informazioni testuali, come anche gli elementi multimediali contenuti nel sito del Senato, nonché, salvo espressa autorizzazione scritta del Senato, di preparare con gli stessi opere derivate", translated it means derivative works are only allowed with a written permission from the senate. Günther Frager (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
As a scrupulous digital recreation of an anonymous 4chan artwork, this would fall under COM:BASEDONPHOTO (The same also applies to paintings done after photographs, or drawings and paintings done based on other drawings or paintings, and even to drawings or paintings done directly after a 3D sculpture: all are derivative works, and in all cases the copyright of the underlying original needs to be considered.) irrespective of the fact that backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com is freely CC-licencing this version.
The original 4chan image can be seen at https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1495032-the-backrooms for comparison. Belbury (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Per what I said at w:wp:gl: This image seems WP:OR, and is made redundant by file:ItaliansInVenezuela.png and file:Porcentaje Italianos en Venezuela (2011).png. The image description and categories make out that it represents ethnicity rather than language, but its use on Italian Venezuelans and Italian language in Venezuela contradicts this. As pointed out by Anythingyouwant at the start of the same discussion, the color scheme is also inaccessible SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: In use in multiple places in article space. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Precautionary flagging for the Facebook EXIF: user's other upload of the area at File:Oléron satellite SPOT CNES.jpg was also taken from Facebook, where the source did not release the image under a free licence.
Belbury (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
author is given as Bertrand du Quesne - he did not upload this file and it is a protected company logo as well Hoyanova (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep @Hoyanova: it is "protected" in the sense of trademarked, and should be marked as such, but surely it is below the threshold of originality for copyright pretty much anywhere in the world. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Falls under COM:TOO. SWinxy (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
No está muy seguro que sea trabajo propio. 186.175.139.110 17:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; small web resolution, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The photo is labeled public domain per {{PD-China}}. However, she's clearly in the US as shown by the NBC microphone. So the photo is not from China, and we need to show that the photo is in the public domain in the US according to US copyright laws. FunnyMath (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Every NBC foreign correspondent on foreign soil has the same logo on their microphone. Her biography makes no mention of a trip to the USA in the 1950s. --RAN (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to the source for the photo, [22] it was taken during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45). She did make a trip to the US in 1943. The full resolution available on Britannica shows that all the books on the shelves are in English. [23] None are in Chinese. FunnyMath (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like seeing valuable photos like this one getting deleted, so I understand if people are apprehensive about deleting it. I'm trying to see if the photo was published in a newspaper on Newspapers.com. That way, we can keep the photo using {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. No luck so far, but just to drive home the point, she did speak for the NBC in the US as can be seen here: [24] FunnyMath (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, she did speak in front of an NBC microphone in China in the 1950s. See [25]. So the image could be from the 1950s, but the wording of the caption is unclear; whether she is thanking Americans who, during the war, supported China, or she is thanking, during the war, Americans who were supporting China. FunnyMath (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like seeing valuable photos like this one getting deleted, so I understand if people are apprehensive about deleting it. I'm trying to see if the photo was published in a newspaper on Newspapers.com. That way, we can keep the photo using {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. No luck so far, but just to drive home the point, she did speak for the NBC in the US as can be seen here: [24] FunnyMath (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- According to the source for the photo, [22] it was taken during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45). She did make a trip to the US in 1943. The full resolution available on Britannica shows that all the books on the shelves are in English. [23] None are in Chinese. FunnyMath (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
![[23]](https://cdn.britannica.com/45/78745-050-414B6734/people-Soong-Mei-ling-radio-broadcast-support-American.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: China or US, most images from this era are PD. In addition to above research, I was unable to find version with copyright notice online. Pending any new info, closing as kept. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Carregamento inadequado 186.172.221.97 22:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: unused uncat personal photo. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: Doubt on the own work claim as the singer died in 1993 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Parece own work pero quién es? 186.172.221.97 23:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment this guy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncat, unused, no other contributions by uploader, from 2018. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
it's my property 181.166.216.131 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- La botella o la impresora? Delete, una foto absurda que no va servir a nada. 186.172.221.97 23:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Unclear anon request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also File:2013 Pullmantur logo.png - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also File:Logo Pullmantur.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 10mmsocket as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: user clearly shows the logo is taken from the company's website yet releases it under a CC licence. How does the user have the right to do this? It's blatant copyvio and should be on wikipedia pages with a fair use rationale, not on commons) Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously not correctly licensed, but may be {{PD-ineligible}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Pullmantur was a Spanish company. How strict is COM:TOO Spain? I really can't tell from the language used at that link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. The first file was deleted by Krd due to missing permission, which in my opinion is incorrect: such simple logos do not need permission. I will not restore it, because it's scaled-down copy of 2013 Pullmantur logo. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Due to user behaviour I would ask OTRS for this own work. 181.43.5.222 12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Keep if there are no copyright issues. COM:INUSE. It isn't clear in this deletion request, but you are alleging that the uploader is violating copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I believe OP might be referring to this admission that the uploader contributed photos not his own. Felix QW (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Claims of own work by the uploader no longer carry any weight. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Due to user behaviour I would ask OTRS for this own work. 181.43.5.222 12:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment COM:INUSE. Except that based on one other deletion request by you, it seems that you are questioning authorship and permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I believe OP might be referring to this admission that the uploader contributed photos not his own. Felix QW (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - Claims of own work by the uploader no longer carry any weight. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Canonical is a British company. COM:TOO UK is (in)famously low. --Matr1x-101Pinging me doesn't hurt! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 22:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm renominating this for deletion because, not to be rude or anything, but the deleting admin clearly didn't understand how low British TOO is. Canonical is a British company. If this image is above British TOO, then this is as well. (pinging @Taivo incase I missed something when they kept this image) Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 10:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Canonical has a very permissive intellectual property rights policy so I don't think this really matters. Matt (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Edge logo is really more complex than Canonical logo. Canonical logo is too simple for copyright protection even by UK demands. Taivo (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, I think this is about as complex as the Edge logo. I looked at the IP policy, and it does not help here. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Canonical's IP policy says, Canonical’s logos are presented in multiple colours and it is important that their visual integrity be maintained. It is therefore preferable that the logos should only be used in their standard form, but if you should feel the need to alter them in any way, you should following the guidelines set out below. Clearly, anyone is allowed to use the logos, and they only strongly request that you follow their brand guidelines. —holly {chat} 21:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The text cited by Holly clearly shows this is not CCBYSA, where an image can be changed at will, without any relation to "brand guidelines" etc. --Ellywa (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously copied from her Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/aubreyandersonemmons/ 178.9.212.91 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Is it though? I can't find the image on her Instagram, or anywhere else online. XxakixX (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Please provide actual proof of copyvio. Additionally, Instagram photos are always square, and this one is still rectangular. It still may be suspect given the low resolution and lack of EXIF info, but I want better proof before deleting. —holly {chat} 19:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
The photo is really suspect. Small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. I found the image in https://bignamebio.com/aubrey-anderson-emmons/ . Probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Borrar por Taivo. 186.172.221.97 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree that the file is a bit suspicious, but the file name for the image at bignamebio.com indicates it was uploaded there in November 2022 (https://bignamebio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/aubrey-anderson-emmons-1-1.jpg). and the file was uploaded to Commons on February 6, 2021, so it's likely they took the image from here. It also appears on Celebs Life Reel, posted 9 February 2021 (three days after it was posted to Commons) but at a lower quality. Hollywood Mask posted the image on January 21, 2021, again with worse quality but prior to appearing in Commons. None of these sites credit the photographer or source. To the earlier discussion's claim that it came from her Instagram account; there is a picture from October 26, 2020 where she's wearing the same outfit, but her hair is longer in that image so this is unlikely to be from the same event. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Tcr25. Evidence so far suggests this was uploaded to Commons first. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The stated permission [26] correspond to the site dati.senato.it (mostly about legislative text) while the photo was obtained from senato.it that has an ambiguous license. At the time of the upload the the page had a CC-BY logo in the footer, but the terms and conditions stated that comercial use and derivative works were forbidden: «L'utilizzo, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, ovvero la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali e degli elementi multimediali disponibili sul sito del Senato è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte.». The current page has still the CC-BY logo and the terms and conditions states content has CC-BY license, but it adds that derivative works must have a written authorization: «È fatto divieto di modificare le informazioni testuali, come anche gli elementi multimediali contenuti nel sito del Senato, nonché, salvo espressa autorizzazione scritta del Senato, di preparare con gli stessi opere derivate.» Günther Frager (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment We have thousand of such datesenato image on Commons. I don't know the license terms in 2018 but I trust we Commons has an Italian Admin to check the facts before such images are deleted. I believed they were free since other reviewers had reviewed such images in 2018. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that the source of the photo is not https://dati.senato.it, but https://www.senato.it. They are different websites and have different terms and conditions [27][28]. Günther Frager (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unfree license at source. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a picture of a picture, date of original picture is not known hence we cannot guarantee image is even PD (obviously it's not CC). COM:PRP A09 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP, we'd need more information on the original picture to determine actual copyright status. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Una foto de 21 KB 186.172.221.97 22:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use, though. Should be kept if there are no copyright issues, which there very well might be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Duck for a netcopyvio. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The image was published by Disney who may hold copyright on it and https://doblajesanimados.fandom.com/es/wiki/WILLIAM_PHIPPS is an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuturi (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any indication from the databases that this was not renewed? @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I find nothing under "William Edward Phipps" or "William E. Phipps" or "Bill Phipps" in the registration or renewal databases. The only "Phipps" I find are renewals for books. --RAN (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: kept per RAN, copyright was not renewed. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
File:RIAN archive 410994 First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan A. Masaliyev.jpg
[edit]
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/410994.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the upload the image was part of the RIAN archive project and I see no evidence that the license is incorrect. The license is permanent and cannot be withdrawn, although we have a grace period where errors can be corrected. That grace period ended 10 years ago. --RAN (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. All images which were part of the project were uploaded only by User:RIANbot. This image has been uploaded by unknown user recently. Please, read carefully before making comments. FlorianH76 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All RIAN's photos they approved for free licensing were uploaded by RIANbot. Other ones are not free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raisa Bohatyryova.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24B CCCP-46295 Aeroflot.jpg and so on. --188.123.231.6 08:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:RIAN archive 410994 First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan A. Masaliyev (cropped).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/410994.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the upload the image was part of the RIAN archive project and I see no evidence that the license is incorrect. The license is permanent and cannot be withdrawn, although we have a grace period where errors can be corrected. That grace period ended 10 years ago. --RAN (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. All images which were part of the project were uploaded only by User:RIANbot. This image has been uploaded by unknown user recently. Please, read carefully before making comments. FlorianH76 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All RIAN's photos they approved for free licensing were uploaded by RIANbot. Other ones are not free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raisa Bohatyryova.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24B CCCP-46295 Aeroflot.jpg and so on. --188.123.231.6 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:RIAN archive 855852 Member of the Presidium of the CEC of the Party of Communists of Kyrgyzstan A. Masaliyev.jpg
[edit]
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/855852.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The uploader appears to be a bot to upload pictures from said archive. There's even a page Commons:RIA Novosti that clearly says that the archive has the exclusive right on these images. So Keep, all of them. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Why keep if this is not an image from the porject? You didn't understand. Only images which were uploaded by User:RIANbot can be used freely when the project existed between 2011-2012. This image has been uploaded by unknown user recently. And the user put the license manually, but the license does not cover this image! FlorianH76 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the upload the image was part of the RIAN archive project and I see no evidence that the license is incorrect. The license is permanent and cannot be withdrawn, although we have a grace period where errors can be corrected. That grace period ended 10 years ago. This should have been handled with a question at Village Pump instead of diving into multiple deletion nominations. --RAN (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was not a part of the project at the time of the upload! The project existed only between 2011-2012. You cannot just upload an image now and then manually state the RIA license! FlorianH76 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All RIAN's photos they approved for free licensing were uploaded by RIANbot. Other ones are not free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raisa Bohatyryova.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24B CCCP-46295 Aeroflot.jpg and so on. --188.123.231.6 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:RIAN archive 875560 First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan A. Masaliyev (cropped).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/875560.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the upload the image was part of the RIAN archive project and I see no evidence that the license is incorrect. The license is permanent and cannot be withdrawn, although we have a grace period where errors can be corrected. That grace period ended 10 years ago. --RAN (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. All images which were part of the project were uploaded only by User:RIANbot. This image has been uploaded by unknown user recently. Please, read carefully before making comments. FlorianH76 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All RIAN's photos they approved for free licensing were uploaded by RIANbot. Other ones are not free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raisa Bohatyryova.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24B CCCP-46295 Aeroflot.jpg and so on. --188.123.231.6 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:RIAN archive 875560 First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kyrgyzstan A. Masaliyev.jpg
[edit]
This file is a copyright violation, copied from non-free source https://riamediabank.ru/media/875560.html. The uploader stated false license. All images from RIAN archives were uploaded only by User:RIANbot in 2011-2012. This image is not a part of the project. FlorianH76 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep At the time of the upload the image was part of the RIAN archive project and I see no evidence that the license is incorrect. The license is permanent and cannot be withdrawn, although we have a grace period where errors can be corrected. That grace period ended 10 years ago. This should have been handled with a question at Village Pump instead of diving into multiple deletion nominations. --RAN (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. All images which were part of the project were uploaded only by User:RIANbot. This image has been uploaded by unknown user recently. Please, read carefully before making comments. FlorianH76 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All RIAN's photos they approved for free licensing were uploaded by RIANbot. Other ones are not free. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raisa Bohatyryova.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:An-24B CCCP-46295 Aeroflot.jpg and so on. --188.123.231.6 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 10mmsocket as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: user clearly shows the logo is taken from the government website yet releases it himself under a CC licence. How does the user have the right to do this? It's blatant copyvio and should be on wikipedia pages with a fair use rationale, not on commons) Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- License is clearly wrong, but the image may be OK. We have File:Coat of Arms of Australia (conventional, monochrome).svg (@DraftSaturn15: you uploaded that, care to comment? In particular, what about that made that copyrightable and licensed by you, instead of straight PD?). If that part of this is OK -- and I think it is -- then the rest of this is simple text, and the logo as a whole should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The image of the coat of arms from the AMSA logo is the version used on most Australian Government websites and is distinctive because it is admittedly terribly auto-traced (with only the stars and letters re-drawn) but is copyrighted to the Australian Government and should not be on Wikimedia Commons. The auto-traced version would have been based off a printed version that could have been from government document whose copyright has expired but Australian copyright law has a low threshold of originality so the auto-traced version would be copyrightable.
- The version of the coat of arms in File:Coat of Arms of Australia (conventional, monochrome).svg was taken from File:Royal Australian Navy OR-9b.svg which was drawn by Sodacan from scratch so that specific version is licensable to Sodacan. I re-licensed the re-colour under the same licence (CC BY-SA). DraftSaturn15 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- So could we create a "legitimate" AMSA logo by starting from File:Coat of Arms of Australia (conventional, monochrome).svg and adding the text? - Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The logo as a whole has separate copyright to the coat of arms. Re-creating the logo using freely licensed elements would be legally ambiguous but I would lean on the side of it being copyright infringement. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel and DraftSaturn15: The remainder of the logo is PD-text, so the combination of the free COA plus the text would be fine. I can give it a shot later (if I remember). —holly {chat} 17:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The logo as a whole has separate copyright to the coat of arms. Re-creating the logo using freely licensed elements would be legally ambiguous but I would lean on the side of it being copyright infringement. DraftSaturn15 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- So could we create a "legitimate" AMSA logo by starting from File:Coat of Arms of Australia (conventional, monochrome).svg and adding the text? - Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: I have recreated the file using the free CoA image and deleted the old revision. —holly {chat} 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
