Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/06/30
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I failed. APON98 (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Некоторые люди изображённые на фотографии, не дают своё разрешение на их изображение в открытом доступе. Они просят удалить фотографию чтобы жто не нарушало тайну их частной жизни Noble Ghost (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Mistakenly uploaded wrong file Jano0 (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake UnknownExplorwr (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Modern architecture, but there is no freedom of panorama in the building's source country.
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura Premier 01.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 01.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 04.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 06.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 07.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 08.jpg
- File:The Chapel of San Pedro Calungsod - SM Aura PremierJf 15.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. LTA sock. --Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tian x-way (talk · contribs)
[edit]None of these uploads are the original work of the uploader. Some images include sources, but those sources are copyrighted according to their respective websites. Despite receiving warnings, this user has chosen to ignore them. It's worth noting that this user has been blocked once before. Therefore, I strongly recommend deleting all the images and impose a permanent block.
- File:Katedral Manado.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Sanggau.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Kupang.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Ketapang.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Ruteng.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Maumere.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Reinha Rosari Larantuka.jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Malang di masa lampau.jpg
- File:Logo Paroki Katedral Kristus Raja Purwokerto.png
- File:Katedral Kristus Raja Purwokerto.jpg
- File:Mgr. Henricus Leo (Enrico) Smeets, S.C.J.jpg
- File:Pastor Henricus Nobertus van Oort.jpg
- File:Mgr. Henricus Martin Mekkelholt, S.C.J.jpg
- File:Mgr. Joseph Hubertus Soudant, S.C.J.jpg
- File:Sign Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo.png
- File:Lambang Keuskupan Agung Semarang.png
- File:Logo Gereja Santo Antonius, Surakarta.png
- File:Gereja Katedral Santa Theresia dari Kanak-Kanak Yesus.jpg
- File:Our Lady of Divine Providence Chapel, Kabul.jpg
- File:분당성당.jpg
- File:Mgr. Fransiscus Xaverius Sudartanta Hadisumarta.jpg
- File:Vladimir Augustian Simbolon, 2023.jpg
- File:Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo, official portrait red.jpg
- File:Mgr. Yohanes Harun Yuwono, Archbishop Official Portrait.jpg
- File:Tahbisan Episkopal Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo.jpg
- File:Mgr. Henrisoensanta official portrait.jpg
- File:Mgr. Hermelink Gentiaras.jpg
- File:Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo menggunakan Bonet.png
- File:Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo, Pr.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santa Maria Tak Bercela (Ngagel).jpg
- File:Mgr. Martinus Dogma Situmorang.jpg
- File:Mgr. Johannes Maria Trilaksyanta Pujasumarta.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santa Lidwina (Bandar Jaya).png
- File:Gereja Paroki Santa Maria (Pajar Mataram).jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santo Yohanes Don Bosco (Rumbia).jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Hati Kudus Yesus Sukoharjo, Pringsewu, Lampung.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santo Yusuf Pekerja (Tulang Bawang).jpg
- File:Paroki Santo Yohanes Paulus II (Murni Jaya).jpg
- File:Paroki Santo Andreas Rasul (Mesuji).jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santo Pius X (Gisting).jpg
- File:RD. Piet Yoenanto Sukowiluyo.jpg
- File:Gereja Katolik Paroki Santo Thomas Rasul Bandar Sribawono.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Keluarga Kudus (Baradatu).jpg
- File:Gereja Katedral Kristus Raja Sintang.jpg
- File:Gereja Katolik Paroki Keluarga Kudus (Sidomulyo), Lampung Selatan.jpg
- File:Gereja Santo Petrus Kalirejo.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Margo Agung, Lampung.jpg
- File:Gereja Paroki Santo Paulus Kota Gajah.jpg
- File:Gereja Katolik Paroki Santo Yusup, Pringsewu.jpg
- File:Gereja Katolik Paroki Santo Theodorus, Liwa.jpg
- File:Katedral Santa Maria, Palembang.jpg
- File:Logo Yayasan Xaverius Tanjungkarang.jpg
- File:Mgr. Anicetus Bongsu Antonius Sinaga Official Portrait.jpg
- File:Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan Triatmojo Official Portrait.png
- File:Lambang Mgr. Vinsensius Setiawan T.png
- File:Lambang Mgr. Petrus Boddeng Timang.png
- File:Mgr. Aloysius Sudarso, SCJ Official Portrait.jpg
—Yahya (talk • contribs.) 15:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fma12 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.udechile.cl/ Yann (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination the logo meets the requirements to be PD in Chile, according to this source (which compiles all the historic logos of U de Chile), and specially this, where it is mentioned that the logo was designed in 1941. Fma12 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Soundic SD-050 (joystick).jpg Arosio Stefano (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
REERREEREQE TE ER ER RRRER ERRE ER TE ERRRRR?RRRERRRRRTRR?R DR RTTRQERRE RÉ ERRRR 2804:14C:BBE2:4416:48D9:3FA5:C501:CE76 22:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Qué cree que ha conseguido haciendo lo que acaba de hacer? 186.175.7.10 00:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept. (Non-user closure). 186.175.7.10 00:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Иной автор Ил Т (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Иное изображение Ил Т (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No license, no author, duplicate file; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
No license, no author; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 12:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
kein "eigenes Werk"; evtl. von hier entnommen: https://www.kitzart.at/Eiserbeck-Andreas_pid,52770,nid,94985,type,newsdetail.html rolf_acker (talk • contributions • log) 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Foto vom Künstler selbst aufgenommen, Recht zur WP-Veröffentlichung an mich übertragen. ThisIsSirThomas (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dann musst du gemäss COM:OTRS vorgehen und eine Mail schicken, die dies bestätigt. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023070310006352 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 13:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: has a VRT permission now. --Rosenzweig τ 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (Fotograf: Felix Matthies) M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- The photo is watermarked, the photographer has left his copyright information in the metadata, what more could he have done to let everyone know he doesn't want his images stolen? This is such a clear case it could have been speedy deleted. --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:318A:ED0D:7154:1869 21:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 23:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vorhaut-weg (talk · contribs)
[edit]per COM:NUDE
- File:Mein Schwanz voll erigiert mit Cockring.jpg
- File:Low-and-loose and adult-cut cock, mein Schwanz.jpg
- File:Mein Penis mit Dorsal-vein.jpg
- File:Meine Dorsal-vein.jpg
----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 17:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- warum meine Bilder löschen?/why take out my pics? Vorhaut-weg (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- read: COM:NUDE @Vorhaut-weg ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Delete The names imply that these images aren't intended for any educational purpose. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- read: COM:NUDE @Vorhaut-weg ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vorhaut-weg (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Beschnittener Penis.jpg
- File:Downward curved penis.jpg
- File:Stiff cock.jpg
- File:Corona glans penis.jpg
- File:Nicht erigierter Penis.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. Fitindia (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vorhaut-weg (talk · contribs)
[edit]Another batch of COM:PENIS.
- File:Masturbation01.jpg
- File:Total schlaffer Penis.jpg
- File:Shaved genitals.jpg
- File:Beschnittener, erigierter Penis.jpg
- File:Eichel eines beschnittenen Penis.jpg
- File:Circumcised cock.jpg
- File:Cock with cockring.jpg
- File:Circumcised penis with dorsal-vein.jpg
—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 03:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep File:Shaved genitals.jpg, there’s one vein that makes it… uh… different, though of course, thankfully, I’m not a specialist on Commons penises. I wouldn’t oppose it to be deleted if someone comes up with a random, obscure category with hundreds of veiny penises, lol… Delete the rest. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The ones with cock rings. At least in the Category:Cock rings there are no other pictures actually showing them in use. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete all. We had hundreds of men with cock rings, that one is not special. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I now agree, I was looking at the wrong category. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vorhaut-weg (talk · contribs)
[edit]—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 04:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vorhaut-weg (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PENIS again
- File:Extrem low-and-loose beschnittener Penis im schlaffen Zustand.jpg
- File:Extrem schlaffer, beschnittener Penis.jpg
- File:Circed Penis.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete rest of it. and this user needs a block. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- already 1 week blocked by yann. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 11:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS, I suppose. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Poor quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete horrible quality Dronebogus (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal photo (see COM:NOTHOST) with meaningless filename, no description or author information (making it impossible to decipher who are the two people in the image). SHB2000 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
با سلام آقایی که در تصویر هستم نمی خواهد عکس اش در صفحه من حضور داشته باشد. AMS.Amir.Mahdi.Salary (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --4nn1l2 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE assuming w:fa:پرویز_قره_باقری is deleted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (FYI to others: w:fa:پرویز قره باقری has been tagged for speedy deletion, so COM:INUSE does not apply). --
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of scope. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 20 upper 11:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Morocco A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in UK. Artist Dan Kitchener is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Ch Maheswara Raju (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per prompt uploader request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
All files in Category:Memorial_of_Rebirth
[edit]Sadly, I believe these all need to be deleted per COM:FOP#Romania, as several photos of the Memorial have been in the past. I'd be glad to hear a rationale to the contrary, but I believe that is basically what Romanian copyright law would dictate. The Memorial is quite recent.
- File:Memorialul Renasterii - ansamblu.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renasterii - Detaliu .jpg
- File:Memorialul Renasterii - Detaliu.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renasterii - Statuie Carol I.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renasterii.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renaşterii.jpg
- File:Monument în cinstea eroilor Revoluţiei din Decembrie 1989.jpg
- File:Pamatnik1.jpg
Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Memorial of Rebirth
[edit]The monument was built in 2005 by Alexandru Ghilduş (1952–). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania, permission from the architect is required.
- File:20140816 București 282.jpg
- File:Bucurestiul meu - panoramio (24).jpg
- File:Holding Up The Skies (71403821).jpeg
- File:Memorialul Renașterii 1.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renașterii 2.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renașterii 3.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renașterii 4.jpg
- File:Memorialul Renașterii 5.jpg
- File:Piaţa Revoluţiei - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Piaţa Revoluţiei - panoramio.jpg
- File:Rebirth Memorial.jpg
- File:Romania-1335 - Monument of Rebirth (7575716976).jpg
- File:Romania-1340 - Monument of Rebirth (7575721364).jpg
- File:Меморіал "Відродження" в Бухаресті.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sadly, all need to be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, non-commercial FOP of Romania does not fit COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Maison Gaston Castel
[edit]No FoP in France. Architect Gaston Castel died in 1971
A1Cafel (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
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 Ukraine.
- File:Пам'ятник М. М. Миклухо-Маклаю в місті Малині.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник М. М. Миклухо-Маклаю, Малин.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник Миколі Миклухо-Маклаю у середмісті Малина. Жовтень, 2019.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник Миколі Миклухо-Маклаю у середмісті Малина. Липень, 2020.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Valentina.vigliano92 (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Load 1.jpg is from Internet. Not own work. VRT-permission from the photographer is needed. The other two files are also thumbnails, and unlike that own works
Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, very low resolution, not usable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 20 upper 13:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
VRT-permission from author and copyright holder Karli Saul is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
VRT-permission from author Andres Putting is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Clearly a screenshot, probably taken fromhttps://sport.err.ee/1608586843/naiste-vorkpallikoondis-valmistub-uue-peatreeneri-kae-all-hobeliigaks per Google. Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lionandsunedu (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:NETCOPYVIO: Likely copyvios from uploader with a history of copyright violations. I have spot checked several of these (indicated below) and the images are easily found on the web and falsely claimed as own work.
- File:Lionandsunedu34.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu32.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu31.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu30.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu29.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu28.jpg (still from Katy Perry video)
- File:Lionandsunedu27.jpg (still from Katy Perry video)
- File:Lionandsunedu24.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu23.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu22.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu21.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu20.jpg (https://www.deviantart.com/austh/art/Fight-Club-355410806)
- File:Lionandsunedu18.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu17.jpg (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/desktop-wallpaper-whfmz)
- File:Lionandsunedu16.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu14.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu13.jpg (https://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-you-can-selectively-train-your-left-or-right-brain-4704)
- File:Lionandsunedu12.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu11.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu9.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu8.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu7.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu6.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu5.jpg (https://www.pxfuel.com/en/desktop-wallpaper-fnzit)
- File:Lionandsunedu4.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu3.jpg
- File:Lionandsunedu2.jpg
Marbletan (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Syktyvkaretz (talk · contribs)
[edit]No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Herz Jesu (Marl-Hüls)
[edit]copyright violation; contemporary artworks (church inaugurated in 1959); no freedom of panorama.
- File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Marl-Hüls, innen 7832.jpg
- File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Marl-Hüls, innen 7833.jpg
- File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Marl-Hüls, innen 9931.jpg
- File:Herz-Jesu-Kirche, Marl-Hüls, innen 9932.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Unused personal image by non contributor. Abuse of COM:WEBHOST. Also uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work as claimed, but taken from [1] ([2]) where it says todos los derechos reservados. Rosenzweig τ 20:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
No license, no author; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 12:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work, Rebenoks died before this was uploaded. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 20 upper 13:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Neither CC-BY-SA, nor public domain. Source: https://www.camarasitiodomato.ba.gov.br/ Py4nf (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Die Datei gibt es doppelt. Hier die andere Datei, mit besseren Titel: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20180309n_Gro%C3%9Fer_Heldbock,_Gro%C3%9Fer_Eichenbock,_Larveng%C3%A4nge.jpg Berlinschneid (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment In use. --Rosenzweig τ 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Processed as a dup. --Gbawden (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: logo of a label CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and scop. --Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Thumbnail-like image from Facebook. Unlike that own work. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DanielaVToro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused promo materials of company of questionable notability.
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-versión 1.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-Desde otros angulos 5.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-Desde otros angulos 4.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-Desde otros angulos 3.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-Desde otros angulos 2.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 3D-Desde otros angulos 1.png
- File:Logo SacrArts.png
- File:Boceto mascota corporativa para SacrArts 2D versión mejorada.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Uploader request ElIndignado653 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Complex sports logos - discussion needed whether below US TOO
- File:Laredo Law Logo.png
- File:Fresno Frenzy Logo.png
- File:Jacksonville Express Logo.png
- File:Shreveport Steamer Logo.png
- File:Houston Texans WFL Logo.png
- File:Chicago Fire Logo.png
- File:Charlotte Hornets WFL Logo.png
- File:Milwaukee Mustangs Logo (1994-2001).png
- File:Iowa Barnstormers Logo.png
- File:Charlotte Rage Alternate Logo.png
- File:Chicago Rush Logo (2013).png
Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
out of scope, even as computer wallpaper not usable due to low resolution Joschi71 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (photo by Katia Bettin) M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The image is created by ABS-CBN Entertainment, MLD Entertainment, and their associates, not the uploader of the file, as stated in the summary. EdrianJustine (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of file:Tiktaalik roseae life restor.jpg, now all uses migrated to that filename (modulo caching). Requesting numerical filename get redirected to that target if/once duplicate is deleted. Arlo James Barnes 22:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Exact duplicate photo file. By the way, my use of "Upload Wizard" does show a warning before uploading that both of these duplicate files exist, so thus avoiding another duplicate. Use of Fickr2Commons should be suspended pending a "fix" to the code. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20230630223815/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Foreign_Secretary_James_Cleverly_visits_Ukraine_Welcome_Centre_%2852988890705%29.jpg Ooligan (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Processed as a dup. --Gbawden (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, we have lots like this. --Gbawden (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
One person in the photo has not given permission to be published in Commons Alejandra Reyes WMFr (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete courtesy deletion. Michael WMFr (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete courtesy deletion.--Alejandra Reyes WMFr (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 10:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Freddy eduardo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=132477406097935&set=a.105416445470698 Yann (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Taggued with PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Considero que la Imagen se debe cambiar la licencia Creative Commons Dedicación de Dominio Público CC0 1.0 Universal y poner la fuente de la misma, en mis contribuciones lo hecho así, algo que advertí al mismo @David C. S. este año https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_C._S./Archive_5#RE:_Movimientos_pol%C3%ADticos_provinciales Alejandro Palacios Naspud (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per {{PD-textlogo}} -- David C. S. 16:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
No license, no author; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Corporate logo that meets the threshold of originality, with no signs of this being free content. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused text-only image. Calculation it depicts is incorrect due to a sign error: the result should be 11, not -5. Apocheir (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spencermaichin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files. Hard to find info about this musician. Likely some amateur musician, not notable. Promotional files. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Devilray77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:The Charity Match Team.jpg - Per EXIF-data, not own work. VRT-permission from the photographer is needed.
- File:Steve working as a Cameraman.jpg, thumbnail. Too small to be useful. Out of project scope.
- Other two images are self-promotional. COM:WEBHOST. Out of project scope.
- File:Old school Steve.jpg
- File:The Charity Match Team.jpg
- File:Steve working as a Cameraman.jpg
- File:Steve howard.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SANDRA MILENA COGOLLO GALBAN (talk · contribs)
[edit]File:Necesidad.jpg: unused and uncategorized file. No location given. Too scarce info to be useful. Out of project scope. The other two are thumbnails. Too small to be useful. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Non-vector duplicate of File:SK Slavia Praha (logo).svg ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Image from https://emanual.robotis.com/docs/en/dxl/mx/mx-12w/. I suspect that not too simple diagram, and it surpass Commons:Threshold of originality Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused and uncategorized file. Promotional. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by King Rockabilly (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused and uncategorized files. Google gives a Spanish hard techno band (https://obihardtechno.bandcamp.com/album/straight-from-hell-ep), but this seems to be not electronical group. Hence: promotional, some amateur group. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a (blurry) photo of a book cover. It's tagged as own work, but unless the uploader is Sarah Glidden, this tagging is wrong. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
small image from Facebook. Unlike that own work Estopedist1 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Photograph from a book HeminKurdistan (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, scan. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Image usage on eswiki identifies the first image as an artwork by Rafael Moreno-Mata which combines traditional painting with artificial intelligence techniques. Neither of these images credits Moreno-Mata or shows that he has released them under a free licence.
Belbury (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work ("screenshot"), certainly not "own work". 2003:C0:8F4F:5200:31EF:1C4E:4BFD:FD4E 10:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
probably copyright violation Mateus2019 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Putting communist symbolism on the American flag is embarrassing. The United States was an opponent of communism. This is not the right place to fool around and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post such crap work at an elementary school level. 31.2.11.198 11:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete In fact, this flag should be removed for a different reason: it looks like it promotes the conspiracy theory that the communists are connected to the Jews. 95.55.194.139 05:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No such organization ever existed. The United States was an opponent of communism. This is not the right place to fool around and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post such crap work at an elementary school level. 31.2.11.198 11:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No such organization ever existed. The United States was an opponent of communism. This is not the right place to fool around and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post such crap work at an elementary school level. 31.2.11.198 11:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No such organization ever existed. The United States was an opponent of communism. This is not the right place to fool around and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post such crap work at an elementary school level 31.2.11.198 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No such organization ever existed. The United States was an opponent of communism. This is not the right place to fool around and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post such crap work at an elementary school level 31.2.11.198 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No license since 2023-06-04. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No license since 2023-06-27. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No license since 2023-06-28. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Combining communist symbolism and a flag from the tsarist era is embarrassing. The Soviets killed the Tsar and his family. Communists were enemies of the monarchy. Stalin never intended to make himself Tsar. This is not the right place to goof off and present creativity that has nothing to do with reality. There are plenty of other sites where anyone can post elementary school level crap like this 31.2.11.198 11:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see any COM:EDUSE for such kind of personal "artwork". --Achim55 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let this Flag online. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.14.161.14 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No license, no author; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, just a simple coding error made by G.Lanting while adding desc. It got categorized under Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shturman777 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private pictures for spam and/or self-adv. Wiki's not a hosting. No more in use.
Bilderling (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo by Aivars Emanis per https://botany.lv/author/ilona/ Gbawden (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
author is not the uploader Culex (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused and uncategorized file. Google search gives no good hits for "Paper Companions". Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
unused diagram. No idea where the data is come from. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Personal file collection, unused, out of scope.
- File:Al Ferns Alex Fernandes.jpg
- File:Alex Fernandes.jpg
- File:Alex.Fernandes.jpg
- File:Alex Fernandes 01.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 16:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Freedle.365lending (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused files. Promotional. Out of project scope.
Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused and uncategorized file. No location given. Too scarce info to be useful. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused and uncategorized file. Some sort of personal writing. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sgilmore0709 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work. VRT-permission from the photographer is needed. See EXIF-data and watermark
Estopedist1 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No way the claimed subject of these images could have created these images herself. Need VRT release.
- File:Wendy Starland in Malibu, CA.jpg
- File:Wendy Starland on the runway at New York Fashion Week.jpg
DMacks (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RATNA WIDAYAT (talk · contribs)
[edit]watermarks imply that non-free images. Unlike that own works.
Estopedist1 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Redundant with File:Idaho Presidential Election Results 1956.svg 174.207.37.143 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PNG and SVG can never be redundant, see COM:Dupe --PaterMcFly (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: yes they can, see COM:REDUNDANT. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The county outlines are too small. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is, at best, a minor stylistic quibble.--Ibagli (Talk) 13:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per Ibagli. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 16:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Redundant with File:Texas Presidential Election Results 1956.svg 174.207.37.143 00:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Source URL in combination with "unknown author" implies a possible CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Invalid license. The photo was first published by a Syrian government facebook page. [3]. --Larryasou (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Would the logo for Remote Exploit be below the ToO?. I didn't find any mention of Creative Commons on their website in case it was above it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, the logo consists of letters only. Nothing copyrightable here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: LGTM. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Per TinEye search, file from Internet. See also his other problematic file discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:IDX 01.jpg Estopedist1 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Uploader request ElIndignado653 (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
File:UK International Development Minister Grant Shapps meets Sir Bob Geldof at the UK's -EnergyAfrica campaign launch, which took place in the London HQ of Facebook, 22 October 2015. (22400056671).jpg
[edit]Possible copyright framed art located at Facebook's Headquarters in London. Ooligan (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as de minimis. Each signature is so small and not focus on certain one or few. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is stretched canvass on a frame- not a scrap piece of paper. It is art hanging inside Facebook's Headquarters in London. Commons does not have permission from the copyright holder. We must remove it under COM:PCP. For example, PCP #4 = "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." -- Ooligan (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @A1Cafel, It about both the artwork as a whole (see above) and the many signatures themselves - Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Signatures
- Relevant quote here:
- "... the UK position is that typical personal signatures are arguably entitled to protection under local law, and generally UK signatures should be deleted under the precautionary principle." -- Ooligan (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Source of the photograph is https://www.boredpanda.com/40-bloody-good-reasons-you-need-to-build-an-earthship/. No indication that the Flickr Uploader is actually the photographer, and I see a copyright notice on Bored Panda's website but nothing about Creative Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I also found a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licensed article by the same author at https://medium.com/architecture-landscape-urban-design/earthships-the-ultimate-green-homes-9f2d8fc516d1 but the photograph is not there. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow Yes I spotted the images on Medium with the open licence also. This image was actually uploaded as part of a set in collaberation with Climate Visual and the image is also on their website with an open licence. I understand that they did clear the rights on all these images and were quite thurough. The boredpanda link looks more like an article which just happens to use the images rather than this original source. If the Climatevisuals link above is not sufficient to keep this let me know and i will try and follow it up further with them. Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Climate Visual lists Jenny Parkins as the photographer. This seems problematic to me especially when there is another Earthship photo on her Flickr page that also links to the Bored Panda article that has a copyright notice to Pauline Fabry in the EXIF data https://www.flickr.com/photos/132649838@N04/17921565612/ Following up with Climatevisuals wouldn't hurt, I'm just dubious on Parkins as the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- No problem - Ive just dropped them an email and will try and get some more info to you asap. Thanks for your patience. Jason.nlw (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again. Climate Visual have got back to me but where not able to offer any additional information to support the claimed photographer. I'm assuming they've just gone off the Flickr uploader/rights statement. Therefore they/I have no objections if it's safer to let this one go. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- No problem - Ive just dropped them an email and will try and get some more info to you asap. Thanks for your patience. Jason.nlw (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Climate Visual lists Jenny Parkins as the photographer. This seems problematic to me especially when there is another Earthship photo on her Flickr page that also links to the Bored Panda article that has a copyright notice to Pauline Fabry in the EXIF data https://www.flickr.com/photos/132649838@N04/17921565612/ Following up with Climatevisuals wouldn't hurt, I'm just dubious on Parkins as the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow Yes I spotted the images on Medium with the open licence also. This image was actually uploaded as part of a set in collaberation with Climate Visual and the image is also on their website with an open licence. I understand that they did clear the rights on all these images and were quite thurough. The boredpanda link looks more like an article which just happens to use the images rather than this original source. If the Climatevisuals link above is not sufficient to keep this let me know and i will try and follow it up further with them. Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion; still no confirmation of free license by copyright holder. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There are copyrights on sheet music. Authorization needed. 2A01:CB14:B39:8B00:1D2C:2694:BFC5:E727 07:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Question: Does that mean that the copyright on this was to Rohmer, and not to Valero? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Jean-Louis Valero is still living, and a famous composer, permission is needed. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Je travail dans cette entreprise et ce fichier n'est plus à jour depuis longtemps 185.123.26.202 08:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that something is outdated is not a reason for deletion. Historic images and logos are in scope here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused JPEG logo, out of scope. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work. 2003:C0:8F4F:5200:31EF:1C4E:4BFD:FD4E 10:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- See here also for an identical image and further information. --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:31EF:1C4E:4BFD:FD4E 10:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This image is not a derivative. It's my own work that I assigned CC as stated. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by StefDoll (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
No license, false claim of ownership; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's owned by Audika Group.This is a mistake in the author's name.Corrected and added necessary items.Thank you. Ooooooohno (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Not my own work 186.172.214.34 21:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- But it is my own work, i literally took that picture myself Polish Imperialis (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: No additional infos given to believe that this photo is a copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
45 KB, no EXIF, user no other work in Commons. Own work? Admin resign! 186.172.18.14 12:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
it belongs to a profile that was deleted from wikipedia FANTINI1900 (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be a reason for deletion, but the image is from a recent mosque in a country without FOP, so unfortunately, we need to delete these. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Author Pino Musi. --Yann (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
it does belong to a profile that has been deleted/ban from wikipedia FANTINI1900 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Question Who or what was banned? And why? --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Uploader was blocked on enwp. --Yann (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Images published from president.gov.ua after October 2022 are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND, which is not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dont know that. Zacharpolis (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- In that case please remove the file from the english language wikipedia article Greta Thunberg. It is an article with plenty views and people might reuse the foto believing it was free. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
small image. From Facebook. Unlike that own work. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Uploader is very unlikely to be the copyright holder of this image, especially considering the other logos that they have uploaded. It might be eligible for Public domain. Sumurai8 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio from a television series and no proper crediting. Nate • (chatter) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation: own work not at all; artist died in 2003; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The artist died in 1961. This painting, although is old enough for being published before 1928, it's still copyrighted in the country of origin (the UK) until 70 years from the painter's death had been passed in 2032 (1961 + 70 + 1). 81.41.175.237 17:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Metadata asserts that 'Sonia Mirzaie' is the author. Permission needed HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
![2 File:"Горный капкан".jpg](#File:"Горный_капкан".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![13 File:"Tag" Movie Poster.jpg](#File:"Tag"_Movie_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![105 File:Cover of "How To Understand Israel" by Sarah Glidden.jpg](#File:Cover_of_"How_To_Understand_Israel"_by_Sarah_Glidden.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![157 File:"Wehrpflicht".jpg](#File:"Wehrpflicht".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![170 File:"Bait El Ruby" Egyptian movie logo.png](#File:"Bait_El_Ruby"_Egyptian_movie_logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Noble_Ghost-20230630070000-File:"Горный_капкан".jpg){kind=link}
![09:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Well-Informed_Optimist-20230630092200-File:"Горный_капкан".jpg){kind=link}
_Smeets,_S.C.J.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Lampung_Selatan.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-20_upper-20230630115800-File:"Tag"_Movie_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
![07:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Rosenzweig-20230705073300-File:"Tag"_Movie_Poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.igm.cl/MAPAIGM/CHILE%20REGIONES/DPA/region_de_magallanes_y_de_la_antartica_chilena.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![11:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Amire80-20230630113300-File:Cover_of_"How_To_Understand_Israel"_by_Sarah_Glidden.jpg){kind=link}
![23:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-P199-20230801234800-File:Cover_of_"How_To_Understand_Israel"_by_Sarah_Glidden.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=776484807){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![16:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Martin_Sg.-20230630162700-File:"Wehrpflicht".jpg){kind=link}
![12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-Yann-20231025124100-File:"Wehrpflicht".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Out of scope uploads related to WLM 2013 (India): Notable person depicted; almost unique conjuntions of depicted elements. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, based on the arguments given in past DRs affecting these two images:
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Namely:
- These are the only two images we have categorized as showing Category:Jetskis in India and, based on a cursory browsing of the stuff we have in and under Category:Personal watercraft, the only case of a jetsky being manually towed ashore.
- These two images, the original and its rotated correction, are an excellent example how something as simple as framing angle can drammaticaly change the overall impression of the photographed scene.
- These are the only two images we have categorized as showing Category:Women at beaches in India which are neither in “traditional” garb nor are, apparently, foreign tourists.
- Main subject is argueably notable, having been the cover feature of the Indian edition of a well known fashion magazine.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Namely:
- Comment: How can files previously kept after a DR still be nominated for speedy deletion? How come no less than three admins (Yann, Fitindia, and Gbawden) had to go out of their way to acquiesce to an out-of-process SD filed by a user who, guessing from their talk page, has shown in the past poor judgement concerning file deletions? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Commons has no rules about repeated DRs. You can nominate the same file as many times as you like, even with the same rationale. This would be a matter for a general discussion, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, you can't nominate the same file as many times as you like. You need a new rationale. People have been blocked for repeated DRs without valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I would actually hope so, but can you link to the applicable policy? Commons:Deletion_policy doesn't mention anything like that. It would lead to quite a few DRs that could be speedy closed as keep. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is written down as policy, but it has been the practice for the last 15 years or so. Yann (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- At Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, it is said that « If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.» Now, is F10 about copyright? Oh, it’s not? I see… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a grand conspiracy. I didn't check the talk page - TBH for an F10 or G10 I am unlikely to as we see so many and they are pretty obvious. Mea culpa Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Gbawden: and sorry for the extra snark. As for too many SDs tagged with F10 and G10, I have two suggestions:
- Either bar IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors from being able to file speedy deletion requests (or at least tag the SD edits to allow separate scrutiny),
- or get rid of F10 and G10 altogether, allowing for regular DRs to treat these cases too.
- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we need both. There are a lot of blatant adverts and F10's - making them DR only would just increase the DR backlog Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Gbawden: and sorry for the extra snark. As for too many SDs tagged with F10 and G10, I have two suggestions:
- I don't think there is a grand conspiracy. I didn't check the talk page - TBH for an F10 or G10 I am unlikely to as we see so many and they are pretty obvious. Mea culpa Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- At Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, it is said that « If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.» Now, is F10 about copyright? Oh, it’s not? I see… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is written down as policy, but it has been the practice for the last 15 years or so. Yann (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I would actually hope so, but can you link to the applicable policy? Commons:Deletion_policy doesn't mention anything like that. It would lead to quite a few DRs that could be speedy closed as keep. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- No, you can't nominate the same file as many times as you like. You need a new rationale. People have been blocked for repeated DRs without valid rationale. Yann (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Commons has no rules about repeated DRs. You can nominate the same file as many times as you like, even with the same rationale. This would be a matter for a general discussion, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This source does not own this file, it has been in use by many websites since at least 2014: [4] HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
doubtful that own source: low resolution, no meta data – only accredited photographers were able to take images with this angel – accredited photographers would have uploaded in high resolution – plenty other pics available, check https://view-it.toolforge.org/?q=Q116547637 Albinfo (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
possible copyvio (© Maurice Renois) M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello M2k~dewiki, I added the copyright at the image description (© Maurice Renois), not knowing that I also have it the name somewhere else. We have the permission of Maurice Renois to use the picture and I would be grateful if you let me know how to mark it correctly if it is not done yet. I tried to put the photographer s name anywhere it is needed.
- Thank you. ChristiaDra (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- What you need is not the permission "to use the picture" but to publish it with a Creative Commons license. Only the copyright holder (= the photographer) can do that, not someone who has bought the usage rights. --2003:C0:8F27:B00:AC4D:EFCB:C0D9:1CC8 20:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There are copyrights on sheet music. Authorization needed. 2A01:CB14:B39:8B00:1D2C:2694:BFC5:E727 07:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted music by Hans Zimmer. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Does this particular toy meet the threshold of originality? - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by MiddleOfAfrica (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work. Professional studio photos with no exif. Possibly AI? Needs OTRS
- File:Anyanwu 01.png
- File:Nyame 02.png
- File:Nyame 01.png
- File:Asase Ya 01.png
- File:Anansi 01.png
- File:Yemoja 01.png
- File:Ikenga 01.png
- File:Ala 03.png
- File:Ala 02.png
- File:Ala 01.png
- File:Chukwu 02.png
- File:Chukwu 01.png
- File:Apedemak 03.png
- File:Apedemak 02.png
- File:Apedemak 01.png
- File:Amesemi 01.png
- File:Nzambici 05.png
- File:Nzambi Mpungu 03.png
- File:Nzambi Mpungu 02.png
- File:Nzambici 04.png
- File:Nzambi Mpungu 01.png
- File:Nzambici 03.png
Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The files lack licensing info and contain details suggestive of AI generation, perhaps touched up by an artist. See e.g. File:Apedemak 03.png, in which the figure's right arm has a macaroni elbow, or the problematic legs of the figure in File:Nzambici 04.png; other images have details that likewise seem to have been generated without human comprehension. The variety of styles also recalls AI parameters. Anyway the failure to credit any artist by name or to include Exif data strongly implies that the source of these images is unverifiable; thus they cannot be considered legit for Commons. — Alarob (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I initially clicked on this image while searching in the category it was in and it caught my eye as looking "off". And I agree, if there is no artist name and no exif data, that does strongly imply it being unverifiable. DNocterum (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MiddleOfAfrica (talk · contribs)
[edit]AI-generated photorealistic pictures of wooden statues representing African religious figures. No prompts provided, so it's unclear how usefully in COM:SCOPE these are - if they are just what you get when you ask an AI for wooden statue Bantu serpent goddess, not much. File:Bunzi the Kongo serpent water goddess - statue - vector - 1.png includes what looks like an obvious error in the statue's winding tail, that the central part is a floating ring shape unattached to the rest of it.
- File:Kianda the Angolan goddess - vector.png
- File:Bunzi the Kongo serpent water goddess - statue - vector - 1.png
- File:Nzambi the Kongo god - statue - vector.png
- File:Nzambici the Kongo goddess - statue - vector.png
- File:Simbi - Jengu - vector.png
- File:Nzambi the Kongo god - statue - vector - 2.png
Belbury (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
No license; could possibly infringe copyright 20 upper 11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
![11:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-20_upper-20230630115800-File:"Bait_El_Ruby"_Egyptian_movie_logo.png){kind=link}
Deleted: probably not a copyvio but unusably low quality. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
![09:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/30#c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20231101090200-File:"Bait_El_Ruby"_Egyptian_movie_logo.png){kind=link}
I don't think this falls under TOO. The 3D effect from the tiny lines is what makes me think there is enough original authorship to be protected by copyright. SWinxy (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Itoman City in 2018.[5] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems the creator thinks it's okay if photos of his property can be used freely: https://bn.photo-ac.com/photo/4930213/john-manjiro-landing-land_odo-beach-%28odo,-itoman-city,-okinawa-prefecture%29 Piet Parkiet (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Piet Parkiet: The creator has not announced that the photograph taken of this statue is freely available. In this case, you will need to contact the copyright holder and obtain permission for their work to be uploaded to Commons. Please look at Commons:Volunteer Response Team for the details. Y.haruo (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JosefinaDiLeo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: sin licencia "CC". COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete
- For me the file must be deleted, it does not comply with the necessary license to remain in Wikimedia commonsJosefinaDiLeo (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The image is below Threshold of originality as your source. --ℳaʐbeʟ (✉︎) 20:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment:Although the image is below the originality threshold, it has an extremely artistic design, therefore it can be considered as copyvio and should be Delete
- JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently the show is from Argentina and their TOO is based on "personal imprint". There appear to be a number of creative choices here, notably in the color gradients, so I think this is over the line. —holly {chat} 20:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Random penis photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep, Looking at Category:Phimosis, I don't see many good-quality images. Many of those are blurred or have bad colors. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep passable Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality--Trade (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palazzo della Borsa di Milano
[edit]No FoP in Italy, Architect Paolo Mezzanotte died in 1969
- File:Borsa di Milano Ingresso del Palazzo Mezzanotte portone.jpg
- File:Borsa di Milano Ingresso del Palazzo Mezzanotte.jpg
- File:Mailänder Börse a.jpg
- File:Mailänder Börse.jpg
- File:Milano - Borsa - panoramio - MarkusMark.jpg
- File:Milano - Borsa - panoramio.jpg
- File:Milano - palazzo Mezzanotte - facciata - vista notturna.jpg
- File:Palais Mezzanotte - Milan (IT25) - 2022-09-03 - 1.jpg
- File:Palais Mezzanotte - Milan (IT25) - 2022-09-03 - 2.jpg
- File:Palais Mezzanotte - Milan (IT25) - 2022-09-03 - 3.jpg
- File:Palais Mezzanotte - Milan (IT25) - 2022-09-03 - 4.jpg
- File:Palais Mezzanotte - Milan (IT25) - 2022-09-03 - 5.jpg
- File:Palazzo Mezzanotte - Piazza Affari - Milano - Italy.JPG
- File:Palazzo mezzanotte Milan Stock Exchange.jpg
- File:Palazzo mezzanotte.jpg
- File:Palazzo mezzanotte1.jpg
_-_2022-09-03_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-03_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-03_-_3.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-03_-_4.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2022-09-03_-_5.jpg){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Remember that FoP is actually de facto allowed in Italy. There was even a banner about it. So no need at all to delete.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- That claims are already depreciated, and the template was already deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator since these images are clearly COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#General_rules (articles 11 and 29 of the italian copyright law), public administrations and no profit organizations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf and paid by them, which expires after 20 years. The palace was made on behalf and paid by the it:Camera di commercio Milano MonzaBrianza Lodi (see), which is an italian public entity.--Friniate (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The burden of the proof that this part of the law is not applied by judges is on you, not on me. The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and memories published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Friniate (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually the burden of proof is on people who think the files should be kept. All there needs to be on my end is reasonable doubt that the files aren't PD for them to be deleted, which I think is met. It's not my job to make your argument for you in the meantime though. Your the one claiming the part of the law your citing applies to architects. So what's your evidence that it does? Is there any actual legal cases of a city suing someone for using images of a work of architecture they own to substantiate what your saying? Have any legal theorists have any opinions about it? And no I don't think the law is clear about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least the guideline says "created and published." So you clearly can't separate the two. The thing about the difference in length of terms is also in the same paragraph. So they clearly follow and related to each other. Plus, the last time I checked government organizations can be "cultural institutions." So there's no reason the copyright wouldn't lapse after two years in the case of works created AND published for government bodies. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are mixing two different articles. Article 29 as I said is very clear, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that is not applied by judges. That part about the two years is referred only to "communications and essays" published by academies and cultural institutions (something that a camera di commercio clearly isn't BTW). And yes, the law is very clear on the subject, and we're having a discussion on this topic only because you clearly don't know italian and you have simply misunderstood a sentence on commons' guidelines written in an ambigous way.
- Article 11 on the other side has that "and" which is indeed ambiguous. Nevertheless, I thought that here it was agreed that given the acts of italian municipalities which seems to indicate that municipalities hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf, that part is indeed applied also to monuments. Friniate (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I am mixing two different articles. Their inherently related to each. We'll have to agree to disagree though since I'm tired of arguing about it. Although I say that just because one person in the Village Pump discussion said municipalities might hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf doesn't mean the issue is settled. Nor does the fact that they "might" hold the copyright have anything to do with how long the term lasts for or what happens to it after a certain amount of time has passed. The government can obviously hold the copyright and it still revert back to original creator after 2 years or however long. The same goes for if architects are "authors" and buildings are "published", which I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of. Regardless though, they aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it does, since article 29 clearly states that the copyright that article 11 gives to public administrations etc, lasts 20 years. If the law doesn't say anything, it means that it goes back into PD, otherwise we should think that even medieval buildings are still under someone's copyright only because the law doesn't say anything about what happens to them once the copyright duration has passed. Architects are not "authors", and that is actually an additional proof of the fact that your claim that buldings are "communications or essays" and that a "camera di commercio" is a "cultural institution" is simply wrong. Friniate (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- your claim that buldings are "communications or essays"...is simply wrong. Your the only who's brought up ""communications or essays." So I have zero what your talking about. Let alone how I can be wrong about something I didn't even say to begin with. It's pretty obvious from this and the Village Pump discussion that your unwilling to have these conversations based on what I'm actually saying instead of just repeatedly miss-construing my position like with the claim that I was confusing copyright and non-copyright. So I think I'm done here. I'm not going to waste time talking to someone who just wants to intentionally misrepresent things for their own agenda instead of figure out what the best option is based on what the law and experts say. Like I've asked you for evidence to back up what your saying multiple times now and your only response is to treat my like I have to talk to judges about it or some nonsense. So there's really no point. The closer can see your opinion is totally baseless just by reading through the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's the law that talks about "communicatons and essays" in order to define the objects that have the 2-year copyright that then reverts back to the authors, but since you didn't read it obviously you don't know that. I'm willing to have conversations based on the mutual recognition of facts, something that with you has proven impossible. I brought the actual fucking law, but you refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a bulding is an essay, and then when you didn't know what to answer you decided to go with personal attacks. Bye bye. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- You refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a building is an essay No I didn't. Actually I've been doing the exact opposite. My whole claim from the beginning of this that buildings aren't covered by the part of the law that says works (not communications or essays. There's a difference) "published" on behalf of the government entitles them to the copyright. Again, your the only one making this about essays. Although I'll concede that maybe the law doesn't use the word "published", but the guideline does and it's kind of given that's what they are talking about since only published works can be copyrighted. Regardless, I think you need to stop rage posting and re-read what I wrote because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying or you just don't care. You should really chill out and re-read the discussion regardless though because nothing your claiming I said is based on what I wrote. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- In this same DR you stated that the copyright on this building reverts to the author after 2 years. It was you that said that, not me. As I explanied, to make this claim true you have to say that a building is an essay. There is no other way to make your claim true. So, either your claim is false, or a building is an essay. Pick one. Friniate (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again with miss-construing my position. What is "it still revert back to original creator after 2 years or however long", not that it reverts back to the original after 2 years. There's a difference. And the comment was clearly contingent on the government owning the copyright to begin with, which I don't buy to begin with for reasons that I'm not going to waste everyone's time reiterating for the hundredth time just so you can have more fodder to act like I have a position I don't.
- In this same DR you stated that the copyright on this building reverts to the author after 2 years. It was you that said that, not me. As I explanied, to make this claim true you have to say that a building is an essay. There is no other way to make your claim true. So, either your claim is false, or a building is an essay. Pick one. Friniate (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- You refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a building is an essay No I didn't. Actually I've been doing the exact opposite. My whole claim from the beginning of this that buildings aren't covered by the part of the law that says works (not communications or essays. There's a difference) "published" on behalf of the government entitles them to the copyright. Again, your the only one making this about essays. Although I'll concede that maybe the law doesn't use the word "published", but the guideline does and it's kind of given that's what they are talking about since only published works can be copyrighted. Regardless, I think you need to stop rage posting and re-read what I wrote because you clearly don't understand what I'm saying or you just don't care. You should really chill out and re-read the discussion regardless though because nothing your claiming I said is based on what I wrote. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's the law that talks about "communicatons and essays" in order to define the objects that have the 2-year copyright that then reverts back to the authors, but since you didn't read it obviously you don't know that. I'm willing to have conversations based on the mutual recognition of facts, something that with you has proven impossible. I brought the actual fucking law, but you refused it claiming nonsense as the fact that a bulding is an essay, and then when you didn't know what to answer you decided to go with personal attacks. Bye bye. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- your claim that buldings are "communications or essays"...is simply wrong. Your the only who's brought up ""communications or essays." So I have zero what your talking about. Let alone how I can be wrong about something I didn't even say to begin with. It's pretty obvious from this and the Village Pump discussion that your unwilling to have these conversations based on what I'm actually saying instead of just repeatedly miss-construing my position like with the claim that I was confusing copyright and non-copyright. So I think I'm done here. I'm not going to waste time talking to someone who just wants to intentionally misrepresent things for their own agenda instead of figure out what the best option is based on what the law and experts say. Like I've asked you for evidence to back up what your saying multiple times now and your only response is to treat my like I have to talk to judges about it or some nonsense. So there's really no point. The closer can see your opinion is totally baseless just by reading through the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes it does, since article 29 clearly states that the copyright that article 11 gives to public administrations etc, lasts 20 years. If the law doesn't say anything, it means that it goes back into PD, otherwise we should think that even medieval buildings are still under someone's copyright only because the law doesn't say anything about what happens to them once the copyright duration has passed. Architects are not "authors", and that is actually an additional proof of the fact that your claim that buldings are "communications or essays" and that a "camera di commercio" is a "cultural institution" is simply wrong. Friniate (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think I am mixing two different articles. Their inherently related to each. We'll have to agree to disagree though since I'm tired of arguing about it. Although I say that just because one person in the Village Pump discussion said municipalities might hold the copyrights on monuments made on their behalf doesn't mean the issue is settled. Nor does the fact that they "might" hold the copyright have anything to do with how long the term lasts for or what happens to it after a certain amount of time has passed. The government can obviously hold the copyright and it still revert back to original creator after 2 years or however long. The same goes for if architects are "authors" and buildings are "published", which I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of. Regardless though, they aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually the burden of proof is on people who think the files should be kept. All there needs to be on my end is reasonable doubt that the files aren't PD for them to be deleted, which I think is met. It's not my job to make your argument for you in the meantime though. Your the one claiming the part of the law your citing applies to architects. So what's your evidence that it does? Is there any actual legal cases of a city suing someone for using images of a work of architecture they own to substantiate what your saying? Have any legal theorists have any opinions about it? And no I don't think the law is clear about it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. At least the guideline says "created and published." So you clearly can't separate the two. The thing about the difference in length of terms is also in the same paragraph. So they clearly follow and related to each other. Plus, the last time I checked government organizations can be "cultural institutions." So there's no reason the copyright wouldn't lapse after two years in the case of works created AND published for government bodies. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The burden of the proof that this part of the law is not applied by judges is on you, not on me. The issue if architects should be considered authors or not is irrelevant, since that part applies only to "publications and memories published by academies" for which these cultural instituions keep the copyright for two years. The works for which a 20-year copyright applies are regulated by another sentence, the law is very clear on this subject, there is no ambiguity at all. Friniate (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Public administrations have the copyright for the works made on their behalf Not exactly. public administrations have the copyright for works "published" on their behalf and buildings aren't "published works." Nor are architects considered "authors" either BTW. So there's really no reason to think the law applies here. Although even if I granted you that it did, it's not really clear if the term expires after 20 years, the rights go back to the "author" after 2, both, or neither happen. Let alone is there even solid judicial evidence that public administrations retain copyrights of works published on their behalf to begin with. Really the evidence points to that not being the case, but again, it's irrelevant anyway because buildings aren't "published works" and architects aren't "authors" in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Although now that your here I would like to point something out since you keep citing the law in other DRs. At least going by Google Translate article 11 says "To the State Administrations, to the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and Municipalities have copyright on the works created and published under their name and at their account and expense. The same right applies to private entities that do not pursue objectives of profit, unless otherwise agreed with the authors of the works published, as well as to Academies and other public bodies cultural bodies on the collection of their documents and their publications. Two things there that I think are important, 1. The article uses the word "published" 3 times in reference to all the types of institutions that retain the copyright. There's no reason that "published" in the last two instances would have a different meaning then it does when referring to Provinces and Municipalities. The article is clearly referring to the same thing for all three, the publication of "documents." Something that I think confirms that is the line "The same right applies to private entities". In other words, they all have the same rights. To own the copyright to documents published on their behalf. There's literally nothing else mentioned in the article and it specifies exactly what is covered. So it's clearly not meant to apply to "works" in general, but specifically published documents. I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of that, but I still wanted to at least make the reason why I don't think architects and buildings aren't covered regardless. The exact term obviously isn't really relevant if buildings aren't covered to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- As I've already explained in detail, in the law the provision that the copyright reverts back to the author is present only for the two-year copyright, not the 20-years one. What you claimed is simply not based on the law, but on a commons' guideline that was badly written, I give you that, and that you misunderstood. But once a person makes you notice that, you should thank him or her, not starting a nonsense discussion full of personal attacks.
- On the second point, clearly the internal documents and publications of academies and other cultural public institutions (which BTW are the things for which the article 29 provides the teo-year copyright) are a subset of the "works" mentioned in the previous paragraph, so it doesn't say anything on the question if monuments are included among the "works" or not. It's not a "weasel", it's basic understanding of a written text, something that of course it's not easy to do if you rely on automatic translators. Friniate (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Although now that your here I would like to point something out since you keep citing the law in other DRs. At least going by Google Translate article 11 says "To the State Administrations, to the National Fascist Party, the Provinces and Municipalities have copyright on the works created and published under their name and at their account and expense. The same right applies to private entities that do not pursue objectives of profit, unless otherwise agreed with the authors of the works published, as well as to Academies and other public bodies cultural bodies on the collection of their documents and their publications. Two things there that I think are important, 1. The article uses the word "published" 3 times in reference to all the types of institutions that retain the copyright. There's no reason that "published" in the last two instances would have a different meaning then it does when referring to Provinces and Municipalities. The article is clearly referring to the same thing for all three, the publication of "documents." Something that I think confirms that is the line "The same right applies to private entities". In other words, they all have the same rights. To own the copyright to documents published on their behalf. There's literally nothing else mentioned in the article and it specifies exactly what is covered. So it's clearly not meant to apply to "works" in general, but specifically published documents. I'm sure you'll find a way to weasel out of that, but I still wanted to at least make the reason why I don't think architects and buildings aren't covered regardless. The exact term obviously isn't really relevant if buildings aren't covered to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per this incredibly long and convoluted discussion at VP about copyrights of buildings owned by public and non-profit entities. —holly {chat} 20:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio from hotel website. 2003:C0:8F4F:5200:31EF:1C4E:4BFD:FD4E 08:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Given the uploader is identical to the creator of the article here and that his name suggests he could be related to the alley depicted here, I do believe that this is indeed own work. It's of course legal for them to upload the picture here as well as on their website. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- That might be the case, but since so far the uploader refuses to verify their identity and disclose paid editing on the German WP, we have no way of knowing for sure.
- Anyway, the article this image is meant for is almost certain to be deleted because of non-notability, so we will not have any use for this picture until maybe a thousand years from now when these trees have grown to an an encycopedically notable height. :-) --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:31EF:1C4E:4BFD:FD4E 10:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as article was deleted anyway. —holly {chat} 21:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Finland has no freedom of panorama for public works of 2D art Di (they-them) (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
-20230630172000-File:Tom_of_Finland_poster_(43886817754).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. This image is from the Kuwait Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which states in the footer of the website 'all rights reserved': https://www.mofa.gov.kw/en/news-pm/2021/5/2021-05-18-1/ Longhornsg (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
COM:DOGS 186.172.18.14 00:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Question potential spurious DR, but does COM:TOYS apply? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- It looks rather simple, but UK has a very low COM:TOO, so I'm not sure. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you think UK law would apply here? Lego is (and was) based in Denmark. Since this toy is from the very early days of Lego (probably around 1930), it should be PD as anyonymous work, I believe. --PaterMcFly (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand spurious meaning, I was meaning COM:TOYS. 186.172.18.14 09:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per en:History of Lego, the company was not named "Lego" until 1934, so that puts this into the latter half of the 1930s. If we assume that the designer was unnamed employee, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} means that the design would have become PD in the late 2000s, which is after the URAA date of 1996, meaning that the earliest it would be PD in the US is 2030. On the other hand, if it was designed by en:Ole Kirk Christiansen, the founder (d. 1958), then it would be PD in Denmark in 2029 (US date is unaffected). This apparently is on display at the en:Wellcome Collection in London, so an enterprising Wikimedian could go and see if the museum knows who the creator is. —holly {chat} 00:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kasparoviča (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work. Smarods for example died in 1956, so not a 2022 own work. File:Kārlis Starcs.jpg was cropped from here https://www.lu.lv/par-mums/lu-mediji/zinas/zina/t/72286/
All of these need OTRS to keep
- File:Biruta Cepurīte.jpg
- File:Dr. hab. Laima Tabaka.jpg
- File:Edgars Vimba.jpg
- File:Gaida Ābele 2.jpg
- File:1.attēls. Gali Sabardina.jpg
- File:Voldemārs Lange.jpg
- File:J. Smarods.jpg
- File:Kārlis Starcs.jpg
- File:A. Kasparovičs.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 00:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Duplication of File:Coat of arms of Uruguay.svg. Fry1989 eh? 21:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Está duplicado Estefaniaotero (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination (duplicate file is File:ÓscarLobete.jpg. —holly {chat} 22:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Dws49 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Violation of privacy: file is a picture of the home of a private person likely uploaded without consent, person's name is included in the categories, metadata is available including detailed coordinates Yann (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Procrastineur49: 1) How do we know that this house actually belongs to this person? 2) Did you ask RG72 if they had the owner's consent before nominating for deletion? —holly {chat} 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- István Ertl is a renowned Esperantist, translator and editor. I stayed in his house when I was traveling in Luxembourg. I don't think he would mind publishing this photo. However, if you still need to remove it, no problem. RG72 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 16:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is derived from a photo of a plan publicly displayed at Skara Brae. Freedom of panorama in the UK doesn't extend to graphic works like this, so this is an impermissible derivative work. bjh21 (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Pardonnez mon manque de savoir sur les lois anglaises concernant les photos de panorama.Si cette œuvre est "inadmissible", supprimez-la avec mes excuses. O Breizh ma bro (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Pardonnez-moi pour cette deuxième réponse à vitre demande de suppression de la photo "Plan de Skara Brae, dans les Orcades.jpg" Comment se fait-t-il que cette photo dont la source est bien "geograph.org.uk HY2318 : Skara Brae - Plan on plinth" a bien eu l'agrément de Wikimédia et possède le "Copyright Rob Farrow and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence." raison pour laquelle je l'ai utilisée après avoir traduit les textes en anglais en français. Cordialement. O Breizh ma bro (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- @O Breizh ma bro: La grande plupart des photos sur Geograph Britain and Ireland peut être téléversées sur Commons. Mais cette photo est dérivée d'une autre Œuvre, le dessin original. Donc, le droit d'auteur de la photo n'est seulement à Rob Farrow mais aussi à l'auteur du dessin. Geograph a une attitude relâchée au droit d'auteur et particulièrement aux œuvres dérivées, mais Commons est plus strict. Ici sont plusieurs exemples des photos qui etaient supprimées à cause d'étant œuvres dérivées: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Information boards in the United Kingdom. --bjh21 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 16:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
SJasminum uploads 1
[edit]Possible violation of copyright of artists and architects. (See COM:FOP Philippines)
- Undated statue (When was it erected and who was its sculptor?)
- Modern architecture
- File:Alorica 05.jpg
- File:Alorica 04.jpg
- File:Armed Forces and Police Savings & Loan Association, Inc (BGC) 02.jpg
- File:Integrated Montessori Center BGC 03.jpg
- File:Armed Forces and Police Savings & Loan Association, Inc (BGC) 01.jpg
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. LTA sock. --Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
SJasminum uploads 2
[edit]Derivative photos of copyrighted objects. These are not exhaustive however.
- Model or toy? of a vehicle and the duration of exhibition is questionable if for permanent or temporary display
- File:Volkswagen Beetle 1953 01.jpg
- File:Volkswagen Beetle 1953 03.jpg
- File:Volkswagen Beetle 1953 02.jpg
- Chili sculpture inside a mall that is too recent for artist to have died for more than 50 years
- Derivative photo of an underlying photo of an informational board
_09.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Bust of a person who died in 1985 and sculptor is unlikely to have died for more than 50 years
- File:Angeles City Library and Information Center (Pampanga) 18.jpg
- File:Angeles City Library and Information Center (Pampanga) 16.jpg
- File:Angeles City Library and Information Center (Pampanga) 15.jpg
- File:Angeles City Library and Information Center (Pampanga) 14.jpg
_18.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_16.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_15.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
no proper sources.
for Vintage Catfight circa 1950.jpg, women didnt seem to wear these underwear in 1950s, see https://www.google.com/search?q=1950s+women's+underwear .
RZuo (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Opposed to deletion request. The images were clearly made prior to 1977 and without a copyright notice.
- Vintage Catfight circa 1950. While it is true that underwear in the 1950s may not have resembled what the women in this image are wearing, a key point to consider is the difference between underwear and lingerie. As said on a popular blog site, “Underwear is a catch-all for underclothes that serve a function. Lingerie is more likened to sets, elegant details, and aesthetic designs. Lingerie can be underwear, but not all underwear is lingerie.”
- https://glamorise.com/blogs/news/lingerie-vs-bra-which-word-do-you-use#:~:text=Underwear%20is%20a%20catch%2Dall,not%20all%20underwear%20is%20lingerie.
- Lingerie, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, “Women's undergarments or sleepwear, especially when designed to be visually or sexually alluring.”
- https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=lingerie
- The two women in this image are wearing a style of sexually alluring lingerie, characterized by pointy bras and garter belts (suspenders), that were popular through much of the 20th century, but largely fell out of favor in the 1960s, especially with regards to the wearing of garter belts that held up nylon stockings.
- “Suspenders or suspender belts, also known as "garter belts” [detailed description omitted] … best attached to stockings … By the late 20th century and into the 21st, pantyhose or tights were more widely worn than stockings."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter#Suspenders or garter belts and stockings
- Bettie Page, who enjoyed a great deal of popularity from the early to mid 1950s was among the most famous lingerie models wearing this style of clothing.
- https://www.etsy.com/listing/271129408/bettie-page-lingerie-pinup-model-poster
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettie_Page
- Another point to consider while attempting to define the year in which the photograph was made is the fact that it is monochromatic (black and white). While color photography existed in the 1950s, it was not widely used until the 1970s (“Color photography has been the dominant form of photography since the 1970s…”)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_photography
- The combination stylish lingerie and monochrome photography should reasonably lead us to believe this photo dates back to the early 1950s.
- Vintage Catfight circa 1960. Once again, the image shows the use of garter belts as the blonde has a garter belt holding up her nylon stockings (the black strip running down the top of her thigh). Aside from that, the difference in hair styles may be more reminiscent of the early 1960s than the 1950s. As well, the photo is monochromatic which should lead us to conclude it was made well before 1977 and without a copyright notice.
- Sourcing. The images were originally taken from freecatfights.com, although are no longer found there. However, this should not be the basis for deletion since the images were posted in 2015 and web sites have changed considerably in the past eight years. To that point, using "sourcing" as a criteria for deletion is untimely as we cannot reasonably expect that internet sourcing would remain constant for the better part of a decade. Vortex4id (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- "The images were clearly made prior to 1977..." not clearly. i dont see things that distinctively belong to 1950s. a black and white photo doesnt mean it was definitely taken in the past.
- the welcome message on User talk:Vortex4id dates back to 2012, well before the upload dates. there has been ample instruction on including the source, instead of merely a domain.
- some posts on that website from before 2015 still exist and display their pictures, e.g. https://www.freecatfights.com/forums/index.php?topic=8755.msg52404#msg52404 from 2010 (displayed by clicking the "{alt}" button). RZuo (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Can't do much more than I have on this deletion proposal. I believe the combination of pre-1970 lingerie and monochromatic photography reasonably points to the 1950s-1960s. Thanks for your consideration. Vortex4id (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: unsourced. @Vortex4id: If you had put the exact source, the Internet Archive would have crawled the page and saved a copy, but now it's too late and we have no way to verify that the copyright status is correct. —holly {chat} 16:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The flag isn’t real, the only two symbols of the Province are the coat of arms and the Viñales Valley The symbols are seen here CubanoBoi (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Also File:Villa Clara flag (proposal).png CubanoBoi (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also:
- Delete all. See also this deletion discussion involving the same uploader. — kashmīrī TALK 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The coat of arms of Granma is real as seen here https://www.degranma.gob.cu/en/provincial-symbols/amp, the government website of the province CubanoBoi (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except for the one that has been crossed out. —holly {chat} 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Dws49 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Violation of privacy: file is a picture of the home of a private person likely uploaded without consent, person's name is included in the categories, metadata is available including detailed coordinates Yann (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Domo en Helmdange, Luksemburgo 01.jpg. —holly {chat} 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of Essen Minster
[edit]copyright violation; stained glass windows are contemporary artworks (see de:Essener_Münster#Weitere_Kunstwerke; no freedom of panorama,a.
- File:20190322 055 essen.jpg
- File:Dom Essen Innen Nordwand 3469.jpg
- File:Dom Essen Innen Südwand 3467.jpg
- File:Essen 2011 41.jpg
- Bei diesem Bild ist das Fenster eindeutig nur Beiwerk, zumal es teilweise verdeckt ist. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Bei diesem Bild ist das Fenster eindeutig nur Beiwerk, zumal es teilweise verdeckt ist.
Martin Sg. (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Many churches contain contemporary stained-glass windows. It would be difficult to take any photograph trying to avoid these or other contemporary art objects. In this case the subject of the photographs is the choir of the church, not the windows. Kleon3 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: While Kleon3 would be correct in other locations, De minimis in Germany is ridiculously strict, and in my opinion, these fall afoul of "The work noticeably impacts the style or mood conveyed" clause. —holly {chat} 18:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of Essen Minster
[edit]no use for the project; too bad quality.
- File:Essen Dom St. Maria, Cosmas & Damian Innen 1.jpg
- File:Essen Dom St. Maria, Cosmas & Damian Innen 2.jpg
- File:Essen Dom St. Maria, Cosmas & Damian Innen 3.jpg
- File:Essen Dom St. Maria, Cosmas & Damian Innen 4.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright holder is © Allison Bailey, 2023. Marked with "All rights reserved. No usage without advance written permission." at the Metadata, thus the CC license is invalid
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment @TaurusEmerald, Allison Bailey likely took photographs as a work-for-hire, that is why the British Government legally posted her photographs.
- The British Government did get "advance permission" and legally obtained the "rights" to publish these photographs under the chosen license on Flickr as stated in "All rights reserved. No usage without advance written permission." The British Government's Embassy in the United States is not on the "Bad Authors" list here User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors -- Ooligan (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, @TaurusEmerald-- Ooligan (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Allison Bailey is a freelance photographer, unlikely to be hire from the UK Embassy in US. See also similar cases Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coronation of Charles III and Camilla in the United States. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- From the LinkedIn website link to Allison Bailey above, it states, "Photographer and photojournalist. Available for assignments worldwide." Also, Bailey's location is in "Washington, District of Columbia, United States."
- That is why the UK Embassy hired Bailey. In addition, Bailey's photos have been published in the UK's Guardian newspaper (according to Bailey's LinkedIn page), so they would be aware of Bailey's work. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we should get VRT verification from Allison Bailey, if anyone wants to try and contact her via LinkedIn. —holly {chat} 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The image, and the article it comes from, is not released under a public domain or creative commons license, even though it is in the PMC collection. There is no copyright release from the original author. The article is now published in Genomics, and is open access under Elsevier's NC "user license". Jonathanischoice (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Holly, PD-chart. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rahn Education (talk · contribs)
[edit]Institution account verified on dewiki but no COM:VRT permission on Commons.
- File:Rahn Education Logo.tif
- File:Standort der Rahn Education in Zielona Gòra (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Logo Rahn Education.jpg
- File:Fotoprojekt Deutsch-Polnische Bildungsbrücke (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:BASS (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Kummerower Hof (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Rahn Schulen Kairo (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Freie Grundschule mit Hort der Rahn Education in Fürstenwalde (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Rahn Education Campus im Stift Neuzelle von oben (Foto Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Freie Grundschule Christian Felix Weiße in der Schmidtschen Villa in Altenburg (Foto- Rahn Education).jpg
- File:Freies Musikalisch-Sportliches Gymnasium in Leipzig (Foto- Rahn Education).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
GPSLeo (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- See also already deleted files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freie Fachoberschule und Oberschule mit Inklusion der Rahn Education in Leipzig (Foto Rahn Education).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftaufnahme Campus Graphisches Viertel in Leipzig (Foto Rahn Education).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rahn Education Campus Graphisches Viertel in Leipzig.jpg. GPSLeo (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination & similar previous deletions, no apparent progress after several months. If proper permission is presented, images can be undeleted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This screenshot is from a documentary featuring Zhou's confession made by China Central Television (CCTV) and hence copyrighted by CCTV. Bookish Worm (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Question The video is licensed CC-BY and the YouTube channel belongs to China News Service, another government media agency, so I don't think this is a case of license laundering. Or am I missing something? —holly {chat} 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: License at source seems in order; If I understand the listing it is an allegation of COM:DW from another source which may not be free licensed - if that can be established, image may be relisted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
