Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/08/18
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,dem_Truppenübungsplatz_in_der_belgischen_Stadt_Leopoldsburg.jpg){kind=link}
_cover.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
'_issue.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
Violation of copyrights Arn6338 (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as copyright violation. Was previously uploaded and deleted as File:Adam VARGAS.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I have been informed that unnotable images aren't allowed, so self-requesting before I get in trouble. William on Tires (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Onkeladi72 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Smbr0910 (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded as a jpg instead of a png Nate.hastie (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
unsicher, ob dieses Bild urheberfrei ist Lacave-records-commons (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
132 KB is to small for an upload; new version already exists; Thanks Naturpuur (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 16:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 03:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused file 92.251.0.89 09:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Test or vandalism. --Achim55 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Bonita... 186.173.246.169 12:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Dupe of File:Daffy Duck as Carmen Miranda in Yankee Doodle Daffy, 1943 (cropped).jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I uploaded it by mistake Lorenzo Donzelli (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete (added {{SD}} tag to page requested by uploader) Eyesnore (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
El Archivo No Sirve OrlandoR503 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment When I click the thumbnail, I see the coat of arms of a city, which could be useful, but how is it 0 x 0 pixels? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Fictional map, flag, coa - Looks nice but its out of scope
- File:ตราแผ่นดินโคโรเวีย2.png
- File:ตราแผ่นดินโคโรเวีย.png
- File:แผนที่โคโรเวีย.png
- File:ธงชาติโคโรเวีย.png
- File:ตราเทศบาลตำบลหนองสองห้อง.png
Enyavar (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Fictitious Minecraft micronation with a population of "100 villagers in Minecraft" per w:en:Draft:Republic of Koro. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Republic of Koro.png.
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Forgot to spell it out: out of COM:SCOPE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wutsje 02:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded, please delete. Not a video. Wrong format. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if the software will allow it, but if you can rename the file from
.webmto.webp, it should work. They're the same format internally, which is why the image shows up as a 0-second video. Omphalographer (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Fairly prompt uploader request, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I want this file nominated for deletion because I intend to not use this file in Wikipedia for the Anuak Wikipedia page and I do not think it is appropriate for representation. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Delete © 2023 Cultural Survival. All Rights Reserved. Please stop uploading files that do not specifically have suitable COM:Licensing. Any others you uploaded should be tagged by you for speedy deletion as copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This file should be deleted because this photo will not be used by me on Wikipedia and it is also not the photo I meant to add in the first place. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation, "© 2023 Cultural Survival. All Rights Reserved" per source. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 03:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Text document, not in use. Do we need to delete it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Now has an Index at English Wikisource. UFO related text like this might become more topical if certain Congressional hearings pick up. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep This is a notable document, so it is within Commons scope in itself. Yann (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment We can delay a decision until the related policy discussion is resolved, but does an index count for COM:INUSE? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, it counts. Why it wouldn't? If there is an index, it means there would be also an Wikisource page, and therefore a WD entry. Yann (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know how Wikisource works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Each WS page should be linked to a WD entry as an edition or translation, which should be linked to a WD entry for the work. Yann (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- And then indexed here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what do you mean? Yann (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand the relationship between the three sister sites, Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, since an index counts for being in use. I should say, I'm glad this isn't being deleted, but I'm also glad we're having a discussion about deletion policy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Pretty brazen copyvio, cropping the copyright note. Copyright holder: "Brian Bossert Photography". 2003:C0:8F44:2700:7DF9:9797:567C:70A4 11:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Trabajo personal? Lo felicito! 186.173.246.169 12:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- R.I.p. Bosko :( you will be missed I hate birds so so much (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; I take the comment to mean that the uploader consents to deletion. (@I hate birds so so much: Please be accurate and honest in your uploads. Some older cartoons *might* be out of copyright, but actual source info is generally needed to make the determination. Do not claim to be the artist and copyright holder of someone else's work.) --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=843729153#File:Hold_Anything.jpg){kind=link}
Permiso? 186.173.246.169 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 18:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Text document, not in use. Do we need to delete it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This was uploaded by Fae as part of efforts to mirror works from IA on Commons for eventual Wikisource transcription. I'm in the process of creating an Index for it currently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination, since you've created an index, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 after the publication date, which clearly hasn't passed in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 after the publication date, which clearly hasn't passed yet. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,049 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is their work that they are the copyright holder of this work, however the image depicted here is an official cover art of an album which implies that the uploader has no right nor permission to upload this work on this encyclopedia. Shelovesneo (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Clearly an album cover. Can be undeleted with VTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Facebook 186.175.16.32 00:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 09:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The source provided doesn't give evidence of early enough publication to be PD under COM:Russia. 188.123.231.12 11:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Ridiculous PD rationale - if the author is unknown, you cannot count 70 pma to confirm becoming PD. No evidence of early enough publication as well to meet COM:Russia. 188.123.231.12 12:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Russia, clearly a publicity photo in circulation since creation, and not a negative stored in an archive since creation. Is the nominator, the guy that was banned for making nominations of Russian images using this same rationale: "No evidence of early enough publication". I guess you are back. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1966 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on all these images seems to only apply if it's been 70 years since the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet since the stamps were published in 1966. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,037.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 336769 - Maid Alice Syntomis alicia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 336770 - African Monarch Danaus chrysippus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 336771 - Maid Alice Syntomis alicia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 336772 - African Monarch Danaus chrysippus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 338095 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 338096 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1966 - Colnect 338097 - Pro infancia.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1967 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on all these images seems to only apply if it's been 70 years since the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet since the stamps were published in 1967. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,038 per the precautionary principle.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336675 - Pro infancia Cocos nucifera.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336676 - Pro infancia Opuntia sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336677 - Instalaciones Portuarias.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336678 - Atlantic Saury Scomberesox saurus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336679 - John Dory Zeus faber.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336680 - Sapphirine Gurnard Trigla hirundo.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336767 - Pro infancia Cocos nucifera.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1967 - Colnect 336768 - Pro infancia Opuntia sp.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1961 stamps of Spain
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 after the date of publication. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,042 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Stamp 1961 Spain MiNr1246-pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1961 Spain MiNr1261 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1961 Spain MiNr1262 pm B002.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1961 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on all these images seems to only apply if it's been 70 years since the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet since the stamps were published in 1961. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,032 per the precautionary principle.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 174930 - 25th of the nomination of Gen Franco.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 174931 - 25th of the nomination of Gen Franco.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 174932 - 25th of the nomination of Gen Franco.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 174939 - 25th of the nomination of Gen Franco.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 299393 - Pro Infancia - High jump.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 299394 - Pro Infancia - Football.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 299395 - Pro infancia - High jump.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 338355 - Camel Rider on Dromedary Camelus dromedarius Truck.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 338356 - Day of the stamp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 338357 - Camel Rider on Dromedary Camelus dromedarius Truck.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1961 - Colnect 339819 - Day of the stamp.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1954 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on all these images seems to only apply if it's been 70 years since the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet since the stamps were published in 1954. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,025 per the precautionary principle.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174891 - Traganum sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174892 - Stapelia sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174893 - Pro Infancia Mother and Child.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174894 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174895 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174896 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 174938 - Stapelia sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220404 - Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220405 - Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220406 - European Lobster Homarus gammarus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220407 - Smooth Hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220410 - European Lobster Homarus gammarus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 220411 - Smooth Hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 336763 - Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 336764 - Traganum sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 336765 - Stapelia sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 336766 - Traganum sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 340919 - Stapelia sp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1954 - Colnect 340920 - Traganum sp.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1955 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on all these images seems to only apply if it's been 70 years since the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet since the stamps were published in 1955. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,026 per the precautionary principle.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 174897 - Pro indigenas.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 174898 - Pro indígenas.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 174899 - Pro indigenas.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 220408 - Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 220412 - Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1955 - Colnect 220413 - Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1960 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on these images isn't valid since it hasn't been more then 70 years since the stamps were published. So they should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,031 per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174924 - Red legged Partridge Alectoris rufa.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174925 - Dromedary Camelus dromedarius.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174926 - Dromedary Camelus dromedarius.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174927 - Wild Boar Sus scrofa.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174928 - Day of the Stamp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 174929 - Day of the Stamp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 338353 - Stamp Day.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 338354 - Day of the stamp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339524 - White Stork Ciconia ciconia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339525 - European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339526 - Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339527 - White Stork Ciconia ciconia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339528 - European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339529 - Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339539 - White Stork Ciconia ciconia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339540 - European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1960 - Colnect 339541 - Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1958 stamps of Ifni
[edit]The license on these images isn't valid since it hasn't been more then 70 years since the stamps were published. So they should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,029 if not longer per the precautionary principle. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174914 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174915 - Pro infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174916 - Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Coat of Arms of Valencia and.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174917 - Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Coat of Arms of Valencia and.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174918 - Pro Infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 174919 - Pro Infancia.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 220414 - Nursehound Scyliorhinus stellaris.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 220415 - Blackchin Guitarfish Rhinobatos cemiculus.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 220416 - Day of the stamp.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1958 - Colnect 338101 - Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Coat of Arms of Valencia and.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Stamps aren't explicitly mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Equatorial Guinea and the country follows the same laws as Spain in the meantime, where stamps are copyrighted for 80 years after the date of publication. So it's reasonable to think stamps from Equatorial Guinea are also copyrighted for the same term as Spanish ones. In this case 80 years hasn't passed since the date of publication. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO per the Precautionary principle until at least 2,055. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. The same goes for File:Guinea Ecuatorial Primer Centenario Union Postal Universal 1874 1974.jpg. Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
As per [2]. Even considering Algerian law, this was only be PD there in 2006, so copyright status in USA is uncertain. However this was probably first published in France, will be in the public domain only in 2026. Yann (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as per this discussion. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
No copyright information, I think it's better be deleted now than waiting it to be deleted Dustin Ivander (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 10:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Old Chilean photograph from the early 20th Century. Possibly public domain but that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 10:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
1931 American photograph, non-renewal of the photograph should be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 10:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JacobAnimatez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: fictitious flags and logos. "Ekamara", "New Liverpool", and "Ululiona-Linulu" are jokes from Youtube videos; "Bandatierra" and ANLCC are likely fictitious as well given the context of other uploads by this user.
- File:Logo of New Liverpool City Council.png
- File:Logo of A.N.L.C.C.png
- File:Logo of the Ekamaran Film Industry.png
- File:Logo of the E.M.E.C.png
- File:Logo of the Ekamaran Miners.png
- File:Licence Plate of Ekamara.png
- File:Football Helmet of the Ekamaran Miners.png
- File:Flag of the Ekamaran Miners.png
- File:Seal of Ekamara.png
- File:Nameplate of the Ekamaran Miners.png
- File:Flag Map of Ekamara.png
- File:Flag of Ekamara.jpg
- File:Emblem of Ululiona-Linulu.jpg
- File:Flag of Ululiona-Linulu.png
- File:Emblem of Bandiaterra.png
Omphalographer (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal photo. Дима Г (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IranRevolution (talk · contribs)
[edit]No permission, author is listed as unknown. Out of scope, as well.
- File:FgTztZfXwAAUqfV.png
- File:EhsanKhanMohammadi2.jpg
- File:EhsanKhanMohammadi1.jpg
- File:EhsanKhanMohammadi.jpg
- File:AboobakrAlizahi3.jpg
- File:AboobakrAlizahi.jpg
- File:AboobakrAlizahi2.jpg
- File:AboobakrAlizahi1.jpg
- File:AbolfazlMehdipur3.jpg
- File:AbolfazlMehdipur4.jpg
- File:AbolfazlMehdipur1.jpg
- File:AbolfazlMehdipur2.jpg
- File:AbolfazlMehdipur.jpg
- File:AbolfazlAkbariDoust1.jpg
- File:AbolfazlAkbariDoust.jpg
- File:ArashPahlavan.jpg
Дима Г (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#Stamps Swiss stamps are copyrighted per the normal term of 70+ years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer died in 1996. So the image should be deleted until at least 2,067, if not longer. Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal photo. Дима Г (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#Stamps Swiss stamps are copyrighted per the normal term of 70+ years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Hansruedi Scheller, died in 2007. So the image should be deleted until at least 2,078, if not longer. Adamant1 (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1949 stamps of Switzerland
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#Stamps Swiss stamps are copyrighted per the normal term of 70+ years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Hans Thöni, died in 1980. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,051, if not longer.
- File:Swiss Confederation 1949 Mi 522 stamp (75th anniversary of the UPU. UPU Monument, Bern, Switzerland).jpg
- File:Swiss Confederation 1949 Mi 523 stamp (75th anniversary of the UPU. Globe and inscribed ribbon).jpg
- File:Swiss Confederation 1949 Mi 524 stamp (75th anniversary of the UPU. Globe and five pigeons).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland#Stamps Swiss stamps are copyrighted per the normal term of 70+ years after the death of the designer. In this case the designer, Hermann Eidenbenz, died in 1993. So these images should be deleted until at least 2,064, if not longer. Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Stamps of Spain are copyrighted until at least 80 years after the publication date if they were issued before 1987. In this case the stamp was issued in 1948. So it's clearly copyrighted until at least 2,028. The same goes for the following images:
- File:Stamp 1948 Spain MiNr0951 pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1948 Spain MiNr950a pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1948 Spain MiNr0967y pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1948 Spain MiNr0960x pm B002.jpg
(BTW, the last two images appear to have the artists, but I can't read who it is. So I'm choosing to go with the normal term for anonymously published works. I will remove those two images from the nomination if someone can figure it out who they are and when they died though. Either that or they can just be deleted until 80 years after their death.)
Adamant1 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The last two stamps bear publishing details rather than designer names. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 after the publication date, which clearly hasn't passed in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The cover of 1924 edition. Sadly, there is no evidence that it's in the public domain. Juggler2005 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Not in the PD until January 1 of 2017. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, the author (the artist) is not anonymous. His name is Matvei Dobrov and he died in 1958, see https://fantlab.ru/edition82038 (click on М. Доброва). Undelete in 2029. Дима Г (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This clearly isn't thee uploaders own work and Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 after the date of publication in the meantime. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. The same goes for the following images:
- File:Stamp Holodomor.jpg
- File:Stamp Ivan Franko.jpg
- File:Stamp Holodomor.jpg
- File:Stamp Chornobyl.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1943 stamps of Ifni
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 years after the designers death. In this case the designer of these stamps, Mariano Bertuchi, died in 1955. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,036, if not longer. Unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333768 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333769 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333770 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333771 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333772 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333773 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333774 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333775 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333776 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333777 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333778 - Scenery and aircraft.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333779 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333780 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333781 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333782 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333783 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333784 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333785 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333786 - Various types.jpeg
- File:Stamp of Ifni - 1943 - Colnect 333787 - Various types.jpeg
Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Assuming the choice of Moroccan copyright law is correct, don't we still have to Delete since Morocco is life+70 and Mariano Bertuchi died in 1955? That would, however, mean these files can be undeleted 10 years sooner in 2026 (1955 + 70 + 1) instead of 2036. —RP88 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes, right. I didn't read carefully the template. Yann (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with undeleting the images in 2026. Although it doesn't seem like the conversation has a consensus either way. If anything it seems like Spain would be the correct country since like Carl Lindberg said in the discussion that for countries that follow the Berne Convention "nationals are generally protected by their own law in their own country regardless of where published" and the artist of these stamps is a Spanish citizen. I don't really care either way though, but I would like it be consistent and based on the facts. Which at least in this case leans toward the copyright being held in Spain. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah yes, right. I didn't read carefully the template. Yann (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Assuming the choice of Moroccan copyright law is correct, don't we still have to
Deleted: per discussion. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Supreme Court of Korea
[edit]There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Korea. The website of the Supreme Court of South Korea states that the building was completed in 1995. A commercial license permission from the architect or his heirs (if he is already dead), or the architectural firm if this is a joint work of architecture, is required. {{KOGL}} does not apply as there is no indication that the author of the building released his work under a free or commercial license.
- File:South Korea Supreme Court.jpg
- File:Supreme Court of Korea (2013).jpg
- File:대법원 정면.jpg
- File:대법원 측면.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Seoul Eastern District Court photos by Pectus Solentis (talk · contribs)
[edit]All of the nominated photos show the current complex of Seoul Eastern District Court, which appears to date to 2017 as per w:ko:서울동부지방법원. If opened in 2017, then the buildings were most likely completed in 2015-16 period. As there is no commercial freedom of panorama in Korea, commercial license permissions from the building architects and designers are needed.
- File:서울동부지검 및 동부지법 전경.jpg
- File:서울동부지검 검찰종합민원실.jpg
- File:서울동부지검 출입문.jpg
- File:서울동부지검 전경.jpg
- File:서울동부지검 푸른솔 어린이집 1.jpg
- File:서울동부지검 푸른솔 어린이집 2.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 내 공원.jpg - also shows a sculptural design for the seating area
- File:서울동부지법 민원동 2.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 민원동.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 전경 2.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 전경 3.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 전경.jpg
- File:서울동부지법 출입문 2.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Newspapers of Ukraine
[edit]foto (own or flickr) newspapers as license laundering, without permission (COM:VRT)
- File:Petr Klyuyev.jpeg
- File:The first issue of Dnepr Vecherniy.jpg
- File:The last issue of Dnepr Vecherniy, Dec 30, 2021.jpg
- File:Ажур перший номер знайомство.jpg
- File:Ажур перший номер.jpg
- File:Вырезка из местной газеты о Шпике А.Н.jpg
- File:Стаття в газеті.jpg
『白猫』Обг. 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: fictitious flag. Related draft speedily deleted as a hoax on enwiki (w:Draft:Veritas Concordia). Omphalographer (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/10.1111/1755-6724.14996
[edit]The images were taken from a scientific paper protected by copyright. The work is available here, and it has in the first page the following notice: "© 2022 Geological Society of China"
Günther Frager (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/PMC9541040
[edit]The source states the scientific paper is licensed under CC-BY-NC, a license incompatible with Commons' policy as it doesn't allow commercial use.
- File:Junggarsuchus Rostral Canals.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Cranium Left Side.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Mandible.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Holotype Elements.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Metacarpals.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Cranium Right Side and Anterior.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Cranium Dorsal.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Forelimb.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Maxillary Nerves.jpg
- File:Junggarsuchus Cranium Ventral.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have clearly misunderstood the licensing restrictions on non-commercial uses. I uploaded those images at the request of the authors from the paper from which they were taken, but I now see that I will have to receive an additional license from the authors to upload these. I will contact the authors to see if they are willing to provide this new license. In the meantime, I have removed the images from the pages they were on to avoid copyright infringement. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dysoxylum parasiticum Yellow Mahogany fruiting small tree —Meliaceae plant family, Mossman Gorge, 26 Oct 2014 1-40 pm (15718111682).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Remove my images here. For years now they have been fully copyright in my Flickr account from where I uploaded them here, had them CC by ... at that time, then changed them back. Macropneuma (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dysoxylum parasiticum Yellow Mahogany fruiting small tree —Meliaceae plant family, Mossman Gorge, 26 Oct 2014 1-40 pm (15716555915).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Remove my images here. For years now they have been fully copyright in my Flickr account from where I uploaded them here, had them CC by ... at that time, then changed them back. Macropneuma (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The Monarchy of Jinguk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: fictitious flags and emblems.
- File:Coat of Arms of Jinguk.png
- File:Jinguk Coat of Arms.png
- File:Official Royal Emblem of Jinguk.png
- File:Official Emblem of Baeksan Shin Clan.png
- File:Flag of Jinguk.png
Omphalographer (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rockford Police Departement (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: fictitious content. The logo is an edited version of en:File:ColumbusPoliceSeal.png and the picture of "Victor Wagner" looks like a screen capture from Grand Theft Auto. ("Rockford Hills" is a city in Grand Theft Auto V.)
Omphalographer (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nilofarattahi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: two visually identical images of a short piece of fiction written on graph paper.
Omphalographer (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by LudvigCommons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: crudely drawn cartoons in poor taste. ("Naziweihnachtsmann" = "Nazi Santa Claus".)
Omphalographer (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
low quality, out of focus Steinninn ♨ 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Krd 09:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom & per third upload. Twice as File:MarcusOwenBell.jpg, 3rd was File:Calmsurble11111.jpg. In addition, ARR @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/198663804@N08/53106817822/ --Achim55 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:O&K steam locmotive, works N° 1080, June 1903, 80 hp, 1000 mm gauge, Ct, 'Jallut über O&K Fil Brüssel' 02.jpg
[edit]
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 5.173.103.35 11:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is most likely the work of a military photographer during World War 1, i.e. it has been formally censored and then copied by photographic processing, to be used for military reports, propaganda newspapers and Feldpost post cards. Please keep. NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of when the photo was taken. Copyright should not be based on the conjecture of the uploader. Don't assume that a photograph has been published more than 70 years ago. It's hard to say anything without evidence. 5.173.100.247 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence actually presented, just cut and paste from previous nominations, already proven incorrect. --RAN (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. It is worth knowing the rules of sharing photos. A matter-of-fact discussion should be based on arguments instead of nonsense attacking the submitter. Someone your age should know that. Sometimes it's better to keep your personal opinions to yourself. Especially when there's nothing important to say 5.173.100.247 10:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:O&K steam locmotive, works N° 1080, June 1903, 80 hp, 1000 mm gauge, Ct, 'Jallut über O&K Fil Brüssel' 02 (cropped).jpg
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 5.173.103.35 11:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is most likely the work of a military photographer during World War 1, i.e. it has been formally censored and then copied by photographic processing, to be used for military reports, propaganda newspapers and Feldpost post cards. Please keep. NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of when the photo was taken. Copyright should not be based on the conjecture of the uploader. Don't assume that a photograph has been published more than 70 years ago. It's hard to say anything without evidence. 5.173.100.247 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence actually presented, just cut and paste from previous nominations, already proven incorrect. --RAN (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. It is worth knowing the rules of sharing photos. A matter-of-fact discussion should be based on arguments instead of nonsense attacking the submitter. Someone your age should know that. Sometimes it's better to keep your personal opinions to yourself. Especially when there's nothing important to say 5.173.100.247 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 94.254.188.90 13:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is most likely the work of a military photographer during World War 1, i.e. it has been formally censored and then copied by photographic processing, to be used for military reports, propaganda newspapers and Feldpost post cards. Please keep. NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The version of this photo with the most details about it I can find is at #tarih magazine, which identifies it as being by an unknown photographer circa 1915–1920. The image was clearly taken before 1925 when Atatürk banned fezes. I have no reason to suspect that #tarih failed to perform due diligence in determining the unknown status of the photographer. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 94.254.188.90 13:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep The link provided with the image is making a non-valid copyright claim. The image was taken by Ernest Pierre Henri Miguel Machard who died in 1944. The same image with more details about its history is found at Images Défense, a French governmental website. That site does have a obligatory credit line that includes a copyright symbol, but it also states that the image is in the public domain. I will update the file information. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)- The rote "© ECPAD / All rights reserved", as you point out, would only cover any novel text on the website, not historical images. --RAN (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright of photographer is expired! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 94.254.188.90 13:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Another one by Ernest Pierre Henri Miguel Machard who died in 1944. Details at Images Défense. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! So much writing, if only that time was spent correcting deficiencies like the amazing Tcr25 did. --RAN (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright of photographer is expired! Stop copypasting your usual rant and better do some research instead! Did you even look at the creator template which states that the photographer died more than 70 years ago?-- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 94.254.188.90 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo does not look like a coincidental snap of one of a local or a soldier but like the work of a professional war time photographer, i.e. it has most likely been censored and than reproduced by photographic processing, to be sold or to be distributed to several newspapers. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like this is included in 100 yil sonra kayip bir demiryolunun izinde[3] most of the photos from which were either taken by railway engineer Hasan Mukadder Dölen (who died in 1975) or came from old postcards that didn't ID the photographer. If someone can locate a copy of the book to see how it credits the specific photo, that would help. —Tcr25 (talk)
- Keep No real evidence presented, the same cut and paste rationale on 7 different images, 3 other nominations shown to be correctly in the public domain. Tineye, found two versions online of the original image with the original border, before republishing in a book. --RAN (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can download a photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. In many cases, the uploader adds a fictitious date of creation of the photo, which is not confirmed in the linked source pages. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 94.254.188.90 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale has been incorrect on all the others, so I will assume this is incorrect too. No real evidence has been presented that the image was never seen by the public since creation. I could see if it was a negative in an archive, never made into print, like we have in the Bain Collection. --RAN (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. It is worth knowing the rules of sharing photos. A matter-of-fact discussion should be based on arguments instead of nonsense attacking the submitter. Someone your age should know that. Sometimes it's better to keep your personal opinions to yourself. Especially when there's nothing important to say. 5.173.100.247 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, the license template used now is {{PD-France}}. In the English version of the template you can read that there are 3 possible reasons for using that template. The first one is about the situation the author(s) is/are dead for more than 70 years. Since the uploader claimed the photographer is unknown, that first reason is not applicable here. The last one is about recording of an audiovisual or musical work but it is here about a photo so that reason is also not applicable here. For the the only remaining reason the photograph needs to have been anonymously published more than 70 years ago. On archive.org the oldest available version of the Web page that was given as the source is from 2020 (see [4]). I don't see any prove the photo was published more than 70 years ago which is essential for that license claim. I am willing to change my opinion if somebody can convince me when and where it was anonymously published before 1953, or if another free license on Commons can be convincingly argued. - Robotje (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:RCF-Brigadelok 'Henriette' beim Kamp van Beverlo (französisch Camp de Beverloo),dem Truppenübungsplatz in der belgischen Stadt Leopoldsburg.jpg
[edit],dem_Truppen%C3%BCbungsplatz_in_der_belgischen_Stadt_Leopoldsburg.jpg){kind=link}
,dem_Truppen%C3%BCbungsplatz_in_der_belgischen_Stadt_Leopoldsburg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can downloada photo and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor 94.254.188.90 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This photo is most likely the work of a military photographer during World War 1, i.e. it has been formally censored and then copied by photographic processing, to be used for military reports, propaganda newspapers and Feldpost post cards. Please keep. NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Cut and paste TLDR rationale, already proved incorrect, in 3 other nominations. Correct license is "PD-EU-no author disclosure". --RAN (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, the license template used now is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. In the English version of the template you can read: "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship ..." The oldest version on archive.org of the given source is from 2021 (see [5]) and even there it is not clear if that photo was then published on that Web page. When using that template it is essential to start proving that the photo was published more than 70 years ago. I am willing to change my opinion if somebody can convince me when and where it was anonymously published before 1953, or if another free license on Commons can be convincingly argued. - Robotje (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- ... I am not sure, whether archive.org was fully operational in 1914-1918, but I understand that you want to be convinced about the initial publication. In response, I propose in dubio pro reo, i.e. to keep it until some convinces me that this is a one-off reproduction of the negative and that the photo had not been censored, published and used for propaganda purposes during WW1. NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of Kim Possible Trade (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete look like actual art from the show or at least “original character donut steel” (i.e. recolors of official art). Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
_cover.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cover.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
_cover.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
_cover.png){kind=link}
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Joschi71 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
1959 American photograph, should be checked for non-renewal. Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No registration or renewal or visible copyright symbol. --RAN (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Totally biased and unsourced material. 2A02:586:C427:BF62:B03C:238F:3981:8691 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE, COM:NPOV. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused map without indication about that is despicted (locator map of North Macedonia, and multiple dots about the it) Enyavar (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this comparison pictures? These are two different individuals. They are not gay, not a married couple. Why are two pictures pinned together? Who are the copyright owners of these two different pictures and then combined together to form one single image. The owner of the picture is not the copyright owner of the two images or even one image being made. There is a political vendetta and image falsification. This is against Wikipedia and WIkimedia rules and regulations. Please delete this image if copyright information has not been provided. Thanks. 122.171.23.43 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. In use, copyright is documented at the source Flickr page. It is, in fact, possible for two men to appear in the same photograph without being a married couple. Please stop making disruptive deletion nominations for photos of these people (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:RahulModi.jpg). Omphalographer (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image of right is available on Wikipedia under different author and license with VRT permission. Can't be termed own work just by making a collage type. See File:Rahul Gandhi.jpg. The image on left is also on Commons. Yann (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand the objection. Both images are freely licensed; under those licenses, it is permissible to create derivative works such as collages. Omphalographer (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The original images may be or may not be free, we don't know, but it is unlikely that Global Panorama is the author. We need the source of each original images. Yann (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete One thing is confirm that Global Panorama can't be the author since both the images come from different sources. Also the image of left (Modi's) is from Modi's Flicker and on right (Rahul's) is allowed after VRT permission. When orginal images are seen, one was uploaded under 3.0 and other under 2.0. Then how can the uploader release it under a single license and claim that it is their work. If I take two images from internet and combine them or make a collage, that doesn't mean that I get the rights. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The conversation seems to indicate that the work is a derived work that has two images that are able to be used. The discussion seems to be about appopriate licensing, and the conversation may be better at Com:VP/C, see Com:Collages too. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, I added the two source files with the different licenses. So reusers can think about it... which licensing is valid. --Ellywa (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Irma Eshword (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poor quality, out of scope
- File:Космическая химия; Космос в пробирке 4.jpg
- File:Космическая химия; Космос в пробирке 3.jpg
- File:Космическая химия; Космос в пробирке 1.jpg
- File:Космическая химия; Космос в пробирке 2.jpg
Юрий Д.К 22:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: adaquate quality IMO. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Photographer considered original upload unwise, wishes it to be removed Angrylambie (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep In use in 2 projects. On Commons more than 13 years, too long for courtesy deletion. While Commons has other images of the subject, this seems significantly better photographic composition than the others. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as per Infrogmation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a picture of Brooklyn Supreme, an American Belgian draft horse, not a Shire as Sampson is supposed to be. See https://horseyhooves.com/brooklyn-supreme-horse/ DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- We fix, not delete, already fixed, like a gelding. --RAN (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep COM:INUSE, historical photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It's worth noting that the picture has been renamed since the nomination, and it wasn't in use either when nominated. There isn't any evidence that it's out of copyright either, but I don't know how you deal with that on COmmons. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- BTW, great detective work by DuncanHill. The license is correct, to be eligible for a copyright in 1930, you had to register for a copyright, display the copyright symbol and the year on the image, then renew that copyright 28 years later. No image of this description appears in either the copyright registration database or the copyright renewal database. If you look through the databases they are mostly for books, magazines, and big city newspapers, and an occasional image. The expense of registration and renewal usually outweighed any potential future revenue. Even the Associated Press did not bother to register or renew their most iconic images. --RAN (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
orphan work Lesless (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Mortada Al-Qazwini
[edit]Files (all uploaded by the same user on enwiki) are claimed to be own work. The original uploader w:User:Imam12 is self-asserted to be born in 1981 but has uploaded a picture from the 1950s (File:Qazwini young.jpg) claiming that it "was taken by me". The portrait (File:Mqazwini1.jpg) is available with higher quality on the internet [6]. The user seems to be single-purpose account based on his contributions on enwiki.
![[6]](https://www.geocities.ws/hussaynia/QAZWINI.JPG){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain#Stamps Spanish stamps are copyrighted until at least 80 years after the publication date. So this image should be deleted until at least 2,030 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 25 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)
Files uploaded by SOLUTOLIVE (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that fall outside the scope of our project.
- File:Tina Tammi We Did It.png
- File:Tina Thomas “Tina Tammi” born in South Kensington.jpg
- File:Tina Tammi is a recording dancehall rap artiste.png
- File:Tina Tammi Artiste jpg.jpg
- File:Tina jgp.jpg
Herby talk thyme 07:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I did a web search to see whether she was notable, and one of my results was this article from May 29, 2023, which included this photo, which was uploaded to Commons on August 17. So at least that one is possibly copyright violation. None are in use, and it looks like it may be too soon in her career for her to be notable enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be the same building as that nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:서울고등법원.jpg. Per this site, the building of Seoul High Court is housed in the building of Seoul Central District Court. Unfree as the architect is not yet dead for more than 70 years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope. see COM:PERSONAL. Larryasou (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rosalie Emslie
[edit]copyvio, pd in 2047
Martin Sg. (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The model prefers it to be taken down Angrylambie (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm OK with deletion, as it's not in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Si Vd está de acuerdo, Maestro, nadie puede oponerse. Delete entonces. 181.43.0.231 18:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Uploader's request, Delete out of courtesy. --Achim55 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Model of a copyrighted architecture: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:서울고등법원.jpg for the work details. See also User:Elcobbola/Models. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Fantasy coat of arms, out of project scope. Rosenzweig τ 10:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The licensing policy page does not include a version number. Per {{Cc-by-sa}}, this is not a valid license without one. ✗plicit 12:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Previously published commercially: [7] czar 12:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
1971 Chinese poster that is public domain in China but not the US. Undelete in 2067. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio Bedivere (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No es un trabajo propio Bedivere (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No es un trabajo propio Bedivere (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio Bedivere (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
1942 Dutch photograph from NIOD's collection. Public domain in the Netherlands as anonymous but not in the US as this was not public domain on January 1, 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo uploaded by a user with a similar name to organization. Abzeronow (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope (too bad quality) Юрий Д.К 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope Юрий Д.К 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope, poor quality, better analogs exist Юрий Д.К 22:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This looks like a 'music video' captured from a TV or streaming source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a capture of a specfic live performance of a copyright work, from a TV or streaming source. Eurovision footage is most likley owned by the EBu or by the originationg broadcaster in Israel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The uploader should know that Western Pomerania belonged to Germany before the war. This is indicated by clearly visible inscriptions on the inn. The previous template was wrong. Photography has nothing to do with Poland. There is no information about the year the photo was taken. There is no evidence that it was published more than 70 years ago. 5.173.124.227 10:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, part of an harassment campaign by someone using multiple IP addresses. --RAN (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP; insufficient information to be able to determine the copyright status of this file; it's just taken off Facebook and given a completely estimated date not supported by data or evidence. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Claimed as own work, but seems to be a previously published journal article from 1996 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation; no proof that the author ever released the mug shot under Creative Commons Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete United Kingdom Police Forces are specifically excluded from the list of public bodies subject to Crown Copyright. That means documents published by police forces in the UK have the same copyright protections as any corporate entity. This is demonstrated by the website of Cheshire Constabulary (the purported author of this mugshot) setting terms of reuse not compatible with Wikimedia. Unless evidence is provided that this file was specifically released under a licence compatible with Wikimedia, then it must be deleted from Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 07:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Complex logo exceeding COM:TOO China Wcam (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 07:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work Trade (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by 5.173.103.35 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: fake template, Rudolf Rosenkranz died in 1966 https://www.rhein-zeitung.de/region/aus-den-lokalredaktionen/kreis-altenkirchen_artikel,-rudolf-rosenkranz-bilderschatz-aus-derschen-_arid,584836.html
Converted to DR for easier undeletion. Undelete in 2037. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text PDF content. If you are trying to create an encyclopedia article, please read w:Help:Your first article. Omphalographer (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 07:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo inutile 81.248.177.228 19:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Photo dangereuse 81.248.178.199 17:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: F10 --Achim55 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F10, abused for vandalism, see also File:Alexiscoco12345.jpg, abusing multiple accounts. --Achim55 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The metada states author is Eric Berghen and that all rights are reserved. We need a COM:VRT to keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Japan, this is a 2D reproduction of a copyrighted 3D work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Abe Masaki(1912-1978) [8]in 1969.[9] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Kikuchi Kazuo(1908-1985) in 1977.[10] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Movie screencap Trade (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Okina kanji(1937- , He is still living)[11] in 1971.[12] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work Trade (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work Trade (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible derivative work Trade (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete it’s a lovely image but there’s nothing so valuable that necessities trying to either remove the poster or figure out if it’s FOP Dronebogus (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
copyright album art Evaders99 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Herbythyme. --Rosenzweig τ 07:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
According to the license on this image Crown Copyright works "created or published prior to 1973." This stamp was created in July of 1973. So it's copyrighted until at least 2,024, if not longer. Adamant1 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Flags, maps, and logos in Category:Fiction
[edit]Out of scope: various unused fictitious flags, maps, and emblems. (This category is kind of a mess.)
I've attempted to exclude maps and logos depicting in-universe content from notable works of fiction; please let me know if I've missed any.
- File:(Fictional) Flag of Krycoa.svg
- File:2W10SANDBOX 2036 mrbeast vs desantis.png
- File:ASUSlogo.png
- File:Bandera del Reino de La Rioja.png
- File:Bippop.png
- File:Bloxushanka brynica flaga Gołonic Śląskich.png
- File:Bloxushanka brynica flaga wojenna Gołonic Śląskich.png
- File:Central Asian Union (Fiction).png
- File:Central Asian Union Map.png
- File:Coat of Arms of the Triple Monarchy.png
- File:Demolas Map.png
- File:Escudo do Esporte Clube União da Amazônia.png
- File:Flag of moomooistan.png
- File:Flag of the Triple Monarchy.png
- File:Gob Foundation Logo.jpg
- File:Holy Roman British Arms.png
- File:International Games participants (1948).png
- File:Kallumheim Republic.jpg
- File:Lur People Real Map.PNG
- File:Meraoks Shattered Indigo.png
- File:Michael's Port Coat of Arms.png
- File:Moomooistan.png
- File:Onward America.jpg
- File:Regimedasociedadelogo.png
- File:Rey CF Crest.png
- File:RUSSIA 2026 TB.png
- File:八荒學院校旗.png
_Flag_of_Krycoa.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Omphalographer (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 09:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Book covers in Category:Fiction
[edit]Copyright violations: these are all covers of books recent enough to not be in the public domain. Some of them were uploaded by users claiming to be the author of the work, but it's unclear that any of them had rights to release the cover artwork under a free license.
(I've intentionally skipped a couple of book photos from this category which are in the public domain, which were verifiably released under a free license, or which are likely to be under the threshold of originality.)
- File:AMBAJI EXPRESS.jpg
- File:Availoblenow 72847.jpg
- File:Catcher in the Rye (uzbek edition).jpg
- File:Childmaid cover.jpg
- File:Flowers for Algernon (uzbek edition).jpg
- File:FromTheUVFilesCover.jpg
- File:Honeymoon Gone Bad --- UKAF.png
- File:Jeevan Ek Sangharsh.jpg
- File:John Joseph unfck your health book.jpg
- File:Kesemay Yewerede Firfr (ከሰማይ የወረደ ፍርፍር).jpg
- File:Kindle poster1.jpg
- File:Last Weeping of Akbar Tanhaa.jpg
- File:MXTX-Books-20230119 200100.jpg
- File:Rhodes camp.jpg
- File:The Masterplan - cover.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Omphalographer (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by M3DS Academy (talk · contribs)
[edit]advertising
- File:Succsesful 3D Artist.png
- File:Academy Year 4.png
- File:Academy Year 3.png
- File:Academy Year 2.png
- File:Academy Year 1.png
- File:Top Ranked School for 3D and Games.png
- File:M3DS Academy.jpg
Cabayi (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 09:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
These are sourced to a German language publication of 1920, The author of the paper concerned Erich Martini died in 1960. Whilst this may be PD in the US, given the date I am not sure copyright would have expired in the country of publication.
- File:Über Stechmücken besonders deren europäische Arten und ihre Bekämpfung (1920) (20179247120).jpg
- File:Über Stechmücken besonders deren europäische Arten und ihre Bekämpfung (1920) (20179313628).jpg
- File:Über Stechmücken besonders deren europäische Arten und ihre Bekämpfung (1920) (20358798042).jpg
_(20179247120).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(20179313628).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(20358798042).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Not sure why the internet archive thinks this is PD, maybe because they don't have the passing date of Erich Martini in their database. It seems this is protected until 2031 (unless someone gets a permission) PaterMcFly (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This is claimed as own work, but appears to be some kind of election result, PD-Brazil-Gov only covers such items prior to 1983. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope PDF list. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
File:- Secretário da Educação por três mandatos consecutivos, desenvolvendo a educação no município;.pdf
[edit]This is claimed as own work , but appears to be a relase by some kind of 'official' entity. I'm not sure PD-Brazil-Gov would apply ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Claimed as own work , but appears to be some kind of information release by govt body in Brazil, Not an obvious law so I'm nto sure PD-Brazil-Gov would apply. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Not own work, Stament of accounts for muncipality in Brazil? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --Rosenzweig τ 12:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, and with long political rant that's off-topic in a file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 23:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal flag. Omphalographer (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I understand if you believe this is out of scope due to it being a personal flag. However, as the language acquires more speakers, I thought it was appropriate to formally publish under a PD license. I can do this somewhere else if need be, and it can be reuploaded if/when it is relevant. Yamasztuka (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would be more appropriate for you to publish this image yourself, on your own web site, under a license which allows it to be copied to Commons when it's needed. Omphalographer (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Main article doesn't exist anymore HinoIII (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of results in a web search, including w:Gonzalo Lema. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. File is now COM:INUSE. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Article is no longer available the picture should be deleted as well. HinoIII (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Procedural Keep - Non-Admin closure. This is a duplicated deletion discussion started while the previous discussion is in progress. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The festival took place in 1990. Not sure if own work. Дима Г (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks like a screenshot, and the festival indeed was filmed. Two other uploads from this user have been deleted as a copyright violation, it seems reasonable to think that this picture is not an own work too. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. Дима Г (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#G10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Past the courtesy deletion period, and the uploader is not the copyright holder. --RAN (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: the photograph of the person who died in 1896, obviously in PD. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The courtesy deletion period is over. It is also a public domain image, and you are not the copyright holder. --RAN (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The first uploader claimed about this 1903 photo "Image libre de tout droit (d'avant 1924) et publiée dans de nombreux médias et blogs." This woman was born and also died in France. What the 'befofe 1924' statement helps to make it PD is not clear to me. Also the statement that it was published in many media and blogs doesn't trump the rights of a copyright owner. On Commons we use 120 years starting from the next January 1st for assuming the copyright expired. So this file should be 'deleted' and on January 1st 2024 (several months from now) it can be restored with a {{PD-old-assumed}} template. - Robotje (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The advanced reason for the removal of this image has nothing to do with any copyright issues. Maybe the contributor not like the sight of this 'blasphemy'? Anyway, in terms of the form, the request is invalid due to lack of justification, and in terms of the substance, we don't have enough information to judge, knowing that at worst, the image will be acceptable anyway next January. --Hyméros --}-≽ ♥ Yes ? 10:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: I see no sense in deleting this on September 2023 to restore on January 2024: the work is anonymous anyway. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: cropped from the picture at https://www.neuhauschocolates.com/fr_BE/notre-histoire/ourstory.html - no free license at the source page; created in 1930-ies, I would say, copyright status is unclear. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: no indication of a free license on the source site. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Permission needed. The metadata indicates the author is "Bart van der Putten". Larryasou (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Can this fan art be useful? I am not sure the uploader is also the author. Wolverène (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it's using for a spam purpose. Wolverène (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: not an own work. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Prime minister 186.173.246.169 11:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
No comment 186.173.246.169 11:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
O autor nao sou eu. 186.173.246.169 11:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
La foto es de un amigo, no es own work. 186.173.246.169 11:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Telegram libre? 186.173.246.169 12:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: taken from a Telegram channel of the portrayed person, no permission. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hrodna.life 186.173.246.169 11:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: the source website is under free license. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
youtube channel spam not in use not in scope Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Keyng flizy (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Keyng flizy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obscure image, likely to be of the uploader, im which case "This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT" apples. If not then it has no educational value anyway and is out of scope for Commons
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
As many times before: mysification, a map of a non-existent river, a joke Gampe (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. --Harold (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism Siradan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: non-existent flag, a hoax. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
No es Agatha Christie. Quién es? 186.173.41.26 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- AGATA PRIESTLY - It has nothing to do with the writer Agatha Christie. This girl is an actress and regression therapist. Her combination of first and last name is only consonant with Agatha Christie, but has nothing in common. In the photo another Agatha! And an article is published about it PriestlyA (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Uj! Quién sacó esta foto? 186.173.41.26 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD#F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adeline parfum (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
Дима Г (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Search results in several languages, so the perfume appears to have good distribution in at least parts of Europe and Asia. However, there's no indication that it's a massive perfume company that we really need to keep the logo of, quite apart from COM:TOO concerns. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
self deletion, most likely not free licensed image despite uploaded by the Minister herself Flix11 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
This image is not a selfie, so Stefanie Schneider cannot be the photographer (the usual copyright holder). We need a COM:VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ich habe eine Mail an permissions-de@wikimedia.org geschickt. Gatm (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023081810004244 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 12:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 11:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS. Although these images are licensed CC on Flickr, they show licensed/copyrighted character art.
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Exif says author is "MERCY_CORPS", probably this humanitarian organization which is present in DR Congo. No proof uploader is the true author and works with this organization. An authorization is needed. Titlutin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Schießen in Königsbrück, Luftwaffe, I. Flak 13, Leipzig Heiterblick, Lt. Bubendey, Feldbahngleise, 16.-18. Januar 1938.jpg
[edit]
The album indicates that this photograph is from a private collection. The seller explicitly protected the photos from the album against further copying. It is impudent that someone puts private photos on an online auction and someone else edits a photo from the auction and adds it to some website. 5.173.103.35 11:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The photographer is anonymous, if the ebay auction mentioned the photographer, we would have something to research. People get these at estate sales and resell, if the photographer was named it would be worth more. --RAN (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, the license template used now is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. In the English version of the template you can read: "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship ..." Putting a photo in an album is not publishing. Showing that page of the album on Ebay could be considered as publishing but in 1952 there was no Ebay. I don't see any prove the photo was published more than 70 years ago which is essential for that license claim. I am willing to change my opinion if somebody can convince me when and where it was published before 1953, or if another free license on Commons can be convincingly argued. - Robotje (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: I believe this was published near creation, but as a 1938 German photograph URAA applies and we don't actually know if the photographer was anonymous, Undelete in 2059. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Too blurry and many better images available Romainbehar (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The blur obscures details of the subject. Nv8200p (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Above TOO Trade (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete U.S. and Canada, so not a slam-dunk, but I agree with you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Question Obviously public domain, but how do we regard a page of writing with reference to ongoing discussions at Commons talk:Project scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; I'll leave the scope discussion to be decided by others. —holly {chat} 01:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution, 2 better file: File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 3250.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 622.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution. 2 better file File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 3251.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 624.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, very low resolution, 3 better files: File:Christ Crowned with Thorns MET DP819958.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 3252.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 625.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
without the person's consent Axmano2000 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time, you can use {{speedydelete|G7}} (author request for recently created page) for a faster response. —holly {chat} 01:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
(sorry french) photographie d'un catcheur à la notoriété quasi inexistante. N'a pas d'intérêt encyclopédique. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Ilieva666 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's useful inasmuch as it portrays a view from a balcony that overlooks houses and a tree. Reasonably decent quality, so it could be used as a sort of freely licensed stock image on our projects. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 01:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
COM:TOO Germany A photo of a private garden taken from the balcony of a private house. Marchuk17 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Question What does this have to do with the threshold of originality in Germany? --Rosenzweig τ 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not a really useful image (the fence is to prominent), but the given reason clearly does not apply. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The view from the balcony is covered with a fence. Ilieva666 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source https://archive.org/details/img-0748_202212 https://archive.org/details/@22sanlinn Viii23dawari (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- The first link you gave produces:
- "This item is no longer available.
- Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use."
- The second link doesn't appear to show this photo. So so far, no evidence against this file has been produced that anyone can see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lange Haare 1.jpg might suggest that we could be suspicious of User:Marchuk17's "own work" claims, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it was Marchuk17 who nominated this image for deletion last time. Nakonana (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but not for that reason, so I'm not sure it matters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- And it was Marchuk17 who nominated this image for deletion last time. Nakonana (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lange Haare 1.jpg might suggest that we could be suspicious of User:Marchuk17's "own work" claims, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no context other than a location. I cannot discern anything educational about this image. Nv8200p (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
File with watermark Ariandi Lie (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Although a watermark by itself is not grounds for deletion, this watermark is a copyright notice, so. —holly {chat} 01:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 5.173.103.35 11:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, part of an harassment campaign by someone using multiple IP addresses. --RAN (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 01:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Teresa Mañé Miravet
[edit]This portrait is licensed as "EU anonymous" but the IISH record attributes the photo to Xavier Pellicer. The copyright/license should be determined from his death date and not as anonymous. I haven't been able to find more info about him but until we do, we should not assume this image to be out of copyright.
czar 12:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per Spanish copyright law, this image is in the public domain in Spain, as it was taken more than 25 years ago. I think this would also bring it under PD-1996, but I'm not 100% on that. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good catch by Czar for finding the creator. Agree, 25 years for simple photos in Spain. --RAN (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 01:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Published on several non free websites before date of upload, like this one since November 2019. No exif. Probably not free. "Own work" unlikely considering uploader's copyvio history. Titlutin (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? The name of the author and user do not match the metadata. It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Leila Nadir, at Desert Research Station, Center for Land Use Interpretation, Hinkley, California, 2016.jpg
[edit]
Photo taken from here, uploaded on October 18, 2018. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we cannot consider the painting as de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
poor quality (low resolution, one cell is the wrong colour); no longer used (the only use on w:nl:Klinkerbotsing has been converted to a wikitable). bdijkstra (overleg) 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative work - this is clearly autotraced from a bitmap image, and not very well, either. Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
too blurry, many other better images are available Romainbehar (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Blurry, grainy, bad perspective and resolution is not all that high Nv8200p (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Own work? No! 186.175.16.32 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: could not find another version of this via both TinEye and Google Lens. If you think it's a copyvio, please provide the source. —holly {chat} 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
No es own work. 186.175.16.32 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Any reason for this claim? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: could not find another version of this via both TinEye and Google Lens. If you think it's a copyvio, please provide the source. —holly {chat} 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Based on a copyvio. 186.175.16.32 00:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: could not find another version of this via both TinEye and Google Lens. If you think it's a copyvio, please provide the source. —holly {chat} 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
The file shows an outdated version of the actual logo Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Old logos are preserved for historical reasons. --Leyo 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Leyo. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This logo is outdated, but surfaces as logo in rich snippets on google. This is why the company wants it removed. Could it be tagged as former logo so that google understands? Please check also mevaco.com Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Seems reasonably notable, based on a web search, though that's debatable. Justwannauploadalogo, you can edit the file description to reflect the fact that this was the company's logo between (whatever years), you can request a filename change (see Commons:File renaming), and of course you can upload your current logo under a separate filename (including this filename, once the former logo has a new filename). It's possible that the closing admin will decide that your company is not notable and that Commons shouldn't host any of your logos at all, so why don't you make a statement below that demonstrates how your company is notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like nominator uploaded on top of the older logo. —holly {chat} 20:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope. Дима Г (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 17:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This is photograph taken from a map, no clear indication of the year of pubication or the author. Uploaded by globally-banned user. HeminKurdistan (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; universally replaced with File:Strait of Hormuz AR.jpg as that shows the same islands that are highlighted in this image. —holly {chat} 17:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, no evidence that the uploader is the logo creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, ver low resolution, 2 better files File:The Annunciation- The Virgin MET DP820834.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Madonna, c. 1490-1491, NGA 42673.jpg Oursana (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Apparently personal project about how to "grasp the magic embedded in this vibrant triangle", uploaded to illustrate a now-deleted enwiki user page that was using enwiki as a web host. Out of COM:SCOPE for Commons.
Belbury (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, very low resolution 5 better files: File:De geboorte van Christus, RP-P-OB-997.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer - The Life of Christ- The Nativity - 1978.85 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif, File:Martin Schongauer, The Nativity, c. 1480-1490, NGA 30302.jpg, File:The Nativity MET DP819879.jpg, File:The Nativity MET MM7781.jpg Oursana (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). This has a license but a dubious one. 1932 photograph from a college yearbook, non-renewal of the yearbook should be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, when I tagged the file for deletion, it was unlicensed. Jonteemil (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow, could you advise on how I can check the non-renewal of the copyright? Note that Pasadena Junior College ceased existing in 1954 when it merged to another high school and was named Pasadena City College. Sabih omar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Check the 1959 and 1960 copyright renewal catalogs for either the name of the yearbook or the names of the college (old and new), copyright terms back then were 28 years, renewable only once. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/index.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Could not find any renewal information.Sabih omar (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Check the 1959 and 1960 copyright renewal catalogs for either the name of the yearbook or the names of the college (old and new), copyright terms back then were 28 years, renewable only once. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/index.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow, could you advise on how I can check the non-renewal of the copyright? Note that Pasadena Junior College ceased existing in 1954 when it merged to another high school and was named Pasadena City College. Sabih omar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There was no copyright registration, or renewal for the yearbook. I have never seen a copyright registration for a yearbook prior to 1990. There is no aftermarket for the books or worry about being copied, you presell the the 500 students, it would be hard to justify the expense of a lawyer to renew a registration. I can see the page in the yearbook at Ancestry. --RAN (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 18:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; next time you can use {{No permission since}} for faster service. —holly {chat} 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
No es sobre un salón de belleza sino una persona desconocida 186.173.41.26 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. —holly {chat} 18:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; next time you can use {{No permission}} for faster service. —holly {chat} 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; next time you can use {{No permission}} for faster service. —holly {chat} 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; next time you can use {{No permission}} for faster service. —holly {chat} 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work Trade (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This is a work with multiple authors (Constant Huret and Gabriel Belliard are named), and even if both of them died that same year, it wouldn't have been PD until 2016, long after the URAA date. —holly {chat} 00:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Huret died in 1951, and I cannot find a death date for Belliard. URAA applies, Undelete in 2066 as PD-old-assumed-expired. We could undelete in 2041 if we find Belliard died before 1971. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The current license is incorrect, it was published in France in 1933. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This would be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, but that means it became PD in France in 2004, after the URAA date. We can undelete it in 2029. —holly {chat} 00:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: 1933 anonymous works were public domain in France on January 1, 1996. France was PMA 50 with a 8 year 120 day wartime copyright extension in 1996. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:FOP Netherlands says OK for buildings and most 2D and 3D artwork, so why shouldn't that apply here? —holly {chat} 18:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Railway stations are covered by FOP in the Netherlands COM:FOP Netherlands. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Cancelled-to-order Mauritius Miniature Sheet of the 'Bicentenary of the Mauritius Turf Club (1812-2012)' issue.jpg
[edit]%27_issue.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%27_issue.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This probably isn't the uploaders own work and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mauritius doesn't have anything about the copyright status of stamps from the country. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. If evidence emerges that stamps are free from copyright in Mauritius, I'll undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Logo of a French Municipality. Not necessarily own work as claimed, Mansion graphic at top is above TOO in my opininon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Picture available on http://www.full-stop.net/2017/03/15/interviews/dougiefresh/elizabeth-rea/. No information given on the author and license of the photograph. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Doubtful that this logo of a foundation was created by the uploader. No indication on source, author and license given. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Violation of COM:De minimis, a copyrighted video game screenshot is taking up a large portion of the image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
-20230818174900-File:Nintendo_switch_OLED_model_-_3.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the screenshot is very low quality as it is and could easily be blurred Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe the image is too high a resolution to be classified as low quality. No one has cared enough to blur the image. Nv8200p (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Screenshot from Metroid Dread is not de mimimis. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 5.173.105.130 as no source (No source since). 1934 photo, possible PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1934 is not quite old enough to use {{PD-old-assumed}}. We at least need the source, better yet the photographer to keep this. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is a Swiss photograph. Does this photograph have individual character? Abzeronow (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per remark of Abzeronow and per {{PD-Switzerland-photo}}. --Ellywa (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978) - Lemiers - 20001661 - RCE.jpg
[edit]_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Bahnmoeller: This was part of the Commons:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed image upload. The rights page says (translated) For images that fall under copyright protection, the Government Agency may only show the image if there is permission from the copyright holders. In those cases, the image can only be downloaded for home use. On the image page itself, there is no indication that this photo is subject to any third-party rights. Do you have any reason to believe that the RCE didn't properly do their legwork? —holly {chat} 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- In Germany we call that "wischi waschi" Only download for home use is no valid licence for Commons, which includes commercial use. Thats proof enought that they do not know the consequences of our licence. Bahnmoeller (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll also note that churches can be considered as public places as far as Dutch FOP goes. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#Churches_and_Dutch_FOP. This is a Catholic church which tend to be open several hours daily. I think we can trust the RCE here, and it's also possible this is covered by FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per remark of Abzenorow (and Arnoud Engelfried in referenced discussion). --Ellywa (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail - Lemiers - 20001667 - RCE.jpg
[edit],_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978) - Lemiers - 20001661 - RCE.jpg. —holly {chat} 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#Churches_and_Dutch_FOP. and remark of Engelfriet in that discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail, signatuur (noordmuur) - Lemiers - 20001672 - RCE.jpg
[edit],_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978) - Lemiers - 20001661 - RCE.jpg. —holly {chat} 18:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#Churches_and_Dutch_FOP. and remark of Engelfriet in that discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Roberto García Toledo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not own work, taken from non free websites
Triplecaña (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Currently used in a draft article which will probably be deleted in two months, so it's still within scope, but not for much longer. —holly {chat} 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Very unlikely the article is kept, no edits since august. Image can be undeleted if article is transferred to the encyclopedia, please notify me in that case on my talk page. --Ellywa (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kingsteven1982 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Hoax images (2 files). Anonymous emblem is a poor-quality duplicate
Юрий Д.К 21:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Если автор умер до 1953 года, то как он же смог загрузить его в 2022 году? Неясный лецензионный статус. — Redboston 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP, no evidence provided that the creator of the 1934 map died before 1953. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
1950s British photograph, would enter the U.K. public domain by 2030 and the U.S. public domain by 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm no longer sure if the license is the correct one and if the file can be present on commons. I would therefore like it to be deleted to avoid any copyright infringement Yeagvr (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Yeagvr: , this is claimed as an own work. The only possibility of copyright infringement would be if you got it from another website or from a YouTube video that isn't licensed with Creative Commons. (TinEye is not showing any hits). Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; EXIF info states "Screenshot". —holly {chat} 00:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Random PD rationale (Anonymous work + 70 pma), no evidence of PD. Komarof (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is a circa 1930 photograph. It looks like a professionally done portrait photograph so I'm skeptical that this is anonymous. Alamy says this is public domain though. Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No source. Alamy probably took it from us, as TinEye says it was there in 2021, but it was uploaded here in 2017. —holly {chat} 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The original uploader has expressed the wish on their talk page that this file be deleted 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Pre-1923 Chilean photograph that was published in 1940. It is possible this photograph was created after 1902, so we cannot assume the creator has been dead for 70 years. It is possibly public domain in Chile and the US (since Chile was 50 pma in 1996) but that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree PD-Chile. Republished in 1940. --RAN (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Richard. —holly {chat} 19:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
