Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/08/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_(B&W).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![62 File:"Fighting for my life on this toilet rn".png](#File:"Fighting_for_my_life_on_this_toilet_rn".png){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Musée_des_minéraux,_fossiles_-_Beyrouth_02.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
Subject of picture request's deletion, no longer gives permission for it to be uploaded. Tom749405 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Just delete it. Paulchoi517 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:The Interview.png, I was unaware that the file existed when I uploaded it Di (they-them) (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
-20230807040300-File:The_Interview_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 07:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Test only, accidentally uploaded CutieePuppy12 (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted the flag Кирилл Телегин (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This png flag should be deleted Кирилл Телегин (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This png flag will be deleted Кирилл Телегин (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Anitxu (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Falsche Bildversionen hochgeladen. StadtarchivGD (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Falsche Bildversionen hochgeladen, Beschreibungen fehlerhaft. StadtarchivGD (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Zur Korrektur von fehlerhaften Beschreibungen muss das Bild aber nicht gelöscht werden. Man kann die Beschreibung auch einfach korrigieren. Und Bilder können auch umbenannt werden, wenn das nötig/sinnvoll erscheint. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
duplicate Mv1388 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Weil die Datei schon existiert und hier die Bildunterschrift falsch ist Günther Adam (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I just made this svg but after uploading it now I just realised that it probably isn't applicable for Wikimedia Commons because of Italian copyright law. At least the non-vector-versions of this coat of arms can't be moved to Wikimedia Commons. So I want my own file deleted because I think it shouldn't be here. EYZTA (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry! Forgot to edit copyright details of this. The image should be Template:Non-free media data, correct? Tried to change and it gave me an error. It's from this article and can be found countless other places online. [1]https://www.thatericalper.com/2023/07/09/bulletproof-soul-unleashes-highly-anticipated-album-grasping-things-at-the-root-with-the-whip/ Anonamistad (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure that the non-free media applies on Commons. I think it should be on Wikipedia? Meanwhile, I cannot really, but you might find some documentation on Wikipedia. I also see on the source you sent, that there is a copyright. I am still keeping my deletion request. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about this! Accidentally added cover art the wrong way on Wikipedia, and was somehow auto-added to Commons. It does not belong on Commons, just Wikipedia, you are correct. Proceed and thanks! Anonamistad (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Non-free media cannot be hosted at Commons. See COM:FAIRUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know! Thank you. Accidentally added to Commons from a Wiki page entry. Not sure how. Sorry for the confusion. Proceed with deletion. Anonamistad (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Non-free media cannot be hosted at Commons. See COM:FAIRUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry about this! Accidentally added cover art the wrong way on Wikipedia, and was somehow auto-added to Commons. It does not belong on Commons, just Wikipedia, you are correct. Proceed and thanks! Anonamistad (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am not sure that the non-free media applies on Commons. I think it should be on Wikipedia? Meanwhile, I cannot really, but you might find some documentation on Wikipedia. I also see on the source you sent, that there is a copyright. I am still keeping my deletion request. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion, uploader agrees. --Rosenzweig τ 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't want to upload the file like this, upload problems and file already exist PancoPinco (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded this image thinking I would create an article, which I never did ChugABunch (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thought I would use this in an article I was thinking about creating, decided against it. ChugABunch (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
versteckte Pornografie OlafTheScientist (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Deletion request open by a user registered 3 years ago but with less then and with only 340 edits, the last one, before this DR, made in March 6 2022.
- And no, this is not pornography or is it "versteckte", to the contrary of claims this file is clearly in scope and not pornographic.
- This images has been discussed to death in the last 12 years, in more then 30 related deletion requests such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pokémon GO (28653034981).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fruit ninja game depiction with painted fruit on a naked female.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - How to subscribe to an event.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake News (48708611322).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin (46535190611).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Look of disapproval (51175217328).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rust (43904924980).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homotopy (51953579939).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alpine (24923864468).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deep Q Learning (52012317170).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:PHP (9686748353).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:OK boomer (50328740462).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poppy Playtime (52084660702).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Compact Casette (51548162138).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology
- Better yet, this also already discussed in Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/03/Category:Photographs by Exey Panteleev, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges?.
- All have time and again established that this files are in scope, as all discussions have been closed as kept and all discussions in VP, AN and related have been in the same way as the DRs. Tm (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- What does that mean 'in scope'?
- This file is not connected to a serious explanation of photogrammetic nor computer vision techniques at all! No serious scientist would ever use it! When I search for the term 'photogrammetry' I, and everyone else - in particular childreen - can get this in the hitlist. At least there should be a disclaimer for such images, that the image contains nudity, before I can see it. OlafTheScientist (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Interesting artistic view on the subject, and hence useful. Commons is not censored, and this isn't even pornography, just a nude woman. Whether a disclaimer is needed on such pictures has been discussed countless times without consensus (and we do have significantly more explicit images than this one). PaterMcFly (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article, nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Chasenyou (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Lying, garbage deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) Vandalism request with completely inappropriate reasoning. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded with watermark, probably in violation of its copyright A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 11:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not confident the statue is in the public domain (nothing here says why it would be) and there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the United States. If the statue is in the public domain, please say why. Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Let me pose the question to you: do you believe that your image File:Univ of Wash - George Washington statue 05.jpg is in the public domain, and why? If you believe the George Washington statue is in the public domain, I believe the same reason would apply to the Dancer with a Flat Hat. These statues are about 70 meters away from each other, directly accessible by the public -- even moreso in the case of the Dancer statue, which you can take a selfie with if you're so inclined. You seem familiar with Seattle. Have you never passed by the Dancer with a Flat Hat while walking about the UW campus? If you walk from the George Washington statue, past the Henry Art Gallery, over the bridge to Schmitz Hall on your way to the Ave, you can't miss it since it's right on the landing of the first flight of stairs. Due to this positioning, it's probably one of the most viewed pieces of art on campus. —Myasuda (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Myasuda: the George Washington statue dates from 1909, and numerous pictures were published of it at the time of its unveiling (not to mention that in that era display of a statue counted as publication), so it is clearly in the public domain: its copyright expired decades ago. The "Dancer" statue is of much more recent vintage. I don't know the date, but (for example) if it is after 1 March 1989 it would be copyrighted by default, not requiring any action by the sculptor. If it is a bit earlier, then the case may be more complicated (see Commons:Hirtle chart). I honestly don't know whether the "Dancer" is copyrighted or in the public domain, but I do know that under the Commons' precautionary principle the burden is to show that it is in the public domain.
- By the way, public accessibility of a statue has absolutely no bearing on the copyright status in the U.S. That is exactly what I meant by saying "there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the United States." In Germany, an equivalent photo would be OK under their law on freedom of panorama. - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- A gift to the UW of 1971 vintage with no clearly visible copyright notice: File:2021_Dancer_with_Flat_Hat_placard.jpg. Seems to fall in the public domain via the Hirtle chart.—Myasuda (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good to hear. We should be explicit about that on the category (and probably on each photo of it), because there is nothing obvious about it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- A gift to the UW of 1971 vintage with no clearly visible copyright notice: File:2021_Dancer_with_Flat_Hat_placard.jpg. Seems to fall in the public domain via the Hirtle chart.—Myasuda (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept. I've made the rationale for public domain explicit, as described in my last remark here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Because it's a personal photo. PhilippeAthos (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Image of a person with a Wikipedia article. "This is a personal photo" is not a sufficient rationale. Miniwark (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
{{Delete}} reason=This file is verified source. PhilippeAthos (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand the deletion reason. PhilippeAthos, if you're saying it's stolen from somewhere, please provide a link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense request by sock. --Эlcobbola talk 11:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Not appropriate and suitable to use into Infobox or anywhere. Pretty Baxon (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File is in use, so this reasoning is obviously wrong. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no new arguments. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not appropriate for infobox Pretty Baxon (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept as before. Probably sock nomination. (Non-admin closure) 186.174.134.132 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
no interest Faqscl (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep That's not a valid reason for deletion. Also, could you elaborate further what you meant by "no interest"? A09 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, nominating like this, comes close to vandalism. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Franchement, dire que cela s'apparente à du vandalisme est très vexant pour moi ; je passe pas mal de temps pour tenter de redonner des noms corrects à des fichiers du Louvre et je ne vois pas ce que ce fichier apporte, en plus on ne sait même pas à quelle œuvre il se rapporte et la nouvelle dénomination (à mon avis dans grand intérêt) n'apporte aucune précision à ce sujet. Faqscl (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, nominating like this, comes close to vandalism. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Kept
Done - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I dont want the photo in wikimedia Srinivastheconqueror (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Srinivastheconqueror
Speedy delete G7, author's request Lemonaka (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC) 
Delete out of courtesy. --Achim55 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
_(B%26W).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(B%26W).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1956 American photograph, part of the Bettman Archive. Non-renewal needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
_(B&W).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
_(B&W).jpg){kind=link}
original uploader requesting deletion Rohini (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bad quality image. I am the uploader and photographer. I cannot improve the image or go back to shoot another one.- Rohini (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. What the uploader said. The machine is in a dark room, hidden behind a translucent screen, and the camera flash is reflecting off the screen - there's very little detail visible. Better photos of this type of equipment are available in Category:Injection molding. Omphalographer (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. 20 upper 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Note: This is my file and i uploaded through my account. I accidently uploaded it here and I want to have it deleted. Can you please delete it? Thanks! User5515 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reeason. --Krd 04:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. The repainting, and the photo may be freely licensed but the underlying figure still has its own copyright. See COM:TOYS. Whpq (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Guanyin Guiwei Lake
[edit]Unlikely to be made by a sculptor who died more than 50 years ago. This news article hints that it was erected on the site in the 1970s; this blog claims it was placed on site after a string of mysterious events that plagued the army troops in the area as late as 1977. Inferring from these clues, one can guess that the statue is unlikely to be in public domain, both in Taiwan and in the United States. Even if the Taiwanese copyright expires, the absence of commercial freedom of panorama for artistic works in Taiwan means the U.S. law needs to be taken into consideration, and the photos can only be undeleted after U.S. copyright expires (perhaps 95+1 years after it was first installed in public).
- File:Statue of Guanyin at Guiwei Lake 20090731b.jpg
- File:Statue of Guanyin at Guiwei Lake 20090731a.jpg
- File:Statue of Guanyin at Guiwei Lake 20190707.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Surachet s (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: logos and architectural planning documents for something called "BKC MarkWhite"? All unused, and no context in file descriptions to suggest what they are.
- File:LayOut F1.png
- File:LayOut F2.png
- File:Ideas 1 F2 New line supply (1).jpg
- File:D04826700dcd.png
- File:D04826700.png
- File:Layout F2.jpg
- File:Office 123.jpg
- File:Gemba 1.jpg
- File:Rm222-mind-16.jpg
- File:Rm222-mind-16 1.png
- File:MarkWhite8-Blue.png
- File:MarkWhite8-White.png
- File:MarkWhite5-removebg-preview.png
- File:MarkWhite7-removebg-preview.png
- File:MarkWhite3-removebg-preview.png
- File:MarkWhite4-removebg-preview.png
- File:MarkWhite6-removebg-preview.png
- File:MarkWhite2-removebg-preview.png
- File:Map 4 at BKC.png
- File:Map 3 at BKC.png
- File:Map 2 of BKC.png
- File:Map BKC.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Omphalographer (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Surachet s (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: more of the same unexplained architectural diagrams.
Omphalographer (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Surachet s (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two more files, same issue as previous DRs above.
Yann (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from a film - needs source etc to confirm permission Gbawden (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:06, 14 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) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Low res, no EXIF, cropping artifacts, visual characteristics suggest screenshot of video source, etc. PRP issue? Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The caption used for this suggests this is a 1950s photograph from Denmark, but this appears to me to be more like a 1940s photograph. It could be public domain, but more information on it would be needed to determine its copyright in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A document containing private information. Used in Wikiversity, but probably outdated and no longer needed there. Deletion requested in ticket:2023080710009402 by one of the persons listed. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
1930s or 1940s American photograph. It's too young of a photograph for us to assume it is public domain, but it is possible it is public domain because of formalities. Abzeronow (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Front page of a 1976 publication. I don't see a copyright notice on this page but it's possible there is one in the following pages. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Logo of an Indian IT company, it is probably below the ToO in India, but is it in scope? Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
1947 British photograph. Could be public domain in the UK, but definitely isn't in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio - this is a screenshot of a character from the video game Boneworks. Per com:screenshots we cannot host this as the software is not under a compatiable liscence. 192.76.8.66 00:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Originally marked {{SD|1=F1|2=Original source provided here: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cr829kNvREX/?img_index=1}} by User:Pabsoluterince
THIS IMAGE IS FAIR USE. Ethan Klein and Hila Klein have stated that all content produced by "The H3 Podcast" has an 'open IP' stating that fans and creators are allowed to utilize his content in any way they would like, as long as it is transformative or informative. (information can be attained on "Off The Rails Episode 58; Released Jan 25, 2023" on the H3 Podcast channel)
Seeing as this is promotional material for the H3 Podcasts merch brand "Teddy Fresh" which was posted to Hila Kleins instagram suffice to say this is open source imagery, and therefore the image should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnj1995 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 7. Aug. 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: "Fair use" media files are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 06:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
According to the upload the image was created in 2022, but Paul Hunter died in 2006. 147.161.130.92 01:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Copyvio, numerous reverse image search hits pre-dating this upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This headshot is from the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. The website has a copyright tag on it. There is no indication that the user who uploaded the image is a representative of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. (website: https://eppc.org/author/ryan_anderson/ ) (direct image source: https://eppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/anderson_headshot_2023-683x1024.jpg ) Bait30 pls ping me when you reply? 01:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Restored per ticket permission. --Krd 07:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope. Reagan was not the GOP's presidential nominee in 1968 N Panama 84534 03:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 03:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate Methodist Episcopal Church Photos
[edit]- File:Patients at Seoul dispensary.jpg
- File:Union Theological School, Seoul.jpg
- File:South gate entrance to Seoul (Namdaemun).jpg
- File:Haiju Hospital Interior (Haeju, Louisa Holmes Norton Hospital).jpg
- File:Wreath drill at Ewa Haktang (1908 to 1922).jpg
- File:Pai Chai, chemical laboratory (1908 to 1922).jpg
- File:Higher mathematics (Ewha Haktang, Seoul, Korea).jpg
- File:Rice fields and part of Wonju.jpg
- File:Dr. A.H. Norton operating, Haiju (Haeju).jpg
- File:College graduates, Ewa Haktang, 1914.jpg
- File:Girls of Ewa Haktang Girls' High School.jpg
- File:Kija's tomb, Pyeng Yang (Jizi, Gija, Pyongyang, Pyeongyang).jpg
- File:New Japanese high school, Seoul.jpg
- File:Drill at Pai Chai School, Seoul.jpg
- File:First Han River Bridge (한강 제1철교), Seoul, Korea, (1908-1922?).jpg
- File:Japanese administrative building, Yŏngdŭngp'o, Seoul, South Korea.jpg
- File:Pukhan Mountain (북한산) area behind Blue House (청와대), Korea, (1908-1922?).jpg
- File:View of P'yŏngyang 평양, Korea.jpg
- File:Buddhist idols in shrine, Korea.jpg
- File:Dr. Moore and pastors, Korea.jpg
- File:Children in kindergarten, Korea.jpg
- File:Nine-man shovel, Korea.jpg
- File:Preparing rice fields, Korea.jpg
- File:Man and loaded "Jiggy", Korea.jpg
- File:Japanese flags at railroad station, Korea.jpg
- File:Repairing motorcycle on the road, Korea.jpg
- File:Playing chess, Korea.jpg
- File:Group portrait of students, Korea.jpg
- File:Boys in school dormitory, Korea.jpg
- File:Korean laundry, Korea.jpg
- File:Korean funeral, Korea.jpg
- File:Japanese sunday school class, Korea.jpg
- File:Buddhist monuments, Korea.jpg
- File:Korean women ironing clothes, Korea.jpg
- File:Man shoeing a donkey, Korea.jpg
- File:Comity map for Korea.jpg
- File:Tiled city church, Korea.jpg
- File:Korean boys gathering grass, Korea.jpg
- File:Japanese and Korean children, Korea.jpg
- File:Candy boy, Korea.jpg
- File:Exposition train, Korea.jpg
- File:Boy in a jiggy, Korea.jpg
- File:Korean girl carrying baby, Korea.jpg
- File:Devil posts, Korea.jpg
- File:Koreans in a field, Korea.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}
,_Seoul,_Korea,_(1908-1922%3F).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_area_behind_Blue_House_(%EC%B2%AD%EC%99%80%EB%8C%80),_Korea,_(1908-1922%3F).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Duplicates of photos that I uploaded that were already uploaded by User:Fæ --Toobigtokale (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
personal letter. Out of scope Malcolma (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Offensichtlich Fehllizenzierung durch den Hochlader, denn gemäß Beschreibung ist Rechteinhaber The Global Center for Advanced Studies Lutheraner (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
![14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/08/07#c-Kelly_The_Angel-20230807140600-File:"Fighting_for_my_life_on_this_toilet_rn".png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
![06:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/08/07#c-Rosenzweig-20230814063800-File:"Fighting_for_my_life_on_this_toilet_rn".png){kind=link}
Not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: source: "google", author: "who the fuck knows?". --Rosenzweig τ 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work of Twitter cartoon. --Rosenzweig τ 06:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Peru (state).svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text PDF content. If you are trying to create a Wikipedia article, please read w:Help:Your first article. Omphalographer (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text PDF content. Omphalographer (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the logo of my old website and as the creator of this image, i don't want this to be online anymore. It's not used on wikipedia so not a big loss. Thank you ! NeoxysTrash (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the logo of my old website and as the creator of this image, i don't want this to be online anymore. It's not used on wikipedia so not a big loss. Thank you ! 88.126.1.97 15:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know If this is joke, anyway it requires permission of the photographer. 181.43.1.29 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It is an old version of a poster which is updated and included to the Wikimania 2023 posters. Link to the updated version here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toward_More_Flexible_Education_Programs_in_the_Middle_East_(1).pdf Sky xe (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Daniel Schoen died in 1955, and therefore his works are protected by copyright in France. Günther Frager (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. I'm not even sure if this is a work BY Schoen (and who was portrayed) or if it is a portrait OF Schoen (and who was the painter). --Rosenzweig τ 06:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a different painting now using this file name, but as before pertinent information is missing: Is this a work BY Schoen, who died in 1955 (and who was portrayed then?), or is it a portrait OF Schoen (and who was the painter then)? In which year was it created/published? Also, that it was uploaded on Flickr (by a Flickr user with a similar name as the one from the previous file) just before it was transferred here is at least somewhat suspicious. If we don't get the relevant information to determine the actual copyright status of this painting, the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete File without information as Rosenzweig stated, and it is a clear attempt of license laundry: Flickr account created this month, with only this file uploaded yesterday. Günther Frager (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text PDF content (printed web page). Unclear permission, but still not in scope even if that were cleared up. Omphalographer (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi
- Regarding permission: It is an article I wrote, so there should not be a problem. 
- Concerning relevance/scope: it is a 20 years old article concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which became relevant and actual nowadays due to recent events in Israel and especially the occupied/ liberated territories.  Shmoran (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- As a general rule, Commons does not host plain text content written by users. If this article is relevant to a specific project, you may want to consider contributing it there as a wiki page. Omphalographer (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 06:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
We established that screenshots from the H3 Podcast do not fall under fair use and cannot be used on Wikipedia Kdog5454 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reason as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethan Klein 2023.jpg (still open). Günther Frager (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
EXIF data states "© Sky Lark Graphics 2012; alrights reserved". However image is claimed to be form 1991. No indication/source that the uploaded is from Sky Lark Graphics. Unsure if the subject is Queen Mother Moore as claimes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Nicht eigenes Werk. 186.174.67.81 23:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Question Any reason for this assumption? PaterMcFly (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Any scope or self promotion? 186.174.67.81 23:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
These seem to be images by Ceslause of himself, which is fine, but they are not used which pushes them out of scope.
- File:Ces portrait.jpg
- File:A selfie photo of Ceslause Ogbonnaya.jpg
- File:Ceslause Smiley.jpg
- File:Ceslause Landscape.jpg
Jonteemil (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
selfie Calotushka (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Poorly edited version of a company logo with a person's name on it, not very useful. AP 499D25 (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
In the Flickr itself, the photo is no longer CC-BY 2.0, it is now copyrighted "All Rights Reserved". Vitaium (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. The license history on the Flickr link says the CC-BY-2.0 license is valid. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Also COM:INUSE everywhere, which gives a graphic illustration of why CC licenses are irrevocable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Not simple geometric shapes shizhao (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Buenas tardes, con todo respeto quien dijo que podía eliminar mi imagen creada por mi, suena raro pero piensas que he copiado de google y lo he pegado, la verdad es que no es asi, yo hice por medio de programas y suena algo innecesario eliminar...Espero su respuesta para sacar la etiqueta de eliminación...Gracias!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samu200 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
My upload; I don't think there's enough information to determine whether or not it was actually published with or without a copyright notice, especially since it comes from a Facebook post and is reused multiple times. reppoptalk 02:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, not an own work PizzaKing13 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation, not an own work PizzaKing13 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 05:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Potential copyright violation. Original image seems to be from here:
and fall under the terms and conditions of the parent company, which can be found here:
https://www.ihg.com/content/us/en/customer-care/tc
Unless I’m misreading those terms, this image violates them. Argenti Aertheri (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Kelly The Angel (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope/advertising for Peak Indicators. The headshots are a dubious claim of own work - tight crops, no meaningful exif.
- File:Peak Indicators Best Companies Award.jpg
- File:Mark Carton BW.jpg
- File:Daniela Gheorghe (Peak Indicators).jpg
- File:Antony Heljula (Peak Indicators).jpg
- File:Andrew Ball (Peak Indicators).jpg
- File:Kenneth Neilson (Peak Indicators).jpg
- File:David Hall (Peak Indicators).jpg
- File:Peak Indicators DMA Awards 2021 Best Use of AI.jpg
- File:EMC Awards 2021.jpg
- File:Peak indicators logo.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}
Gbawden (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused photo of unidentified wiring without meaningful description. No educational value. Malcolma (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It looks as if it might have been taken from a newspaper, so the licence might be wrong. Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Licence is the same licence given by the original uploader when the image was uploaded in 2006 on the English Wikipedia here. Osarius (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but that licence statement is likely wrong. If you look at the uploader's talk page at English Wikipedia, you see that the uploader has got all of his other uploads deleted because of copyright reasons. en:Special:ListFiles/Sunil ns nair tells that all of his files have been either deleted or overwritten. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems to be a 2005 photo from a print publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 16:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Ts12rAc (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - F10 and/or G10. Used on userpage of a user who registered to make personal promotion. Is this also a "deleted file re-uploaded" case? If not, this time he took even Gandhi behind to save his OoS pic, but IMHO in vain. --E4024 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Private picture of user, out of project scope. Again... Osarius (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I should note that these are five different images that have had this name and been deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The description smells like publicity "He founded two prominent news media organisation between 2021 to 2023.". Günther Frager (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Garygarypov (talk · contribs)
[edit]These look like personal documents which probably shouldn't be shared online.
Omphalographer (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- File:Permanent resident.pdf has been oversighted. Omphalographer, should you come across anyone's sensitive personal documents again in the future, feel free to reach out to the OS team by email directly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
F10, Usage of Commons as personal space CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Picture taken from a newspaper or a magazine, as per the visible text on the photo CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Unclear whether this image of a 1989 comic cover is being claimed as public domain in some way. (The uploader claims to be the copyright holder, likely incorrectly given that they are talking about the artist in the third person.) Belbury (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - pretty clear case of "I scanned it so I own it". --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Above TOO Trade (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Going by the description this image was clearly uploaded for promotional reason and it's probably copyrighted anyway. So it should be deleted as OOS PROMO if not also COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bust of Symon Petliura, Rivne
[edit]There is no 3D freedom of panorama in Ukraine. This bust was erected in 2001 per uk:Пам'ятник Симону Петлюрі (Рівне) so it's definitely not public domain.
- File:1. Пам’ятник С. Петлюрі; Рівне.JPG
- File:Bust of Symon Petlura, Rivne (1).jpg
- File:Bust of Symon Petlura, Rivne (2).jpg
- File:Bust of Symon Petlura, Rivne (3).jpg
- File:Bust of Symon Petlura, Rivne (4).jpg
- File:Bust of Symon Petlura, Rivne (5).jpg
- File:P1570529 Пам'ятник С. Петлюрі.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Симону Петлюрі 2.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Симону Петлюрі. Рівне.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Симону Петлюрі.jpg
- File:Пам’ятник С. Петлюрі м.Рівне.JPG
- File:Пам’ятник С. Петлюрі.JPG
- File:Рівне - Пам’ятник С. Петлюрі DSC 5835.JPG
- File:Рівне, вул. Петлюри 1, Пам'ятник С. Петлюрі.jpg
- File:Симон Петлюра.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}
Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: all files already deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Rosenzweig τ 12:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AgroVeritatis (talk · contribs)
[edit]High quality photos many with a watermark "Carlos Arrebola"; some with metadata others without. We need a COM:VRT ticket.
- File:Dolores y Misericordia.jpg
- File:Cristo de Gracia.jpg
- File:Santísimo Cristo de Gracia.jpg
- File:Alegría de Santa Marina.jpg
- File:Resucitado Córdoba.jpg
- File:Señor de la Resurrección.jpg
- File:Virgen de la Alegría Córdoba.jpg
- File:Virgen de la Amargura Córdoba.jpg
- File:Amargurarescatado.jpg
- File:Rescatado veneración.jpg
- File:Virgen del Rosario (Almendralejo).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Günther Frager (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, please send permission to COM:VRT for undeletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) This has a license. This is public domain in Germany, but not the US. Undelete in 2032 when US copyright expires. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- keep per Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA. --Frypie (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- That conclusion has been depreciated as that was before the Supreme Court upheld URAA, I believe. Abzeronow (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- ""Restored" copyright is complicated. It is possible that some of the media with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} does not qualify for restored copyright under § 104A because it is mis-tagged or the law was misunderstood. With the possible exception of obvious copyright infringements, the Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis."
- do you have any actual evidence this is a copyright violation, other than "because math"? --2601:5CB:C300:7E80:687A:DB0B:41E1:E008 13:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: , this was not public domain in Germany on January 1, 1996, that's all the evidence I need. It only became public domain in Germany in 2020. There is no evidence that this was published in the US within 30 days of publication in Germany. Abzeronow (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Per Commons:Licensing, “Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” This is a German work by an author who died in 1949, it was still protected in Germany on January 1, 1996 (the URAA date for Germany), therefore the URAA restored its US copyright, and that runs until the end of 2031. --Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
1954 American photograph (from negatives). Might not have been published until after 2003, in which case we may have to wait until 2075. Abzeronow (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Ruthven. --Rosenzweig τ 11:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not in PD. There is no evidence that the photo was anonymously published (exhibited in the museum) more than 70 years ago. Kursant504 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
- Позорище. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than write this, it's better to go to the library and look for old newspapers and magazines from before 1953. And there are photos of Heroes of USSR in them. This will greatly help in the search for "free" photos that can be identified as being in the PD.Kursant504 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Я пошёл в музей и сфотографировал экспозицию с награды Сыртлановой. Пойду в следующий раз и попрошу изъять оттуда фотографию Сыртлановой, поскольку её присутствие рядом с наградами смущает википедийных защитников авторских прав. Как я должен был фотографировать экспозицию без того, чтобы туда попала фотография - непонятно. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Попробуйте использовать принцип (не помню как правильно пишется) "de minimus" - т.е. когда это несвободное фото не является основным предметом общего фото. Т.е. грубо говоря сфотографировать экспозицию без того, чтобы заострять внимание именно на фотографии. А сейчас у вас акцент именно на фото. Награды, книжка - не особо различимы и являются вторичными к нему. Kursant504 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Если "это законы РФ, тут без всякого", то попробуйте соблюдать законы РФ о дискредитации армии, и вас быстро попрут из Википедии. Хотя нет, постойте, вас же уже из Википедии попёрли ) Engelberthumperdink (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Вот именно что. Я бы мог рассказать почему, но начнутся жалобы на "трибунные" заявления )) Kursant504 (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Жду когда вас и отсюда попрут. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ух, как доброжелательно то. Теперь кажется понятно почему вас в рувики АК так обложил ограничениями. Kursant504 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Жду когда вас и отсюда попрут. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Вот именно что. Я бы мог рассказать почему, но начнутся жалобы на "трибунные" заявления )) Kursant504 (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Если "это законы РФ, тут без всякого", то попробуйте соблюдать законы РФ о дискредитации армии, и вас быстро попрут из Википедии. Хотя нет, постойте, вас же уже из Википедии попёрли ) Engelberthumperdink (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Попробуйте использовать принцип (не помню как правильно пишется) "de minimus" - т.е. когда это несвободное фото не является основным предметом общего фото. Т.е. грубо говоря сфотографировать экспозицию без того, чтобы заострять внимание именно на фотографии. А сейчас у вас акцент именно на фото. Награды, книжка - не особо различимы и являются вторичными к нему. Kursant504 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Я пошёл в музей и сфотографировал экспозицию с награды Сыртлановой. Пойду в следующий раз и попрошу изъять оттуда фотографию Сыртлановой, поскольку её присутствие рядом с наградами смущает википедийных защитников авторских прав. Как я должен был фотографировать экспозицию без того, чтобы туда попала фотография - непонятно. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Rather than write this, it's better to go to the library and look for old newspapers and magazines from before 1953. And there are photos of Heroes of USSR in them. This will greatly help in the search for "free" photos that can be identified as being in the PD.Kursant504 (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Engelberthumperdink@Kursant504 How can you prove that something is created by anonymous? This request is something illogical. Lemonaka (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader must proof that this foto was published anonymously (foto in museum without name of photographer) and it was "published" (took place in museum exibition) more than 70 years ago.Kursant504 (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- A bit close DR when user just took a foto of the foto in museum: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2021/05/21#File:Siege_of_Leningrad_IMG_3271.JPG . But it does not make foto free. Kursant504 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment the photo inside the photo is apparently not in the PD in the United States. The image is already in the English Wikipedia under fair use: W:en:File:Maguba_Guseynovna_Syrtlanova_portrait.jpg. The precise provenance is given and maybe someone can double check it. In case we cannot use de minimis to ignore the copyright violation, we should delete it. Günther Frager (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:De minimis. The inside photo is likely copyrighted; it can be easily extracted as a separate image (and this has been done already), which violates the de minimis guidelines. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Josênio Quiosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]The photos are clearly not "own work", I already sent several for SD with their corresponding links (facebook, instagram, newspapers, etc).
- File:Helka Guimarães Tv Zimbo.jpg
- File:Elizete Vasco MIA.jpg
- File:Geovane Comandala MIA.jpg
- File:Igor Benza 90.jpg
- File:Zuleica Wilson 90.jpg
- File:Laurinda Calças tv zimbo.jpg
- File:Amilcar Xavier tv zimbo.jpg
- File:Moura Jorge TV zimbo.jpg
- File:Yola Araújo 01.jpg
- File:Pérola e Leo Santana.jpg
- File:Matias Damásio jpg.jpg
- File:Pérola em palco.jpg
- File:Pérola 02.jpg
- File:Pérola 01.jpg
- File:Yola Semedo 01.jpg
- File:Tv Zimbo png.jpg
- File:Diva Ary 02.jpg
- File:Diva Ary 01.jpg
- File:Diva Ary em palco.jpg
- File:Israel Campos conversas ao sul Portugal.jpg
- File:Anselmo Ralph em 2023.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The photo was previously publisned at http://www.rodneycadkins.com/about.html. A VRT ticket is required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, this is a headshot of Rod Adkins. This is published on http://www.rodneycadkins.com/about.html. It is also a free image that can be shared. I believe it should be submitted into Wikipedia as a reference to Rod Adkins. Alanajhill (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you are the copyright holder, please email our permissions verification team (VRT). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Likely copyrighted as it is a screenshot of a TV program. Günther Frager (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Music and Arts (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own works. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.
- File:D'mendo Boteli 2001. Ensenada B.C.jpg
- File:Maestro D'mendo Boteli 1999.jpg
- File:Maestro D'mendo Boteli 1998.jpg
Yann (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality copy of foto already loaded on commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olga_Sanfirova_(cropped).jpg Kursant504 (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Non è una copia di bassa qualità, anzi. L'immagine è più chiara e definita, dovrebbe sostituire la precedente che è stata caricata. Chiunque può vedere che questa immagine è migliore di quest'altra. Carmela Angela (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Despite the slightly higher resolution of the photo, it is obvious to me that it is of much lower quality. Kursant504 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It's very arguable which photo is better. At first glance, I felt that this one was better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Despite the slightly higher resolution of the photo, it is obvious to me that it is of much lower quality. Kursant504 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. This picture was taken on 13 November 1948 in Guatemala, and the copyright belongs to the O'Donnal family [2]. Even if we assume it is anonymous work, it is still under copyright in Guatemala (life/publication + 75 years). Günther Frager (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo and there's zero information in the file description about what exactly it has to do with. So the image should be deleted as OOS unless someone can figure out where it comes from and figures out a use for it. Adamant1 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to be the logo of a small Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/WOUW.OFFI/). Nominated several related images for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Savedra2021. Omphalographer (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The name of the uploader is different from the watermark of the first picture CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? Is this single contribution of the user own work? A much higher resulution (uncropped) 3311 x 2568 px can be found here. Wouter (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo for a non-notable torrent sharing website. So it should be deleted as OOS PROMO. Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio (photograph from an album cover). --Wdwd (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Distorting the background of the image is very questionable for a documentary project like Commons. But falsifying the metadata is going too far. With the changes in camera type, lens, focal length, etc., you may still be able to accept that, but moving the recording date 3 months back in time is definitely going too far. This makes serious further use impossible. Also, none of the manipulations done by this user in bulk are marked accordingly. Stepro (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Die monierten EXIF-Daten stammen aufgrund einer Unachtsamkeit aus einem anderen Foto von Baerbock. Jetzt wurde eine neue Fassung mit den richtigen Daten hochgeladen, so dass der Löschungsantrag obsolet ist. Gisbert K (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Questionable claim of own work for a 1993 photo that has appeared online a lot before (https://twitter.com/Norahma10873152/status/1590580687291453441, https://www.facebook.com/871681252922035/photos/a.871685402921620/945291712227655/?type=3) and which also has Facebook EXIF. May be a reupload of the first entry at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Commander Shafi Hazara.jpg. Belbury (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- More likely a reupload of Commons:Deletion requests/File:شفیع کارته سخی.jpg now that I see the user's talk page, which I flagged in 2022 as an "unnecessarily software-enhanced version of an old photograph". This is their fourth upload of a photo of this person, the first three having been deleted. Belbury (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is owned by me. My father is the one who took the photo in 1993 in Kabul Afghanistan. His name is Ghulam Ali Haidari one of the leaders of the Hazara council of Quetta Pakistan. Ghund2 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission via COM:VRT. --Wdwd (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Screenshot from a video. Günther Frager (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am working with Prof. Valerie Soe as one of her interns and created this article for her film, Love Boat: Taiwan. Thus, all images came directly from her and her film (she shared them with me via Google Drive folder). Laslentesdemz (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, we need an explicit permission from the director, please see COM:VRT for the details. I have to mention that if you are being paid to write an articule on Wikipedia, then you must disclose it on the respective wiki (see W:WP:PCD). Günther Frager (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Savedra2021 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused images with "did you know" factoids and unsourced images, possibly copied from a Facebook group, and one image that looks like a personal photo.
- File:Wouw curiosidades.png
- File:Abraham Savedra.jpg
- File:WOUW curiosidades.png
- File:Dato curioso de la Pirámide ¿Sabias Que? WOUW.png
- File:La higiene en la Edad Media .WOUW .¿Sabías que?.png
Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted architectural rendering from Woodstock Development. See https://woodstockdevelopment.com/portfolio/the-union/ which has hosted the image since December 2019 according to tineye.com. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused image uploaded by the company to promote their business. So it should be deleted as PROMO SPAM unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Content created as advertisement/G10. --Wdwd (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
most likely a copyright violation, see https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=de&re=df&vpw=1920&vph=909&p=AUM6UZB0GArlb4e3DyowHyFt7PlTMIwGqFcaVp2tIo547hOZbWsQqFspuqDY2vwwh_yn6cgmjFiUYduKSX4FmJ3zqWji2ZjEPmULVSqwqkl1KCiSPRmWNTAixrb5-vsC0LDfgJM4ezOIEVRMWC29S8DFBQ63q3Y8yS3De7O_yCzOXNpK9k_p7VO-a9dbwbxKubg3-qvmdbcrT493A_jVXZCk#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKRFppTjJSaVlURTJMV1JrTlRNdE5ERTNNQzFpWlRnM0xUYzRPV1V4TjJKbVpUUm1OeElmYnpsMWVWSklVVU5LTkVsWmIwUk1aa3hPVEZCZlpWQkxjRzQ0Vkc1U1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLDEyLFtdXV0= Mateus2019 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Probable copyrighted artwork Ooligan (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Author is Alberto da Veiga Guignard (1896-1962). Brazil copyright protection is 70 years pma. I can be undeleted in 2033. Günther Frager (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Boa noite! Concordo com o que for decidido aqui. Mas, fato é que o autor já faleceu a 60 anos e essa é uma obra que faz parte da exposição do Museu Casa Guignard. Não se trata da obra em si, mas de uma fotografia da própria. A exposição permite que fotos sejam tiradas e permite a divulgação das mesmas. Além do que o seu uso aqui está na ordem educativa e democrática, visando demonstrar a arte do biografado (como é possivel um verbete de um artista, sem a exposição de uma obra?).
- Abraços!
- 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Luiz Ricardo Resende Silva (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I skipped several steps on my reasoning. There is an artwork from Guignard (protected by Copyright), there is a derivative photo of the artwork (your image). You can license your photo as you wish, but still a user of it can infringe Guignard's copyright (and not yours). Museums allow photos for personal usage, but Common's licensing requires more freedom like commercial usage. They are happy if you post your photos on social media, but they can go after you if you publish a book without paying them royalties. You can see that there are no images of famous painters like Picasso or Dalí on Commons because their works are still copyrighted. Some wikis allow fair use images, but they are not hosted here. Günther Frager (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission for shown artwork. --Wdwd (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo that was uploaded purely for promotional purposes. So it should be deleted as OOS PROMO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This photo is from Romanian composer Georges Enesco (1881-1955). No source is provided nor the year it was taken, but it is widely available on the web and a Belgian radio website states the image has copyright [3]. Unless there is a proper license we should delete it. Günther Frager (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing information about the original photograph; COM:PCP. --Wdwd (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio (facebook image). --Wdwd (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW. Needs COM:VRT permission from Ghassan Gaib. A09 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Arkady Volozh demonstrates Yandex's driverless car prototype to Vladmir Putin at Yandex HQ in 2017.jpg
[edit]
Duplicate of File:Vladimir_Putin_visited_the_Moscow_office_of_Yandex_(2017-09-21)_12.jpg MadCAD (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Maurice Fievet
[edit]These stamps were created by Maurice Fievet and he died in 1997. So they are copyrighted until at least 2,068, if not longer due to the URAA. Although I'll leave that up to others to decide. These images should be deleted as COPYVIO either way though.
- File:BR-NGA 1953 MiNr0073 pm B002.jpg
- File:BR-NGA 1953 MiNr0074 pm B002.jpg
- File:BR-NGA 1953 MiNr0076 pm B002.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- All of these stamps are in the public domain. See {{PD-UKGov}} and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Stamps. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Commonwealth country stamps are generally covered by crown copyright that lasts 50 years and produced by Royal Mail as a UK government department, so these 50+ year old stamps are totally fine to keep and should never have been nominated, so please be more careful with some of your stamp deletion nominations. Ww2censor (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: I actually asked about a similar thing to this on the copyright village pump recently and according to Jmabel from a comment there "If it was published in the former colony, then the now-independent former colony would presumably be considered a successor state and its laws would apply." So unless I'm reading that wrong the copyrighted laws for Nigeria would apply since it's an independent successor state to the United Kingdom and that's where the stamps were published. In the meantime according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria the standard copyright term in Nigeria is Life + 70 years. Ergo 2,068. So it seems clear to me that these stamps be deleted as COPYVIO, at least going by Jmabel's comment and assuming that I didn't miss-understand what he was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 I don't believe the succession state's new 2022 laws are retroactive, unless specifically mentioned which it is here Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria#Background. The 70 year rule applies to copyright since their independence. Ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- You could be right. It seems weird to that a person in Nigeria would have to sue another Nigerian for copyrighted infringement in a UK based court if the work was created under British colonial rule, but maybe that's not how it works. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject and it seems like how this is litigated can vary widely depending on the countries involved. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 You could be right. I am right as I have been dealing with stamp copyright a long time before you even became a registered user here. Ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever you say, Ww2censor. It's not like I just pulled the whole thing out of thin air. I told you I got the information from Jmabel. But sure dude, you must be right because you registered for an account before I did. It's possible Jmabel is wrong, but that has nothing to do with me or how long I've had my account if he is. Either way I'm fine with letting the closing administrator decide which way to close the DR. It's certainly better then deciding this based on who's account is older LOL. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 You could be right. I am right as I have been dealing with stamp copyright a long time before you even became a registered user here. Ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- You could be right. It seems weird to that a person in Nigeria would have to sue another Nigerian for copyrighted infringement in a UK based court if the work was created under British colonial rule, but maybe that's not how it works. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject and it seems like how this is litigated can vary widely depending on the countries involved. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Adamant1 I don't believe the succession state's new 2022 laws are retroactive, unless specifically mentioned which it is here Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria#Background. The 70 year rule applies to copyright since their independence. Ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: I actually asked about a similar thing to this on the copyright village pump recently and according to Jmabel from a comment there "If it was published in the former colony, then the now-independent former colony would presumably be considered a successor state and its laws would apply." So unless I'm reading that wrong the copyrighted laws for Nigeria would apply since it's an independent successor state to the United Kingdom and that's where the stamps were published. In the meantime according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nigeria the standard copyright term in Nigeria is Life + 70 years. Ergo 2,068. So it seems clear to me that these stamps be deleted as COPYVIO, at least going by Jmabel's comment and assuming that I didn't miss-understand what he was saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
網路图片去除背景 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- 已经不只是去掉背景。维基共享资源上存在类似的图片[4]。 Perinbaba (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Author stated that this file was "based on the wax figure of Pu Shougeng", so it should be seen as a derivative work of the aforementioned wax figure - unless it is released under a free license or inside PD field, we should not accept such file here. Stang★ 10:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- PD领域是什么？ Perinbaba (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2023-03_AI_images_ZvD_06.png){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
copyvio "billboard" RoBri (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
blurred photo of unidentified location. Description unhelpful. No educational value Malcolma (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
विकिपीडिया का दुरुपयोग जैकी जायसवाल (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / personal photo by non-contributor (F10). --Wutsje 06:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation: Artist died 1957. Till (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. The work is not dated; in pt:Manuel Ribeiro de Pavia, this person Vera Franco Nogueira is first mentioned in conjunction with the year 1947, so it's probably a later work, perhaps as late as 1957, which would mean it's still protected in the US until the end of 2052. The file can be restored in 2053. --Rosenzweig τ 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Source not provided जैकी जायसवाल (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10 - personal photos of non-contributors. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploader is not the author, so license is inadequate. Till (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation: Uploader is not the author, so inadequate licsense. Till (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Advertisment for non notable company Wiki13 talk 10:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
low quality + copyright violation Kelly The Angel (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: source is plantasdecolombia.com which uses an -ND licesne. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work. Uploader blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I think the Ghana bottom right is a watermark that has been partially cropped. PCP Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"720p.mkv snapshot" in filename suggests it is from a TV broadcast and not free
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
TFerenczy (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Secretary Blinken Poses for a Photo With Colombian Vice President Márquez (52402798910) (cropped).jpg
[edit]_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicated to File:Francia_Marquez_Oct2022.jpg Lemonaka (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not an exact duplicate, it's two extracted images done at the same time, so which do we prefer? I would delete this one, keep File:Francia_Marquez_Oct2022.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- This file dimensions are almost exactly the same of the exact same photo. However, this "near duplicate" photo was uploaded after the other photo, so Delete this copy. Also, the non-hidden categorization is better on the other photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- This file dimensions are almost exactly the same of the exact same photo. However, this "near duplicate" photo was uploaded after the other photo, so
- @Túrelio: seems to have already gone their own sweet way on this and left a duplicate for someone else to clean up. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Need a bunch change for that picture on each projects. Lemonaka (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Now a redirect. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The file is from the year 2014 and does not correspond to the current information about the software wissintra 217.7.13.66 13:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The file is from the year 2014 and does not correspond to the current information about the software wissintra 217.7.13.66 13:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason to delete. Commons also hosts historic images. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The file is from the year 2014 and does not correspond to the current information about the software wissintra 217.7.13.66 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The file is from the year 2014 and does not correspond to the current information about the software wissintra 217.7.13.66 13:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if this is formatted wrong, as it's My first deletion request. I discovered that this redirect was only being used by a page that was asking for the file to be renamed (and it has been, creating this redirect). So I think this redirect is obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDivineGoddess (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: File out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ms Rieppel reached out to us and wants her pictures deleted. She is the person on the right side. 91.66.19.123 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ms Rieppel reached out to us and wants her pictures deleted. 91.66.19.123 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: Kein Löschgrund. Die Lizenzierung ist einwandfrei, und das seit Jahren. Die anderen beiden Fotos könnten out of courtesy gelöscht werden, wenn dieses bleibt. --Achim55 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of a non-notable company; file only used for promo at ro:Utilizator:Compania DDD. Gikü (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
no permission from author given, copied from website see "www.simonekorkus.com Author Hadas Itzkovitch en Anya van Lit" Hoyanova (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grammy Awards
[edit]COM:DW of Grammy award statuette whose copyright is held by the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (see copyright registration VAu000691693). See also User:Elcobbola/Awards.
- File:1975 Best Chamber Performance Grammy Award to Arthur Rubinstein, Henryk Szeryng, Pierre Fournier for Brahms and Schumann Trios.jpg
- File:Indeterminate Grammy aware.jpg
- File:Jimmy Carter Library and Museum 148.JPG
- File:JL G.jpg
- File:Joe LaPorta Grammy.jpg
- File:Marino's Grammy for Album of the Year.jpg
- File:Ted Jensen's 2002 Grammy.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 08:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep museum exhibits if they are in a country with FOP extending to indoor public places because Commons:CASEBOOK "In some countries a 3D artwork that is permanently located in a public place can be photographed and the image uploaded without the artist's permission: See Commons:Freedom of panorama." -> "In some countries, this is only in outdoor public places; in others it extends to indoor places where admission is charged." I.e. museums may fall under the definition of a public place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment @Elcobbola: you mean https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=VAu000691693&Search_Code=REGS&PID=YYVBMBgfGFCj9V1PKavR_V24FIq0&SEQ=20180528225743&CNT=25&HIST=1 ? That was registered 2004-07-16, but the thing was created in 1958. (it hasn't really changed since) So I'm not sure why {{PD-US-no notice}} doesn't apply? Unless there are earlier registrations. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because, at the very least, of the doctrine of limited publication. {{PD-US-no notice}} applies to copies distributed to the general public, which is a different concept. A limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group (i.e., Grammy award winners) with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, etc. A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication. See White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952). Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment VAu000686660 is perhaps an issue. (Title: Grammy award statuette. Date of Creation: 1991 Previous Registration: Appl. identifies statuette as preexisting. Basis of Claim: New Matter: updating of design & additional artistic work.) That was actually filed on the very same day, so I suspect VAu000691693 was only registered to validate VAu000686660. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. As you implied by "it hasn't really changed since," it has changed some. The "original" VAu000691693 is valid on its own for those older varients; VAu000686660 secures a registration on the altered variants, changes to which have been sufficient to have given rise to a second copyright eligible work. Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: Work from 1958, maybe had a copyright notice, maybe didn't, subsequent registration was not done (or we have not been shown proof) within 5 years, it was registered 46 years later. I think 5 is less than 46.
What am I missing here? Any Grammy using the new 1991 design (or any newer design) would likely be copyrighted, we could take a look at the actual changes to determine if the changes alone are enough to warrant new copyright, but let's assume it does. That would still not provide any reason to delete photos of the old Grammy statuette. - Right, you want to argue it wasn't published. Although legitimate photos of them would have almost certainly been published. I don't know about this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) You are missing my comment above and the cited case. Registration was only required for published works, where publication is defined as distribution to the general public. These are under the doctrine of limited publication--no registration, and thus renewal/notice/etc., was required. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I had missed that (and changed my message when I noticed) but I think it actually was published. Commons:Publication#United States "..public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." It goes on to say "To perform or display a work "publicly" means to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;". So would you say the Grammy awards are a "gathering of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- You need to read critically. Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Full stop. The reference to public display is not from the sentence that defines publication. Indeed, you omit an essential part: "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, etc." The offer to distribute (to the general public) is a preceding condition of public display, and, more importantly, such display must have been the copyright holder's intent (i.e., the Grammy award is not offered for that purpose.) As a corollary: hanging a new painting in a museum, ceteris paribus, would not be publication despite public display because there is no distribution or offer to distribute copies to the general public. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- The text is too ambiguous. But maybe it doesn't even matter, because the definition of "publication" changed in 1978. This leads us down Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#Before 1978. I still find it hard to defend calling the Grammy award statuette "unpublished".
- You know.. I don't really give a shit about the Grammys. If deleting them makes you feel better, I don't want to argue over it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've not called it unpublished. Its publication is limited, which subjects it to different rules. Once again, you need to read critically; alternatively, if your English is not strong enough, me mindful of the limits of your abilities. To the extent laws are ambiguous, courts exist to interpret them. If you'd read the court case I cited, or the essay I linked, it would not be ambigious. The Academy Of Motion Picture V. Creative House, 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), explicitly referenced in the essay, deals with this exact issue: General v. Limited Publication related to the Oscar statuette (no surprise, it's limited) - "Although an artistic work may be exposed to the public by exhibition, by limited publication, or by general publication, only general publication triggers the loss of the creator's common law copyright " ("loss of the creator's common law copyright" in this context means "triggers reliance on the registration scheme"). This really is an unambiguous case and the images could, in fact, be speedied. There is plenty of precedent (e.g., 1, 2, 3, the first to come up, although all by Crisco 1492) and, something you've completely ignored: the copyright office did in fact issue registrations (!!!), which it would have refused if the claims were invalid. The existence of copyright registrations is the ultimate "significant doubt" contemplated by COM:PRP. Эlcobbola talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if copyright office refuses invalid registrations. I do know it's possible get a patent (I know the difference, but both are IP that can be registered) for trivial or already existing things (such a patent would be worthless as it can't be enforced, but it can be registered), I don't know if the US Copyright Office actually does do due diligence when accepting registrations. If you say they do, I believe you. I doubt being a native speaker would have made any difference here. I did overlook they link to your essay User:Elcobbola/Awards at the top of this page, that one is on me.
- Although I don't really give a shit about the Grammys, I'll take one of the award images and upload it as fair use for smooth transition when these are deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I do not offer unsubstantiated opinions. I don't need you to believe me; if I've said something, I can source it. In this case: "The U.S. Copyright Office does not register all claims to copyright. The Office may refuse to register claims that do not meet the statutory requirements for copyright registration" one of the (very numerous) grounds of which is "The work is in the public domain" [5] The Copyright Office does indeed check whether a work would be public domain under various scenarios (as readily accessible examples: many denials are linked in the COM:TOO casebook). Courts have explicitly ruled that the Copyright Office--which is not the USPTO and thus does not warrant comparison--registrations provide prima facie indication of the existence of a valid copyright. Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't even have to source it, I said I believe you. I know a patent office (but I'm not sure if that was the USPTO, European or local patent office, or all of them) got so busy at one point that although they were supposed to properly check registrations before accepting, they started rubber stamping everything. So even the claim "may refuse to register" alone wouldn't have completely convinced me anyway. But as I said: I believe you. I've uploaded w:File:Grammy Award 2002.jpg so as far I'm concerned, I'm done. Other wikis either have no fair use, are not currently using any Grammy photo or I don't have upload rights on them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I do not offer unsubstantiated opinions. I don't need you to believe me; if I've said something, I can source it. In this case: "The U.S. Copyright Office does not register all claims to copyright. The Office may refuse to register claims that do not meet the statutory requirements for copyright registration" one of the (very numerous) grounds of which is "The work is in the public domain" [5] The Copyright Office does indeed check whether a work would be public domain under various scenarios (as readily accessible examples: many denials are linked in the COM:TOO casebook). Courts have explicitly ruled that the Copyright Office--which is not the USPTO and thus does not warrant comparison--registrations provide prima facie indication of the existence of a valid copyright. Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've not called it unpublished. Its publication is limited, which subjects it to different rules. Once again, you need to read critically; alternatively, if your English is not strong enough, me mindful of the limits of your abilities. To the extent laws are ambiguous, courts exist to interpret them. If you'd read the court case I cited, or the essay I linked, it would not be ambigious. The Academy Of Motion Picture V. Creative House, 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), explicitly referenced in the essay, deals with this exact issue: General v. Limited Publication related to the Oscar statuette (no surprise, it's limited) - "Although an artistic work may be exposed to the public by exhibition, by limited publication, or by general publication, only general publication triggers the loss of the creator's common law copyright " ("loss of the creator's common law copyright" in this context means "triggers reliance on the registration scheme"). This really is an unambiguous case and the images could, in fact, be speedied. There is plenty of precedent (e.g., 1, 2, 3, the first to come up, although all by Crisco 1492) and, something you've completely ignored: the copyright office did in fact issue registrations (!!!), which it would have refused if the claims were invalid. The existence of copyright registrations is the ultimate "significant doubt" contemplated by COM:PRP. Эlcobbola talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- You need to read critically. Publication is "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." Full stop. The reference to public display is not from the sentence that defines publication. Indeed, you omit an essential part: "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, etc." The offer to distribute (to the general public) is a preceding condition of public display, and, more importantly, such display must have been the copyright holder's intent (i.e., the Grammy award is not offered for that purpose.) As a corollary: hanging a new painting in a museum, ceteris paribus, would not be publication despite public display because there is no distribution or offer to distribute copies to the general public. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I had missed that (and changed my message when I noticed) but I think it actually was published. Commons:Publication#United States "..public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." It goes on to say "To perform or display a work "publicly" means to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;". So would you say the Grammy awards are a "gathering of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) You are missing my comment above and the cited case. Registration was only required for published works, where publication is defined as distribution to the general public. These are under the doctrine of limited publication--no registration, and thus renewal/notice/etc., was required. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: Work from 1958, maybe had a copyright notice, maybe didn't, subsequent registration was not done (or we have not been shown proof) within 5 years, it was registered 46 years later. I think 5 is less than 46.
- No. As you implied by "it hasn't really changed since," it has changed some. The "original" VAu000691693 is valid on its own for those older varients; VAu000686660 secures a registration on the altered variants, changes to which have been sufficient to have given rise to a second copyright eligible work. Эlcobbola talk 14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Grammy award is copyrighted by NARA. --Storkk (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grammy Awards
[edit]These are all from the same source video [6] which is compiled from unattributed Getty Images stock footage. Examples: Ariana Grande [7][8], Lizzo [9], Billie Eilish [10], Dua Lipa [11], Bebe Rexha [12].
- File:200126 Dua Lipa on the 2020 Grammys Red Carpet.jpg
- File:200126 Lizzo on the 2020 Grammys Red Carpet.png
- File:Ariana Grande Grammys Red Carpet 2020 (cropped).png
- File:Ariana Grande Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Bebe Rexha Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Billie Eilish Grammys Red Carpet 2020 (1).png
- File:Billie Eilish Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Camila Cabello Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Dua Lipa Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Heidi Klum Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Jameela Jamil Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
- File:Joe Jonas & Sophie Turner Grammys 2020.png
- File:Lizzo Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
January (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I havent watched the other videos, but the Dua Lipa videos of Cosmopolitan UK and Getty Images are the exact same video. Given that Getty Images have in the past copied photographs in the public domain from the Library of Congress and them slapped a bogus copyright and them, knowingly or not, made steps to sue the photographer, i have to tend to be very suspicious of copyright claims by Getty Images.
- Albeit what i said, the Getty Images version has a lot more of time than the Cosmopolitan UK version so problably Cosmopolitan UK copied, with or without license, from Getty Images. If the copy was licensed, the question remains if the license from Getty Images was permissible enough for Cosmopolitan UK to relicense it as CC, but given how Getty Images works their legitimate works i highly doubt that this is the case. Tm (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- The same situation of Dua Lipa happens with Lizzo videos. Tm (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Cosmopolitan changed the licence of this video at some point after uploading to YouTube, possibly because they realised or were notified that the CC licence was in breach of their licence with Getty. January (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete I would err on the precaution side. I agree with Tm that Getty Images are not to trust, but (1) Getty Images has the full raw footage (2) Cosmopolitan is not a content provider, they might have produced it, but they are not in the business of selling unedited material. Likely a third party filmed it and sold / licensed it and we don't know who really holds the rights. The removal of the CC-BY license on the YouTube video is suspicious, but I think it was a management decision, at least all their latest videos lack the CC-BY license. Günther Frager (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrecht, da nicht abschließend geklärt ist wann der Maler verstorben ist und ich auch keine Nachfahren finden/fragen kann möchte ich dieses -von mir hochgeladenen Bild wieder löschen lassen. Ich habe zwar die Genehmigung eines Auktionshauses, das Bild zu benutzen, aber das reicht wohl nicht. PflugmacherIngolf (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Urheberrecht, da nicht abschließend geklärt ist wann der Maler verstorben ist und ich auch keine Nachfahren finden/fragen kann möchte ich dieses -von mir hochgeladenen Bild wieder löschen lassen. Ich habe zwar die Genehmigung eines Auktionshauses, das Bild zu benutzen, aber das reicht wohl nicht. PflugmacherIngolf (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Photo grabbed from shutterstock.com Solomon203 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ms Rieppel reached out to us and wants her pictures deleted. In this picture she is the person on the right side. 91.66.19.123 12:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete nicht speciales Bild Vera (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Incorrect licence/non-free - uploaded to Unsplash by corporate account in 2022 https://unsplash.com/photos/QTP8UKW_PgI Beevil (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with vtrs. --Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Per EXIF, image comes from Facebook, but – in contradiction – all the source and license info is default (own work, CC-BY-SA-4.0). No proof of validity of such license. Gikü (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
obviously not a selfie. copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Single upload, unlikely to be own work. Larger images can be found previously published. Smooth O (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Text document outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work from illustration in modern book [13] Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
blurred photo of muddy stream with no location given. No educational value Malcolma (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Selfie uploaded by non-contributor (other account) Nutshinou Talk! 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Unrecognisable person CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: PCP - no exif, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in PD. Source didn't say where it was anonymously published. Kursant504 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in PD. Source states a copyright of RGS and RAS. There is no confirmation that the photo was published anywhere earlier (more that 70 years ago) and that it was published anonymously. Kursant504 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is this photo in the scientist's archive file in a personal document. Leave it. Arxivist (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Foto that placed in archive file it is a not published foto. Kursant504 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
blurry image Zblace (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Usable for online articles. Are there any alternatives? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: image is in scope and usable at web resolution. --IronGargoyle (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kcisanders (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.
Yann (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This photo was taken in 1930, making it impossible to be in the public domain in the United States via the pre-1928 route. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing (cropped).jpg. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep "PD-US-not renewed" No registration or renewal for this image can be found in either database. --RAN (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This photo was taken in 1930, making it impossible to be in the public domain in the United States via the pre-1928 route. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing.jpg. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep "PD-US-not renewed" no registration or renewal. --RAN (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Where was this published between 1928 and 1963? What proof is there that this photo's copyright was not registered or renewed? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be eligible for a US copyright, you had to register for it. I can't show you a negative, you can confirm by looking through the registration database yourself, and the copyright renewal database yourself. If I missed it, and you link to the entry, I will vote for deletion. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN, copyright not renewed. --Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope: Replaceable and low quality pornographic content Econt (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unused file. Cathfolant (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: 3D-Illustration, not low quality, not necessarily replaceble Krd 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
pornographic content with no educational benefit OlafTheScientist (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Kept in 2014, but not very good quality for 2023. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- What type is fashionable these days? Delete. 186.174.67.81 23:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question Is that a serious question? I doubt it. The point is that a lot of better-quality photos have been uploaded in the last 9 years, let alone 15 years, as this is a 2008 upload. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question Are there other similar 3D models that are of higher quality? I could see some areas in which you wouldn't want to use a real picture. However, if the image is redundant to another better picture, it could be deleted. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, and I do not see other rendered images of higher quality. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- What in the world is happening here?! This file - as well as any other similar content - is just trash! Don't you see that??? The one who uploaded that is making a hoax! If wikipedia/wikimedia wants to be a seroius organisation, than there is only ONE option: DELETE all pornographic content! We are an encyclopedia, but not a sex page! This is just ridiculous! -- OlafTheScientist (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 04:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Replaced by vector version of the same name. (See File:ING Group global locations.svg.) Riddled with compression artefacts. All project links have been changed. All required licensing information can be found in the information box of the new image. Cflm001 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Existence of a SVG version is no reason to delete, {{Vector version available}} does its job already. Eusebius (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It is outdated JPG version of file:ING Group global locations.svg which is impossible to use or edit properly. 147.161.249.91 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; we have to keep this file for attribution purposes. —holly {chat} 18:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Down right watermark mention of the author's name doesn't seem to match the username of the original uploader. At the same time, I was able to find this specific image here even in links dating back from 2019. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 12:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- File:Luvlogo.png
- File:Rodwavelogo.png
- File:Ynwmellylogo.png
- File:E40logo.png
- File:Gherbologo.png
- File:Drdrelogo.png
- File:E40logo2.png
- File:Icecubelogo.png
- File:Ice-spice-logo.png
- File:Kehlanilogo.png
- File:Donaldgloverlogo.png
- File:ASAPFerglogo.png
- File:Thedreamlogo.png
- File:Fabolouslogo.png
- File:Frenchmontanalogo.png
- File:Yfnluccilogo.png
- File:Daveeastlogo.png
- File:Yogottilogo.png
- File:2chainzlogo.png
- File:Kidinklogo.png
- File:Diddylogo.png
Non-free images with false claims about the "threshold of originality". All of these were uploaded by User:StreetKnockerzEnt. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep all. Most of these were recently nominated for deletion individually and found to be below COM:TOO US and useful. (Edited to add that some are COM:INUSE.) If you really think any are above COM:TOO US, nominate a few individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, please nominate them individually. Some are clearly below COM:TOO. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Procedural keep: please nominate the ones you feel are above TOO in the home country individually (be sure to check the talk page for any previous deletion requests). —holly {chat} 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Dirndl.jpg NMW03 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not really... It looks like the user simply mass replaced the image in about 30 Wikipedia entries by writing over / uploading a different version. I'm for restoring the original image and replacing it the popper way in the individual Wikipedia entries.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: This is not exactly the same picture, and in addition, the context from which the request for deletion arises indicates that it should be rejected for possibilty of unrelated motives. · מקף Hyphen ෴ · 12:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Let me try and unravel this. This appears to be the timeline:
- In 2007, user "Kiu~commonswiki" uploaded the first version of File:Dirndl.jpg.
- On 2011-09-17, user "Nemoralis" uploaded File:Dirndl-2011.JPG.
- On 2011-10-18, user "Nemoralis" uploaded a wider crop of that same image on top of Kiu's photo, stating that it's the same model with a different outfit. This makes me think that Nemoralis and Kiu are the same person or at the very least acquaintances, as it seems highly unlikely that two unrelated people who get the same model to pose for their similar pictures.
- In 2023, user "NMW03" opened this DR and then a month later made a usurpation request for the name "Nemoralis". From this, I conclude that NMW03 is the same as the original Nemoralis, but forgot their password and wanted to get back their previous username, although they should have disclosed that in their global rename request.
- @Nemoralis: Am I close? If not, would you please explain the circumstances more clearly for us? The fact that one image is a tighter crop of another is not a valid reason for deletion. Personally, I think we should do a universal replace of Dirndl.jpg with Dirndl-2011.JPG since they are the same thing and then restore the 2007 photo, as it would be good for Commons to have both images available. —holly {chat} 19:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Holly Cheng. No, I am not previous Nemoralis. I saw this file while looking through edits of previous Nemoralis. I'm thinking the same as you right now. Nemoralis (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I have done as explained above. —holly {chat} 19:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The file was uploaded by the actor D.C. Douglas. Although he appears in the screenshot, he does not own the rights to the TV show, and cannot legally give permission for a screenshot to be used. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
-20230807162000-File:DC_Douglas_and_Russell_Hodgkinson_in_Z_Nation.png){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, I checked the permission on VRT, this appears valid. --Ellywa (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Author is Alberto da Veiga Guignard (1896-1962). In Brazil copyright protection ls 70 years pma. Thus, this is still protected. Günther Frager (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Boa noite! Concordo com o que for decidido aqui. Mas, fato é que o autor já faleceu a 60 anos e essa é uma obra que faz parte da exposição do Museu Casa Guignard. Não se trata da obra em si, mas de uma fotografia da própria. A exposição permite que fotos sejam tiradas e permite a divulgação das mesmas. Além do que o seu uso aqui está na ordem educativa e democrática, visando demonstrar a arte do biografado (como é possivel um verbete de um artista, sem a exposição de uma obra?).
- Abraços!
- 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Luiz Ricardo Resende Silva (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Luiz Ricardo Resende Silva: In the English Wikipedia, we would be able to use the painting under a fair use (link in Portuguese). I don't know the rules in Portuguese Wikipedia, but if it's allowed, that's how you can include it in the article. —holly {chat} 19:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
_Mus%C3%A9e_des_min%C3%A9raux,_fossiles_-_Beyrouth_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Mus%C3%A9e_des_min%C3%A9raux,_fossiles_-_Beyrouth_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfortunately this is a model in a private museum in Lebanon, which does not have freedom of panorama. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
_Musée_des_minéraux,_fossiles_-_Beyrouth_02.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
_Musée_des_minéraux,_fossiles_-_Beyrouth_02.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Losthortos (talk · contribs)
[edit]All members of the same band - one which has camera info is credited to the band page. I think we need permission for all
- File:Nino Helfrich.jpg
- File:Denis Filimonov.jpg
- File:Jörn Schubert.jpg
- File:Neopera band members 2020.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The map is anachronistic per discussion conducted at the talk page of Bengal Presidency. A better version has been uploaded by User:TheGreaterAdenz at File:Bengal Presidency (1849-1853) with modern borders.png. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
_with_modern_borders.png){kind=link}
- @PadFoot2008: COM:INUSE. Please replace all existing usages first. Thanks. —holly {chat} 18:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely used -- cannot be deleted except for copyvio. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in PD. Foto was published only in 2011 (not before 1928) and 70 years are not expired. There is no confirmation that the photo was published anywhere earlier and that it was published anonymously. Kursant504 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- It photo is in personal government document in 1942 year. Arxivist (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- A photo being in a personal document does not constitute publication because personal documents are personal not public (not in PD), so you still has to demonstrate a legitimate publication from at least 70 years ago. Kursant504 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's also a bit of a manipulative nomination. Proof is possible - but is it necessary with your pro-russian views and suspicion of paid edits? Arxivist (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think that Ukrainian authors and works published in the Ukrainian SSR do not deserve for Commons to respect the copyright protections enshrined by their civil codex? It is very anti-Ukrainian to suggest that being Ukrainian somehow strips an author of the copyright protection of their work that is afforded by Ukrainian law. Do you think that only Russian authors and creators deserve to have copyright respected? You say you support Ukraine but don't want to respect Ukraine's own copyright laws. I suggest that you try to find works that are verifiably public domain in accordance with Ukrainian law, or the law of whatever respective country is the country of first publication. If you had specifically cited a publication from before 1953 I absolutely would have not nominated this for deletion. And I do not discrimination against Ukrainians in my deletion nominations, I have also nominated many Russian copyright violations for deletion, because both Russia and Ukraine have copyright laws that us editors on Commons are obligated to respect and avoid misleading people about the copyright status of photos. I have nominated photos of Russians, Tatars, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, and yes, Ukrainians for deletion because they did not comply with the copyright rules set by Commons. If you think that Commons should make a special exception for Ukrainian works to the policy against fair use on Commons go ask Wikimedia leadership for an exception, but do not sit here and pretend that these works are public domain without evidence of a publication before 1953. If you do find a publication of the photo from before 1953 I will happily withdraw this DR. Kursant504 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question. The book clearly states the year 1940. The person did not live in the Soviet Union in 1940. What other questions are there? What kind of manipulation? The document was not issued to him by the Soviet Union. And he did not take the photo for the documents of the Soviet Union. Arxivist (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @NickK there's a bit of a misunderstanding of the situation here. Perhaps you should clarify your opinion? I can transfer the photo to a local server without any problems. But the situation doesn't look clear to me Arxivist (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- And another question: what were the copyright laws for photographs in the Soviet Union in 1940? Arxivist (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- I applying that in this case we should use PD-Ukraine rules because the source indicates a 2011 Ukrainian book as the source. Current retroactive Ukrainian copyright law is the issue here because they source information states the original source of the photo is publication in 2011 Ukrainian book which is not an earlier enough publication because 2011 is much less than 70 years ago. If there is proof that it was published anonymously in 1940 (which has not been provided) or any year before 1953 then it would be PD under Ukrainian law, but there is no evidence that the photo was published at least 70 years ago as required by Ukrainian copyright law. You should understand that Soviet photos are subject to retroactive copyright laws, because all former countries of the Soviet Union (including but in no way limited to Ukraine) have retroactive copyright laws. If there is evidence that the photo was first published in a different country before the 2011 Ukrainian book then whatever that country's current copyright laws are would apply. Kursant504 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- So look at the archive file on the person and make sure that this photo is in the personal documents. I am sure that the copyright of Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Answer the question above: what copyright law was there in 1940? You don't need to talk about retroactivity here. This issue has already been dealt with by Wikimedia lawyers, not Commons lawyers. Arxivist (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can speak about retroactivity here. Your position is simply a denial of the existence of copyright in "old" works. If you are ready to show precedents (judicial for example) when your opinion regarding copyright was really confirmed - I am ready to consider them seriously. At this moment, this just looks like a "comfortable" position for upload non-free photos on Commons. Kursant504 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Asked a third time: what was copyright in 1940? Either answer or don't write nonsense. You've already tacked Ukraine onto the territory where the man lived - definitely wasn't Ukraine (the city of Krakow). First understand what you are writing about. Thank you and don't distract me. Arxivist (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- But for some reason you indicated the Ukrainian source of the photo, and not the Polish one. Kursant504 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Asked a third time: what was copyright in 1940? Either answer or don't write nonsense. You've already tacked Ukraine onto the territory where the man lived - definitely wasn't Ukraine (the city of Krakow). First understand what you are writing about. Thank you and don't distract me. Arxivist (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can speak about retroactivity here. Your position is simply a denial of the existence of copyright in "old" works. If you are ready to show precedents (judicial for example) when your opinion regarding copyright was really confirmed - I am ready to consider them seriously. At this moment, this just looks like a "comfortable" position for upload non-free photos on Commons. Kursant504 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- So look at the archive file on the person and make sure that this photo is in the personal documents. I am sure that the copyright of Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Answer the question above: what copyright law was there in 1940? You don't need to talk about retroactivity here. This issue has already been dealt with by Wikimedia lawyers, not Commons lawyers. Arxivist (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I applying that in this case we should use PD-Ukraine rules because the source indicates a 2011 Ukrainian book as the source. Current retroactive Ukrainian copyright law is the issue here because they source information states the original source of the photo is publication in 2011 Ukrainian book which is not an earlier enough publication because 2011 is much less than 70 years ago. If there is proof that it was published anonymously in 1940 (which has not been provided) or any year before 1953 then it would be PD under Ukrainian law, but there is no evidence that the photo was published at least 70 years ago as required by Ukrainian copyright law. You should understand that Soviet photos are subject to retroactive copyright laws, because all former countries of the Soviet Union (including but in no way limited to Ukraine) have retroactive copyright laws. If there is evidence that the photo was first published in a different country before the 2011 Ukrainian book then whatever that country's current copyright laws are would apply. Kursant504 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question. The book clearly states the year 1940. The person did not live in the Soviet Union in 1940. What other questions are there? What kind of manipulation? The document was not issued to him by the Soviet Union. And he did not take the photo for the documents of the Soviet Union. Arxivist (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think that Ukrainian authors and works published in the Ukrainian SSR do not deserve for Commons to respect the copyright protections enshrined by their civil codex? It is very anti-Ukrainian to suggest that being Ukrainian somehow strips an author of the copyright protection of their work that is afforded by Ukrainian law. Do you think that only Russian authors and creators deserve to have copyright respected? You say you support Ukraine but don't want to respect Ukraine's own copyright laws. I suggest that you try to find works that are verifiably public domain in accordance with Ukrainian law, or the law of whatever respective country is the country of first publication. If you had specifically cited a publication from before 1953 I absolutely would have not nominated this for deletion. And I do not discrimination against Ukrainians in my deletion nominations, I have also nominated many Russian copyright violations for deletion, because both Russia and Ukraine have copyright laws that us editors on Commons are obligated to respect and avoid misleading people about the copyright status of photos. I have nominated photos of Russians, Tatars, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, and yes, Ukrainians for deletion because they did not comply with the copyright rules set by Commons. If you think that Commons should make a special exception for Ukrainian works to the policy against fair use on Commons go ask Wikimedia leadership for an exception, but do not sit here and pretend that these works are public domain without evidence of a publication before 1953. If you do find a publication of the photo from before 1953 I will happily withdraw this DR. Kursant504 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Whichever is the country of origin, the image was under copyright in 1996 and therefore has a US URAA copyright until about 2035. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
"Flickrwashing" - the uploader on Flickr is not the actual photographer and has no rights to release the photos under any kind of CC license. Kursant504 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
"Flickrwashing" - the uploader on Flickr is not the actual photographer and has no rights to release the photos under any kind of CC license. Kursant504 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in PD. Source didn't say where it was published. Also is known that author of foto is Emmanuil Yevzerikhin who died only in 1984. Kursant504 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot find the proof of Yevzerikhin authorship. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Name of the author is states below the foto at source (warheroes.ru). Also this foto was published in newspaper «Вечерняя Москва» № 7 (6372), 09/01/1945 with author's name. Kursant504 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Not in PD. Web-source states a copyright and didn't say where this foto was anonymously published before. Kursant504 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This photo is a copyright violation and not in PD. It was taken by Vladimir Grebnev who died in 1976 and was published in Газета «Фронтовик» № 120 от 17 мая 1945 года with a note saying that Grebnev was the photographer so it is absolutely not public domain in Russian law yet. Kursant504 (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The original photo is in public domain, the colorization is a derivative work and property of Klimblim, who says that they do not allow commercial reuse of their works. NC works are not acceptable for Commons. Kursant504 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also: here is blog of author: https://klimbim2014.wordpress.com Where he states that: "All images colored by me can be used for free for any purposes but commercial." Kursant504 (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Duh! Stolen from Klimblim. Amazingly, they didn't even try to hide the watermark. Rookie mistake. --KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
User is probably P. Baumbach back on Commons after a long hiatus. I found these files at https://www.deutsche-mugge.de/live-berichte/9090-karat-in-stendal.html where they are (C) - I think DieBand needs to confirm that they are Baumbach via VTRS
Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am Patrick Baumbach, you need passport for identification? I also work for deutsche-mugge.de, because I write reviews abpout concerts. I really hate this actionism here.! DieBand (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- DieBand, please contact COM:VRT. (What is VTRS?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect licence/non-free - uploaded to Unsplash by corporate account in 2022 https://unsplash.com/photos/36i9vuZrVjc Beevil (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is a high-res photo with EXIF info, and the name there matches the uploader username, so right now I don't have any reason to doubt that the uploader is an employee of the company (or was contracted by the company to create the photo for them). —holly {chat} 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 09:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Also:
- File:AIWA CD／MD MICRO COMPONENT XR-H330MD YEAR1999.JPG
- File:AIWA TPR-950 - 4 Band Radio Cassette Recorder.jpg
Per COM:DMCA request at: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/35213342?access_token=HAd8l-M7tMUz8fAh7pLWlg Lord Gingham (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Question. Aiwa is a Japanese manufacturer and now it is a subsidiary of Sony in Japan. This DMCA Complaint to Google, said "Sent on July 29, 2023 COUNTRY: AT 🇦🇹" (from Austria). Is this DMCA Complaint valid ? I don't understand what it means. --Clusternote (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Clusternote: It means that is linked to OnlyFans website followed on Google search and delisted from results with a DMCA takedown notice via Lumen Database. Lord Gingham (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- It seems a strange explanation. Although the top of this DMCA Complaint page is a site "[https://]onlyfans.com/aiwaonly" , however it seems merely a subscription service similar to a porno site, and they may have no rights for AIWA products at all. This deletion request seems meaningless for my eyes. --Clusternote (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Should we relisted on Google Search instead via counternotice on Lumen? Lord Gingham (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- It seems a strange explanation. Although the top of this DMCA Complaint page is a site "[https://]onlyfans.com/aiwaonly" , however it seems merely a subscription service similar to a porno site, and they may have no rights for AIWA products at all. This deletion request seems meaningless for my eyes. --Clusternote (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Clusternote: It means that is linked to OnlyFans website followed on Google search and delisted from results with a DMCA takedown notice via Lumen Database. Lord Gingham (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep These photos come from three different people: two from Flickr, where they don't seem to be cases of license laundering and where the license was verified by the bot (and in fact, still valid as I just checked myself), and one from a Commons contributor who has several uploads that use the same camera according to the EXIF. I'm afraid we are going to need more evidence than a vague DMCA takedown notice. Furthermore, a DMCA notice served to WMF will be handled by office personnel, not through a deletion request. —holly {chat} 05:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Holly. I don't see any evidence of copyright violation. So if there is a DMCA notice, let's allow the WMF lawyers to handle it. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2012 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PCP unless we gat clear evidence of its PD status from the publisher. Ankry (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.
- Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".
- Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope) as the postage signs.
- (All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)
- It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.
- See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.
- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC).
- @Dmitry Ivanov: That stamped envelope doesn't have a copyright symbol. So how do you explain that there is a copyright claim here? Yann (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: A copyright notice claims not only economic rights, i. e. the right of reproduction (it is prohibited without a permission of an author), the right of distribution (it is prohibited without a permission) etc.
- Also a copyright notice claims moral rights. First of all it claims the right of attribution or, in other words, the right to declare authorship of a work: in the discussed case the postal card was created by Издатцентр «Mарка» (Marka Publishers), not by someone else.
- And also it claims the right of integrity: an alteration of a work is prohibited. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2015 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.
- Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".
- Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.
- (All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)
- It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.
- See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2015 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.
- Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".
- Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.
- (All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)
- It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.
- See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2008 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.
- Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".
- Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.
- (All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)
- It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.
- See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fake CoA with bad edition. The real is: 
Dmsav (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
UPD Dmsav (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
OpposeВы не можете отличить герб Рязани от герба Рязанской губернии? Барабас (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)- ГЕРБ РЯЗАНСКОЙ ГУБЕРНИИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ИМПЕРИИ https://geraldika.ru/s/671 Барабас (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- В 1858 году в ходе геральдической реформы Б. кене был составлен проект герба Рязани:
- "В золотом щите князь в зеленом одеянии и опушенной соболем шапке, с накинутой на плечах червленой епанчей и в червленых сапогах, держащий в правой руке серебряный меч, в левой - черные ножны. Щит увенчан золотой стенчатой короной и окружён золотыми колосьями, соединенными Александровской лентой".
- Проект не был утвержден. https://geraldika.ru/s/677 Барабас (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as this appears to be a content dispute. If there are errors in the image or the description, please fix them instead of requesting deletion. —holly {chat} 18:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Symbols of Taiwan governments are not always free of copyright protection, according to the court's decision and an explanation from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. Moreover, they're not within the scope of {{GWOIA}} either. See relevant DRs:
COM:Deletion requests/File:ROC Tourism Bureau Logo.svg
COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Taiwan
File:AlishanForestRailwayLogo.pngFile:ROC Agriculture and Food Agency Seal.svgFile:ROC Animal Health Research Institute Seal.svg- File:ROC Bureau of Agricultural Finance Seal.svg
File:ROC Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine Seal.svg- File:ROC Council of Agriculture Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Council of Agriculture Logo.svg
- File:ROC Endemic Species Research Institute Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Fisheries Agency Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Fisheries Research Institute Emblem.svg
File:ROC Forestry Bureau Seal.svg- File:ROC Hualien District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Irrigation Agency Emblem with text.svg
- File:ROC Irrigation Agency Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Kaohsiung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Livestock Research Institute Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Miaoli District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Seal.svg
- File:ROC Soil and Water Conservation Bureau Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem 2023.svg
- File:ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
File:ROC Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg- File:ROC Taitung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Taoyuan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
- File:ROC Tea Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
File:Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute Emblem.svgFile:Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem 2023.svgFile:Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem.svg- File:Taiwan Seed Improvement and Propagation Station Emblem.svg
- File:農業部農村發展及水土保持署署徽.jpg
Larryasou (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- AlishanForestRailwayLogo.png, ROC Agriculture and Food Agency Seal.svg, ROC Animal Health Research Institute Seal.svg, ROC Bureau of Agricultural Finance Seal.svg, ROC Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine Seal.svg, ROC Council of Agriculture Logo.svg, ROC Fisheries Research Institute Emblem.svg, ROC Forestry Bureau Seal.svg, ROC Miaoli District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Seal.svg, ROC Soil and Water Conservation Bureau Emblem.svg, ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem 2023.svg, ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg, ROC Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg, Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute Emblem.svg, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem 2023.svg, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem.svg, and 農業部農村發展及水土保持署署徽.jpg could be simple enough to be covered under {{PD-textlogo}} (but not quite sure about some of them though). All of which don't have calligraphy included either. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have you noticed the "SUNSHOW" case and the "Louis Vuitton" case on COM:TOO Taiwan? In fact, Taiwan has very low threshold of originality. Most of these logos have more obvious complexity than the graphic "SUNSHOW" logo. Larryasou (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination for the files that were crossed out. Larryasou (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept the crossed out ones, deleted the rest. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Announcement for Uber car parking outside Kempegowda International Airport Bengaluru, India.wav
[edit]The uploader has acknowledged in the description that it is a audio recorded from an announcement. However, there's a concern of infringing the copyright of the original announcement. Therefore, we should delete this audio per COM:PCP. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sbb1413: What copyright infringement possibly would happen with a public announcement is by an airport traffic worker who was managing the temporary traffic caused by the influx of more taxis? --Psubhashish (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep A single sentence (of maybe 4 words, hard to understand) is certainly not eligible for copyright. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any copyright problems with this, but is this audio file within scope? Pinging previous participants Psubhashish and PaterMcFly for their opinions. —holly {chat} 19:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't really know, since I don't understand what he's saying and why. Usability is certainly limited. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- The person announcing is heard saying "Come to the right side, Uber vehicles [referring to Uber cabs]" in Kannada. The repeatability is rhythmic and can be used for to illustrate public service announcement in a major Indian language. Psubhashish (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't really know, since I don't understand what he's saying and why. Usability is certainly limited. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2021
[edit]According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps Romanian stamps are in the public domain because "means of payment" are. It doesn't seem to be sourced to anything that explicitly mentions stamps though and most countries do not consider them to be "means of payment." So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence that Romania actually includes stamps in the law and considers them to be "means of payment."
- File:Alex Bologa 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Alice Voinescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Ana Maria Brânză 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Anastase Simu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Carol-Eduard Novak 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Coxless four Olympics 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Marius Cozmiuc and Ciprian Tudosă 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Nadia Comăneci 2021 stampsheet of Romania cr.jpg
- File:Nadia Comăneci 2021 stampsheet of Romania.jpg
- File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stamp of Romania 2.jpg
- File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stampsheet of Romania.jpg
- File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania bw.jpg
- File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Smaranda Brăescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Still Life With A Mask 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
- File:Still-Life-with-Fruit 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Romanian postal law [14], under item No. 30, defines postal stamp as "paper of value issued and put into circulation exclusively under the authority of the state, as an attribute of its sovereignty, constituting proof of postage corresponding to its intrinsic value". It doesn't explicitly say whether "paper of value" (hârtie de valoare) is "means of payment" (mijloacele de plată), and this is an open question to someone more familiar with Romanian laws. However, I see the phrase "an attribute of its sovereignty" as equal to "official symbols of the State" in {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think your stretching it there with the last bit. According to a law journal, "following are the characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty: (1) Exclusiveness, (2) Permanence, (3) All-Comprehensiveness, (4) Inalienability. (5) Imprescriptibility, (6) Unity, (7) Indivisibility, (8) Originality, (9) Absoluteness or illimitability." I don't think any of those things make stamps "official symbols of the State." If you disagree that there's also "(a) a permanent population (people); (b) a defined territory; (c) government (political authority); and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states (diplomat recognition or sovereignty)." I don't think any of those things make stamps official symbols of the state either. Maybe "capacity to enter into relations with the other states"? But then if we went with that (or really any of the other definitions) then essentially everything would be state symbol and therefore public domain. That said, I'm more then willing to leave it up to the closing to decide exactly how to define the term "characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty" and if it actually applies to stamps or not. I'm certainly not claiming to know. Just that I think we should go with the precautionary principle since it obviously isn't clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1) You have listed properties of sovereignty rather than objects that can symbolize it. 2) Each country is free to define what objects define its sovereignty. Romania (and neighboring Moldova) explicitly listed postal stamps as such objects. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Now that you found the clause saying so and put it in the guideline, sure. But I didn't know that at the time when I made the comment. Although I think what I said still holds for other countries where they don't explicitly mentions stamps. Otherwise there would have been no reason Romania would have had define or clarify them as being "means of payment." I'm not going to assume every single thinks stamps are means of payment regardless if the law of the particular country says they are either. Most countries don't anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1) You have listed properties of sovereignty rather than objects that can symbolize it. 2) Each country is free to define what objects define its sovereignty. Romania (and neighboring Moldova) explicitly listed postal stamps as such objects. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think your stretching it there with the last bit. According to a law journal, "following are the characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty: (1) Exclusiveness, (2) Permanence, (3) All-Comprehensiveness, (4) Inalienability. (5) Imprescriptibility, (6) Unity, (7) Indivisibility, (8) Originality, (9) Absoluteness or illimitability." I don't think any of those things make stamps "official symbols of the State." If you disagree that there's also "(a) a permanent population (people); (b) a defined territory; (c) government (political authority); and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states (diplomat recognition or sovereignty)." I don't think any of those things make stamps official symbols of the state either. Maybe "capacity to enter into relations with the other states"? But then if we went with that (or really any of the other definitions) then essentially everything would be state symbol and therefore public domain. That said, I'm more then willing to leave it up to the closing to decide exactly how to define the term "characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty" and if it actually applies to stamps or not. I'm certainly not claiming to know. Just that I think we should go with the precautionary principle since it obviously isn't clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps is wrong then you should start a discussion, for example at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. It is not a good idea to request deletion of files on a one by one basis instead of clarifying the basics. Until then: Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- File:Alice Voinescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg, File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania bw.jpg, File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg and File:Smaranda Brăescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg: The photographs in these stamps are in the public domain ({{PD-RO-photo}}), the rest is {{PD-text}}. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I've asked you already, but can you please only vote once? As to the rest of your comment, one way to have something clarified is through DRs and I don't think the fact that I didn't start a discussion about this at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania first is a valid reason to keep the images. No one is obligated to discuss something on a random talk before nominating an image for deletion. Not that I have an issue with doing so, but it's not like you or anyone else can't just provide whatever evidence you have that Romanian stamps are in the public domain in this discussion. The fact that no one has leads me to believe there isn't any though and I don't feel the need to reconfirm the lack of evidence by discussing this at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. I'm sure the closing administrator will be able to tell that the claim Romanian stamps are PD is totally baseless either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and thanks to Materialscientist for the research. —holly {chat} 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2020
[edit]According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps Romanian stamps are in the public domain because "means of payment" are. It doesn't seem to be sourced to anything that explicitly mentions stamps though and most countries do not consider them to be "means of payment." So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence that Romania actually includes stamps in the law and considers them to be "means of payment."
- File:Arctic-Fox-Vulpes-lagopus.jpg
- File:Arctic-Hare-Lepus-arcticus.jpg
- File:Arctic-Wolf-Canis-lupus-arctos.jpg
- File:John Paul II centennial stamp (2020) 2.png
- File:John Paul II centennial stamp (2020).jpg
- File:Snowy-Owl-Bubo-scandiacus.jpg
- File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020 (1).jpg
- File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020 (2).jpg
- File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020.jpg
_2.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps is wrong then you should start a discussion, for example at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. It is not a good idea to request deletion of files on a one by one basis (here and in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2021) instead of clarifying the basics. Until then: Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, but the part about stamps qualifying as PD-RO-exempt due to being "means of payment" was put there by Aymatth2 when the article was created as a boiler plate template that was added to multiple articles in mass at the time based on zero evidence. It's also been found to be faulty in multiple instances since then. The fact is that most countries don't consider stamps to "means of payment" and there's zero evidence the Romania government does. I don't have a problem starting a discussion about it on the talk page, but I've done that several times already and no one ever responds. Plus guidelines are supposed to be based on evidence to begin with and there's zero evidence that Romania considers stamps to be means of payment, but there is plenty of evidence that Aymatth2 wrongly added that justification for stamps being PD to articles in mass when he created them. It's not like these things aren't clarified in DRs on a daily basis to begin with either. That's literally in DRs. To provide evidence that something is in the public domain if said evidence is lacking, which it clearly is. So...Your really just nitpicking over procedural non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The Romanian postal law [15], under item No. 30, defines postal stamp as "paper of value issued and put into circulation exclusively under the authority of the state, as an attribute of its sovereignty, constituting proof of postage corresponding to its intrinsic value". It doesn't explicitly say whether "paper of value" (hârtie de valoare) is "means of payment" (mijloacele de plată), and this is an open question to someone more familiar with Romanian laws. However, I see the phrase "an attribute of its sovereignty" as equal to "official symbols of the State" in {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Thanks for adding it to the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
por que tiene errores de ortografía Ferpa1905 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Las faltas de ortografía han sido corregidas, así como también su licencia y autor. Maxi-Napo-99 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Por que tiene errores de ortografía Ferpa1905 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This appears to be above COM:TOO Argentina. —holly {chat} 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per Holly, above the ToO in Argentina. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
