Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/08/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Image get wrong metadata Junjung Hermanto Sitorus (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029. Yann (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029. Yann (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029. Yann (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029. Yann (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029. Yann (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What's this? 186.174.25.166 21:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Facebook. 186.174.25.166 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete personal photo with clear advertisement intention. Günther Frager (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements). --Wutsje 22:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Same person requests name change and deletion. Interesting... 186.175.55.88 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex logo, no permission. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't see an educational use for this. Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Only you? We're two. Delete. 186.175.55.88 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Trabajo propio de 2023 pero hecho en 2019. 191.125.180.51 01:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of own work. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Material, was this file supposed to be kept or deleted? 186.175.55.88 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
own file V8powerage (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Image is in scope and after the first week (in which COM:CSD#G7 applies), you can still nominate your own photos for deletion, but then you have to give some tangible, convincing reason other than that you don't want it here anymore. Also, this photo is in use in English and Polish Wikipedia. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I dont want this picture to be on wikipedia anymore I revoke the copyright please delete it. V8powerage (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE, and you can't revoke a copyright that you irrevocably agreed to 13 years ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
i want the picture deleted i change mind about publishing it V8powerage (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue with vandalistic acts like blanking the file page you will face problems in Commons. Keep. 186.175.55.88 15:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason for deletion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
own file V8powerage (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Image is in scope and after the first week (in which COM:CSD#G7 applies), you can still nominate your own photos for deletion, but then you have to give some tangible, convincing reason other than that you don't want it here anymore. Also, this photo is in use in Polish Wikipedia. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
i want the picture deleted i change mind about publishing it V8powerage (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nice picture, congratulations! Keep. 186.175.55.88 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- And be careful. Upgrading with unrelated images can be taken as vandalism. Keep away from acting like a vandal please. 186.175.55.88 15:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. CC-BY licenses are perpetual. Günther Frager (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
own file V8powerage (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you want the files deleted more then two years after the upload? --GPSLeo (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Image is in scope and after the first week (in which COM:CSD#G7 applies), you can still nominate your own photos for deletion, but then you have to give some tangible, convincing reason other than that you don't want it here anymore. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I took this picture and want to delete it from wikipedia V8powerage (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Keep It's not on Wikipedia, as far as we can see, but anyway, I think it's usable and don't support deletion. Also, per the previous deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
i want the picture deleted i change mind about publishing it V8powerage (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are two images here! I like both. Split and keep. 186.175.55.88 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. CC-BY-SA licenses are perpetual. Günther Frager (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake: Duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walk_in_Taketomi_Island_3.jpg Syced (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Błąd przy wyborze licencji. Natalia Mroczek (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Harimawood (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of File:高砂市市ノ池公園遊具（ロープ渡り）.jpg uploaded seconds earlier. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 18:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright violation Kelly The Angel (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:2013 stamps of Pakistan
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pakistan stamps of this country are copyrighted for the normal term of 50+ years after the date of publication. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,064.
Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1999 stamps of Pakistan
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pakistan stamps of this country are copyrighted for the normal term of 50+ years after the date of publication. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2,050.
Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
These band photos appear to be taken from other websites (https://www.discogs.com/artist/310421-Blasphemer, https://www.facebook.com/mayhemofficial/photos/a.260559217333067/2300107103378258/?paipv=0&eav=AfYmm4z1_u8MR5ooIZXJC_PfQRlg2qQsW0cftqc6D6j5vXSxawGUL4V5jiam5l1ekSk&_rdr) rather than being the uploader's own work.
- File:Blasphemer Mayhem.jpg
- File:Евронимус Gibson.jpg
- File:Евронимус в Helvete.jpg
- File:Евронимус Mayhem.jpg
- File:Демоназ.jpg
Belbury (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Needn't to be deleted SubelG
- @SubelG: Why not? Do you own the copyright to these images? --Belbury (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, but these images are in free access in the net. Why can't i use them?SubelG (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @SubelG: Because they're probably copyrighted to the band or record label. See Commons:Licensing. Belbury (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- But other articles on Wikipedia also have a lot of different images that are protected by copyright, such as album covers. Why aren't they removed SubelG (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @SubelG Wikipedia articles can have fair use in accordance with each Wikipedia's policy. But this is Wikimedia Commons, and fair use is not allowed here. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then why delete images when you can upload new versions of them for an article based on the fair use rule? SubelG (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are two completely different websites.
- Fair Use images are allowed on Wikipedia (the website you are NOT currently using).
- Fair Use are NOT allowed on Wikimedia Commons (the website you are currently using).
- You uploaded your Fair Use images to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia. Therefore they need to be deleted as they violate our rules Trade (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then why delete images when you can upload new versions of them for an article based on the fair use rule? SubelG (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @SubelG Wikipedia articles can have fair use in accordance with each Wikipedia's policy. But this is Wikimedia Commons, and fair use is not allowed here. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- But other articles on Wikipedia also have a lot of different images that are protected by copyright, such as album covers. Why aren't they removed SubelG (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- @SubelG: Because they're probably copyrighted to the band or record label. See Commons:Licensing. Belbury (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Dubious dating of the photograph and unknown authorship. There is no evidence that the photograph was made public before November 7, 1917, which is necessary for the application of the PD-Rus-Empire license. The first known publication in the 24th volume of the "Great Medical Encyclopedia" 3rd edition, in 1985. Without information about the author or previous publications, the photo may be under copyright in Russia until 2056. Yellow Horror (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a French stamp designed by Raoul Serres (1881-1971), so French law should be used. Yann (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as per this discussion. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stamp of Algeria - 1955 - Colnect 211617 - Industry - Agriculture - and Rotary International Emblem.jpeg
[edit]Derivative work of a French stamp designed by Raoul Serres (1881-1971), so French law should be used. See [1] for an enlarged version. Yann (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as per this discussion. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a French stamp designed by Jean Pheulpin (1907-1991), so French law should be used. See [2] for an enlarged version. Yann (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as per this discussion. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stamp of Algeria - 1958 - Colnect 211646 - Distribution motorisée motor distribution.jpeg
[edit]Derivative work of a French stamp designed by Pierre Gandon (1899-1990), so French law should be used. See [3] for an enlarged version. Yann (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn, as per this discussion. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Иной автор Ил Т (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR Singapore Ox1997cow (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:De minimis. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR Poland, copyrighted banknotes. Ox1997cow (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Mongolia 2A02:A31A:C33F:2E80:A071:C4E7:6243:E452 09:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, copyright violation as there is no freedom of panorama in Mongolia. The sculpture is from 1984 and authored by artist S. Dorjpalam. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for 3D artworks. Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Peter Pop en Argentina
[edit]Image published in Argentina in 1993. It is in the PD there, but not in the United States (at least 70 years protection). The source uses CC-BY-NC-SA license [4] that is incompatible with Commons.
- File:Peter Pop en Argentina (textless).png
- File:Peter Pop en Argentina.png
- File:Michael Jackson performing in Buenos Aires (October 1993).png
Günther Frager (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
No sense UltimoGrimm (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. It appears to be an empty file. COM:CSD#F7? Marbletan (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope Trade (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete oh sweet my favorite game, The Gaitted Thaud! (Out of scope) Dronebogus (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete, yep, really low-quality. Sorry for uploading it, and I honestly didn’t even remembered it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Dinner Party
[edit]These are photos of The Dinner Party, an artwork installation by Judy Chicago (1939–). This makes them derived works which require a permission by the artist. Unfortunately no permission is documented for these photographs.
- File:Photo of a patron taking a photo of Judy Chicago's "Virginia Woolf".jpg
- File:The dinner party Judy Chicago.jpg
AFBorchert (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:The Dinner Party
[edit]Artist is still alive, not freedom of panorama in the museum, no permission. Commons has the permission for two images of low quality of this artwork with a permission that state as cause for the low quality: "our desire to prevent unwanted duplication". So it is very clear, that these images are not alowed.
- File:Sojourner Truth Dinner Party.jpg
- File:The Dinner Party.jpg
- File:Virginia Woolf Dinner Party.jpg
Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do not delete the whole category - there is permission for one image.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judy_Chicago_The_Dinner_Party.jpg
- Qwertzu111111 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- As I wrote: "Commons has the permission for two images of low quality of this artwork with a permission". Not for one, for two. And so I only requested the deletion of the other images. Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work Trade (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete obvious Dronebogus (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure with opaque (white) background, colored atom labels and too much whitespace (margins). Replaced by File:4-Hydroxybutanoate-ion-2D-skeletal.svg as high-quality vector version drawn according to MOS. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete like in similar situations. Wostr (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow Sun
[edit]Images are from official site - https://moscow-sun.ru/ - and are copyrighted. (ООО «СОЛНЦЕ МОСКВЫ», © 2021 - 2023 Солнце Москвы).
- File:Вид на Останкинскую башню.jpg
- File:Кабина с прозрачным полом "Солнце Москвы".jpg
- File:Колесо обозрения «Солнце Москвы».jpg
- File:МФК «Солнце Москвы» и колесо обозрения.jpg
- File:Свадьба на «Солнце Москвы».jpg
Brateevsky {talk} 17:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Source states: Copyright © 2023 All rights reserved. Office of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. Koshi Province, Nepal.
- File:Rt. Hon. Chief Minister Uddhav Thapa cropped.jpg
- File:Rt. Hon. Chief Minister Uddhav Thapa (cropped).jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this an own work? 186.175.55.88 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely. Yann (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The source states license is CC-BY-NC-ND, see "Condiciones de reproducción"
- File:0089 82fpct - Liberacion de presos políticos.jpg
- File:0080 2afpct 0 - Liberación de los últimos presos del Penal de Libertad.jpg
- File:0041 13fpct 0 - Wilson Ferreira Aldunate detenido en el puerto de Montevideo.jpg
- File:0030 20fpct - caravana de bienvenida a Los Olimareños.jpg
- File:0005 24afpct 0´- Liber Seregni y Lilí Lerena saludando en el balcón.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
All images are related to politicians from Uruguay. Some images are dubious "own work" (taken in the 1970s), others doesn't provide a link to the source, other are from official sites but their T&C doesn't allow comercial use or derivative works [5], others are from cites where I couldn't find the licensing of the content. Note that I already flagged several copyvios from this user.
- File:Juan M Bordaberry.png
- File:OscarGestido.jpg
- File:AlbertoVolonté.png
- File:LacalleDeHerrera.png
- File:JuanPabloTerra.jpg
- File:Juan José Crottogini.jpg
- File:JuanVicenteChiarino.png
- File:HectorGutierrezRuiz.png
- File:AlbertoAbdala.png
- File:RobertBouvier.jpg
- File:DidierOpertti.jpg
- File:EnriqueTarigo.jpg
- File:AlbertoGuani.jpg
- File:FernandoMattos.jpg
- File:Amílcar Vasconcellos.png
- File:Hugo Batalla.jpg
- File:Juan José Zorrilla.jpg
- File:Martineztrueba.jpg
- File:TabareViera.jpg
- File:PabloLanzAdib.jpg
- File:LuisBernardoPozzolo.jpg
- File:Adrian Peña.jpg
- File:Zelman Michellini.png
- File:Ope Pasquet.jpg
- File:ConradoRodríguez.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry if some of the source are not well written. But many of these pictures (Martinez Trueba, Herrera y Obes, etc.) are part from the public library of Uruguay. Maxox25 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The National Library has as footer "Todos los derechos reservados". That means that unless there is a explicit free license we cannot host them. You can point out the images that do actually have a free licence so we can double check them. Günther Frager (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Not own works: screenshots, files taken from various sites and authors. Some out of scope.
- File:BALKAN GAPLAŇ.jpg
- File:Opyş Gaplaň.jpg
- File:Famous Kaka Alaman.jpg
- File:Kaka Alaman seýisi bilen.jpg
- File:Türkmenbaşy halkara deňiz porty.png
- File:Turkmeniň göz guwanjy.png
- File:Ýolbars Tur.jpg
- File:Akella 3-njiň ogly.jpg
- File:Bürgit.jpg
- File:Jeýhun.png
- File:Darbazan.jpg
- File:Bagyr Albert.jpg
- File:Kaka Alaman.jpg
Юрий Д.К 22:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of Poland (1995 - )
[edit]Per COM:CUR Poland, copyrighted banknotes.
- File:20 Złotych (2O16) - Rückseite.jpg
- File:20 Złoytch (2016) - Vorderseite.jpg
- File:2022 granica 20zl R.jpg
- File:20zl-ochrona-granicy-banknot-tyl-600x308.webp
- File:50 Złotych (2O12) - Rückseite.jpg
- File:50 Złotych (2O12) - Vorderseite.jpg
- File:NBP-100PLNAvers-768x384.jpg
- File:NBP-100PLNRevers-768x384.jpg
- File:NBP-10PLNAwers-768x384.jpg
- File:NBP-10PLNRevers-768x384.jpg
- File:NBP-200PLNAvers-768x376.jpg
- File:NBP-200PLNRevers-768x376.jpg
- File:NBP-500PLNAwers-768x384.jpg
- File:NBP-500PLNRevers-768x384.jpg
- File:Pieniądz 10 zł PLN.JPG
- File:Strona przednia.jpg
Ox1997cow (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Cryptic-waveform as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Last frame has: "(Copyright) SIS - Ville de Genêve 2014". Not a work by uploader. "Own work" claim from an admin, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was able to locate the source video on YouTube. It's licensed under CC-BY so should be OK to Keep. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 08:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Request for deletion of the old file uploaded by Omdo on 17:41, 16 November 2013 as newer tidied up version of the file has been uploaded. If the old file is still there, then Wiki Commons is unable to preview the new file, which would impair the Wikisource proofreading. Cerevisae (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- File preview problem addressed. Deletion request withdrawn. Cerevisae (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- File preview problem addressed. I decided to withdraw deletion request.Cerevisae (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 08:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by B4531826 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It is stolen. See https://time.com/6240569/ai-childrens-book-alice-and-sparkle-artists-unhappy/ for proof.|source=. Converting to DR to discuss if {{PD-algorithm}} is applicable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus, Ricky81682, Andy Dingley, Yann, Jmabel, 1989, and Kinketu: From previous AI deletion requests --Trade (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment Based on the human author's "making of" video, we can see that no specific existing artwork is referenced in the prompts. The key difference here is that the prompt engineer was not a Commoner and did not release this under a free license; the question is whether the effort he put in to develop the prompt results in a copyright claim on the final output. This gives me flashbacks of the "monkey selfie" case all over again; the primary author is ineligible to hold copyright for creating a work that is clearly complex enough to be copyrighted if it were by a human author (i.e. it is PD-ineligible not because of the inherent properties of the image, but because of the identity of the author), but the secondary author and contributor could be plausibly argued to hold some rights to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)- Comment I don't have much relevant expertise on the legalities here, except to say that it is certainly a well-established principle in copyright law that if you base an image in significant measure on a copyrighted image that you have seen, then even if you are not doing so consciously, you are creating a derivative work. I would imagine that this does not change at all if "you" are an AI rather than a human. On the other hand, as the joke goes, steal from one source and it's plagiarism, steal from a dozen sources and it's research. The question would be whether, in practice, the AI leaned heavily on some small number of images (or one some small number of illustrators' images) in its training data. This is going to be even more of a mess than lawsuits over musical plagiarism, including unconscious musical plagiarism, by humans. And when you consider that cases have been successfully brought over someone just using a recording of a distinctive "whoop" from someone else's record…"
- This will certainly hit the courts, and who knows what the outcomes will be. And if the courts say "no copyright violation" in this sort of case, Commons is going to have to set policies over what we do and don't want, and that will be contentious as all hell. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Would it be terrible for me to say it's not being used so delete it as just spam? That's a terrible answer but it's a way to skate on the issue. Is the book itself notable / does this image have an encyclopedic purpose? It seems as though the notability is entirely from the AI art aspect but I won't get into that. The question is whether the ownership goes to the AI (which has no ability to create a copyright) or to the human for coming up with the prompts or the human being the design. Either way, it hasn't been settled. As of now, we have not let all the AI-generated artwork skate on "it's not copyrightable" but instead have demanded evidence from the human creators so I would say we need evidence of permission until we have a resolution that AI-generated per se is ineligible for copyright. I would rather Commons be cautious and assume the creator has to give permission and then later go monkey selfie and fight everyone rather than Commons be a host of all sort of AI art against the human creators and later go on a destruction spree. It would make Commons look like a free-for-all rather than someone more restrictive than even English Wikipedia because of our non-free-use policies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, we have plenty of images where the people have given permission so I'd rather be consistent on that than go whole-hog into "we don't care, we have the right to post it because monkey selfie reasons." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- And yet Commons kept the monkey selfie, despite the harm that did to the photographer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine if Commons makes that determination but the monkey selfie required a lot of specifics. Here, my concern isn't DW (Infrogmation's concern, we can wait on a lawsuit clarifying that) but about the wholesale "it's public domain" argument which is a new one so my request is still for evidence of permission from the book author. We don't have that yet and if we go for "it's all public domain," there is going to be a huge incentive to claim that everything is made is 100% AI so that anyone can upload anything. Did the author tell the AI "make a title page" or just to make the characters? It really is a black box and I don't think asking for the author's permission is so demanding. If the DW concern is found later, we will still end up going back to the creator (either of the AI or the piece) to get details. Saying "it's AI and thus public domain even if no one tells us how it was created" is a really bad structure going forward. It becomes a game of people guessing that what they uploaded was AI and us having zero way to dispute it. It flips Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle on its head. This is also weird when we ask that people who upload AI art give us their prompts but the second you admit it was from an algorithm (what portion isn't settled), it's public domain and thus you have no rights. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- And yet Commons kept the monkey selfie, despite the harm that did to the photographer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- We ask people who upload AI art give us their prompts? Not sure if that's a common occurence Trade (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any coherent rationale for deleting it. "It is stolen" is certainly not one, even if it then references a magazine article saying anything but (and of course, "stolen" is the wrong term).
- As to scope, then its role in the book publication is one aspect of the story of accessible AI being used for real applications, so it passes SCOPE just for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Andy Dingley. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare for a discussion of how AI actually works; it seems to be poorly understood.
- I thought this file was so obviously in scope that there was no need to comment on it: a notable magazine dedicated an entire article to this subject! Apparently I was wrong. Brianjd (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep The argument is that the AI was trained using many copyrighted images and therefore that this image is derivative of all of those used to train the AI. I think that argument fails. It is well established that if I take a single image of someone and draw a copy of it, that my copy infringes on the image I used. However, if I have seen hundreds of images of a public person, never having seem them in person, and draw an image of them, my image does not infringe on any of the images I have seen. I think the same applies here -- unless it can be shown that Alice or Sparkle clearly resembles a copyrighted character, then this is {{PD-algorithm}}. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Created with "Midjourney" program; there appear to be multiple lawsuits pending alleging that Midjourney was fed non-PD source images, and thus is COM:DW of copyrighted material (eg Class Action Getty Vice etc). Stating that this is PD does not at present seem to be settled law. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think we will have to have a broader discussion on COM:VPC to form an internal policy on this, even if we don't have case law. What we don't want is people making the same arguments over and over again, and images ending up being kept or deleted simply due to sampling error of the participants and/or the whims of the closing admin. So far it seems we have a significant majority believing that AI generation is OK in general, and near-unanimous consensus that COM:FANART with a specific named character in the prompt is not OK. Possible points of contention include: 1) Does the specific model matter, i.e. are there any models we want to ban for being particularly egregious in how they are trained while others are OK? 2) Does the human creator of the prompt hold any rights to the image? 3) What if the prompt names a specific artist and asks to emulate their style, but does not name any specific work of theirs? etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding 2 it's probably better to wait for the class action against Stable Diffusion and Midjourney to be solved before starting a purge Trade (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think the class action is related to 2; Getty Images is not the one generating images based on prompts. The class action would affect 1, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you go for pure "it's 100% public domain if it's by an AI", it's going to be hard to demand the prompts when people (rightfully) say "I found this AI art on the internet, it's AI therefore it's public domain, I don't know how it was made." We are then requiring someone to say "here, I used this prompts which gave me originally this artwork and I transformed it this way so the piece you claim is 100% is actually not," and have flipped our entire system. I think we need to make a presumption that work is not AI absent clear evidence that it is 100% AI. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding 2 it's probably better to wait for the class action against Stable Diffusion and Midjourney to be solved before starting a purge Trade (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think we will have to have a broader discussion on COM:VPC to form an internal policy on this, even if we don't have case law. What we don't want is people making the same arguments over and over again, and images ending up being kept or deleted simply due to sampling error of the participants and/or the whims of the closing admin. So far it seems we have a significant majority believing that AI generation is OK in general, and near-unanimous consensus that COM:FANART with a specific named character in the prompt is not OK. Possible points of contention include: 1) Does the specific model matter, i.e. are there any models we want to ban for being particularly egregious in how they are trained while others are OK? 2) Does the human creator of the prompt hold any rights to the image? 3) What if the prompt names a specific artist and asks to emulate their style, but does not name any specific work of theirs? etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Delete: In Ammaar Reishi's third tweet about the creation process [6] they claim to have spent "a few hours" on prompt engineering.That is a significant amount of creative input from a human author. Therefore we need to assume that {{PD-algorithm}} does not apply.TilmannR (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I changed my decision in response to the recent letter from the US Copyright Office in the "Zarya of the Dawn" case. TilmannR (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Never rely on Twitter! Luckily, that page (showing a series of tweets) is in the Wayback Machine. Brianjd (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: Sweat of the brow is not a valid legal principle in the U.S. (which is where this was created). It doesn't matter how much time went into the creation of the prompt. What matters is whether any of the actual image is an original creation of a human, which in this case, the answer is "no". Nosferattus (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: That's an interesting perspective. The term "sweat of the brow" implies doing work without substantial creativity or originality. I argue that prompt engineering is a creative process, since it is an iterative refinement, guided by the taste and creative vision of the human author. TilmannR (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: If the prompt does in fact entail substantial creativity, Ammaar Reishi would probably be entitled to a copyright on the prompt. But the prompt is not the image. If an art teacher created a detailed creative prompt for their art class, would you argue that they are entitled to copyright over the works of their students? What if it was a process of iterative refinement, guided by the taste and creative vision of the teacher? Nosferattus (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- We don't know what the prompts were. I highly doubt the prompt included "make it a cover page that is titled 'Alice and Sparkle'". He at the very least plastered the text at the top because I doubt any program put his name on their image but maybe he did prompt it to "make a cover page for the book 'Alice and Sparkle' that is by me you AI slave" but it is a black box. That may be enough for me to say this isn't '100%' AI-generated and it's technically a DW from an AI-generated image (public domains isn't copyleft) which requires his permission. Find the original image of the two characters standing alone and then you can argue it was purely AI generated but there was a small bit of work done here and it's enough for me to say leave it a non-free image that English and whatever other project allow for free-use can use rather than it being used solely on Wikidata for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: If the image itself is not copyrightable, then the image with simple text is also not copyrightable per COM:TOO USA. TilmannR (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: If a teacher tells a student to make specific brush strokes without allowing them any creative choices, then the student did mere "sweat of the brow" work and the copyright belongs to the teacher. If the teacher gives the student a detailed description of a copyrighted character, then the copyright of the resulting work (at least partially) belongs to the owner of the character. All in all I'm not a fan of the art student analogy, because it involves a second human author, which adds legal implications that do not exist in the case of a generative model.
- I prefer the camera analogy:
- A photographer chooses a relatively small number of parameters (primarily the location and orientation of the camera and the time when the picture is taken) and photographs are typically considered copyrightable.
- The user of a diffusion model chooses a couple of parameters (primarily the specific model to use, the prompt and the initial noise) and if we apply existing laws and court decisions consistently, then computer-generated images are obviously copyrightable, when the human input is at least as creative as pointing a camera at something and pressing the shutter button.
- TilmannR (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Deja vu. I think we may have already had this exact argument :) Anyway, you make some good points. I think the AI case falls somewhere in between the student/teacher analogy and the camera/photographer analogy, as it clearly has less creativity than a student, but more creativity than a camera. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree for the time being (until some court weighs in on it). Nosferattus (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- We don't know what the prompts were. I highly doubt the prompt included "make it a cover page that is titled 'Alice and Sparkle'". He at the very least plastered the text at the top because I doubt any program put his name on their image but maybe he did prompt it to "make a cover page for the book 'Alice and Sparkle' that is by me you AI slave" but it is a black box. That may be enough for me to say this isn't '100%' AI-generated and it's technically a DW from an AI-generated image (public domains isn't copyleft) which requires his permission. Find the original image of the two characters standing alone and then you can argue it was purely AI generated but there was a small bit of work done here and it's enough for me to say leave it a non-free image that English and whatever other project allow for free-use can use rather than it being used solely on Wikidata for some reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: If the prompt does in fact entail substantial creativity, Ammaar Reishi would probably be entitled to a copyright on the prompt. But the prompt is not the image. If an art teacher created a detailed creative prompt for their art class, would you argue that they are entitled to copyright over the works of their students? What if it was a process of iterative refinement, guided by the taste and creative vision of the teacher? Nosferattus (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: That's an interesting perspective. The term "sweat of the brow" implies doing work without substantial creativity or originality. I argue that prompt engineering is a creative process, since it is an iterative refinement, guided by the taste and creative vision of the human author. TilmannR (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TilmannR: Sweat of the brow is not a valid legal principle in the U.S. (which is where this was created). It doesn't matter how much time went into the creation of the prompt. What matters is whether any of the actual image is an original creation of a human, which in this case, the answer is "no". Nosferattus (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Never rely on Twitter! Luckily, that page (showing a series of tweets) is in the Wayback Machine. Brianjd (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The US Copyright office has stated (1, 2) that AI-created artwork categorically cannot be copyrighted. It doesn't matter if effort was put into "prompt engineering", it was still created by a non-human. I think that a good analogy for spending hours on making prompts for an AI would be spending hours training a monkey to take photographs; sure, a human might have put a lot of effort into it, but the final result is still not made by a human and is still ineligible for copyright protection. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Di (they-them): The US Copyright Office has consistently refused to register works, which were solely created by AI. The first link (Entrance to Paradise) is such a case. The second link (Zarya of the Dawn) is about a comic that as far as I can tell is currently protected by copyright (USCO record), although the registration may be revoked, if the author fails "to show that there was substantial human involvement". Unfortunately “[i]t is standard practice for the Copyright Office to decline to comment on specific registration applications.” (article on IPWatchdog) I do not know when and how we will receive information about the outcome of this case.
- Please be more careful, when using news sites as a source: The Indiatimes article is based on a CBR article, which has a note with "the outcome of the proceeding is not yet finalized" at the top. And CBR's source AIBusiness has a note with "the outcome is not yet final" at the top. TilmannR (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, they didn't say that at all.
- Use of AI to create an image does not (under US law) create a new copyright. But nor does it remove any copyright that was already existing (and admittedly, this is a grey area). If I ask an AI system to generate a copy of an existing and copyrighted work, with some minor variation (even just "the same characters doing something else"), that's still a derivative work of someone else's copyright, and needs to be judged on that basis.
- Also the world is still larger than the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Since Wikimedia is in the US and the author of this image is in the US (according to their Twitter profile), it's perfectly fine for us to focus on the US in this particular DR. TilmannR (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- But be aware (because Commons keeps forgetting this) that a DR on that basis does not set any general precedent for other (non-US) deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- My !vote would be to just ignore source country altogether for AI images and follow US law only, like we do for COM:PD-Art. I think the reason for requiring an image to be free in its source country is that it intuitively "belongs" to that country and it's the most important country for it to be free in. So for old artworks, for example, we do care what country the work itself is from, but not where it was digitized. However, AI art is almost all published online to an international audience, sometimes by an anonymous Internet user from anywhere in the world, making it have much weaker ties to any particular country than most other images. Try identifying the source country of this: An artwork generated by an AI model, developed by an American company, on that company's European servers in Ireland, prompted by a Brazilian living in the UK uploaded to Wikimedia's Dutch servers while on holiday in France. (But like the case of PD-Art, source country still applies to COM:DW concerns, so for example an American cannot ask DALL-E 2 to produce an image of the Tour Montparnasse and upload it to Commons.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- But be aware (because Commons keeps forgetting this) that a DR on that basis does not set any general precedent for other (non-US) deletions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley: Since Wikimedia is in the US and the author of this image is in the US (according to their Twitter profile), it's perfectly fine for us to focus on the US in this particular DR. TilmannR (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No human authorship means no copyright. Prompt authorship is not image authorship. And since no specific existing artwork was referenced in the prompt, it is unlikely that it is the derivative of another specific work. (Regardless, the burden of proof concerning being a derivative should fall on the people asking for deletion, not the other way around.) Nosferattus (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- This seems like an complete flip of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. No precautions unless I can find the specific artwork it came from and the uploader never has to tell me how it was created which would actually make it possible for me to figure out? Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well said, agree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682 and Infrogmation: The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not vague assumptions. Artistic style is not copyrightable[7][8][9], so unless there is evidence that the work is similar to a specific source work, there is no reason to have significant doubt about its copyright status. AI models don't work by stitching together pieces of training images, they work by understanding (statistically at least) what sort of images correspond with specific words and phrases and building an original image based on a randomly generated seed (a field of noise) and successive refinement using that statistical model and a certain degree of randomness (sometimes called "choas" if it's an input parameter). Nosferattus (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the precautionary principle requires "significant doubt" - most importantly that the media is free licensed. Look at responses here and you will see that there is significant doubt for multiple reasons. It seems to me that those rushing to the assumption "Hey, it's AI, so it must be PD" are abandoning the precautionary principle in favor of what they think copyright law ought to be, rather than current settled law. Copyright laws can be convoluted and for those who have researched them sometimes frustrating, but Wikimedia Commons standard has always been to obey them. It is not the role of Commons to rush ahead and make presumptions about what the law should eventually be. As noted above, there are multiple cases currently in court regarding the issue - so the assumption that AI is automatically PD is not at this time settled law. Commons precautionary principle IMO seems clearly on the side of deletion - if in a year or so law has established the presumption to legally be correct, relevant media can be undeleted at that time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- What would you suggest then? That all AI-generated images be deleted as copyright violations? Nosferattus (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd suggest handling them similarly to how we do everything else: Needs to be established as free licensed, no counter claims to the contrary, and not derivative work of something in copyright. As with anything else, yes, if these conditions can't be met, it should not be on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- What would you suggest then? That all AI-generated images be deleted as copyright violations? Nosferattus (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- It does but Commons:Project scope/Evidence requires that the uploader provide the evidence and there are many concerns of significant doubt. You are saying we should trust that the specific image was created in the way certain AI models works when we don't actually know how the particular AI model works and what it was trained on. We already have enough chaos when it isn't even clear that the image was created by an AI like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IAskWhatIsTrue and more when it gets into a dispute like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singapore influencer first Twitch streaming images.jpg and it is a guess whether this looks enough like the left image here since the angle is different or it is entirely a composite image because that an AI model works a certain way. "I drew it" is more than enough for artwork but "I used this AI and these prompts" is too high a demand for something that won't be re-created exactly the same way because it has randomness built into it. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the precautionary principle requires "significant doubt" - most importantly that the media is free licensed. Look at responses here and you will see that there is significant doubt for multiple reasons. It seems to me that those rushing to the assumption "Hey, it's AI, so it must be PD" are abandoning the precautionary principle in favor of what they think copyright law ought to be, rather than current settled law. Copyright laws can be convoluted and for those who have researched them sometimes frustrating, but Wikimedia Commons standard has always been to obey them. It is not the role of Commons to rush ahead and make presumptions about what the law should eventually be. As noted above, there are multiple cases currently in court regarding the issue - so the assumption that AI is automatically PD is not at this time settled law. Commons precautionary principle IMO seems clearly on the side of deletion - if in a year or so law has established the presumption to legally be correct, relevant media can be undeleted at that time. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682 and Infrogmation: The precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not vague assumptions. Artistic style is not copyrightable[7][8][9], so unless there is evidence that the work is similar to a specific source work, there is no reason to have significant doubt about its copyright status. AI models don't work by stitching together pieces of training images, they work by understanding (statistically at least) what sort of images correspond with specific words and phrases and building an original image based on a randomly generated seed (a field of noise) and successive refinement using that statistical model and a certain degree of randomness (sometimes called "choas" if it's an input parameter). Nosferattus (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well said, agree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- This seems like an complete flip of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. No precautions unless I can find the specific artwork it came from and the uploader never has to tell me how it was created which would actually make it possible for me to figure out? Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Midjourney has very specific terms of use which either don't allow commercial use (if you created the artwork for free) or grant all the ownership rights to a specific user (with paid membership). Meaning that the work is not free, unless its owner has explicitly stated it is.--Piramidion (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Midjourney's copyright claims are no more enforceable than the NPG's copyright claims on its photographic reproductions of old paintings. Someone who creates an image using Midjourney and uses it commercially may be breaking the ToU, but that's just a house rule that we can ignore; Midjourney may be able to sue said user of its site, but subsequent reusers have no legal risk from Midjourney since they never agreed to any ToU and Midjourney does not and cannot hold copyright to those images in the United States. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In this Web Site they say they asked the copyright question to ChatGPT... and ChatGPT gave an answer.... Personaly I see a kind of parallel with the "definition" concept as we have in Commons:Coats of arms: “Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such”. So at first vew the instructions given by the user should not be eligible for copyright protection. That being said, I'm neutral. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. I have always maintained that Midjourney has no rights to this image (seeing them as no more than the breeder of a monkey who takes a selfie), and while I was ambivalent on whether the human user had rights, your comment pushes me a little further in the direction of saying it's OK on that front, though I'm not willing to commit to a definitive answer either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is hard to believe that ChatGPT can have an innate knowledge of the visual representations of what you will ask, so it have to search and analyse somewhere. One of the question can therefore also be about the analysed material. E.g. if you ask the image of a little girl ChatGPT have to search somewhere what are exactly the characteristics of the images of a little girl, and it is likely that ChatGPT make kind of analyzes of existing images of little girls. But what are thoses images? who owns them? in what extent the result given that ChatGPT is similar to the analysed models? Also did ChatGPT uses existing images that are subsequently modified by ChatGPT? It's hard to have a point of view without being a specialist in how this kind of AI works to generate the images, I can only speculate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- To me at least, COM:PCP does not mean that we cannot use "no one can sue" as an argument for keeping an image. Rather, PCP means that we shouldn't throw around the words "no one" in that phrase when we don't really mean it; in most cases, it's not no one, but rather some random person that we don't know, who very much has a vested copyright interest in the image. But if we have a strong argument that literally no one can sue, then the image can be kept. For AI models, it depends on our confidence that they do not infringe on copyrighted works when given generic prompts; personally I am quite confident there as I haven't seen examples to the contrary except when prompts make reference to specific copyrighted entities or are specifically engineered to produce anomalous results. (One area we might want to focus on is the regulation of prompts, though of course if there's something obvious in the final image then that takes precedence.) That's also why I'm in favor of accepting bystander selfies where the shutter-presser literally has no way of proving they took the photo and has shown clear intent to abandon all relation to the photo: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/04#Permission for own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The main purpose and scope of our project is to be media file repository "...but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose.", one of the implicit purposes, or even one of the consequences of this scope is that re-users tend to trust us on the material stored here as well as on the the licenses we apply. If someone use the content stored here it is a pity this person becomes embroiled in a lawsuit for copyright issue. COM:PCP is a principle to help to fight that, it is not a thing invented to delete the maximum possible of files. But our project scope is neither not to surf to the limit to be able to have as much content as possible. Here I am still neutral, I won't be the one to say "go ahead guys use this kind of images as you wish, I guarantee you will never have any problems". I don't have enough copyright and AI knowledge to say that kind of thing to the potential re-users of Wikimedia Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- To me at least, COM:PCP does not mean that we cannot use "no one can sue" as an argument for keeping an image. Rather, PCP means that we shouldn't throw around the words "no one" in that phrase when we don't really mean it; in most cases, it's not no one, but rather some random person that we don't know, who very much has a vested copyright interest in the image. But if we have a strong argument that literally no one can sue, then the image can be kept. For AI models, it depends on our confidence that they do not infringe on copyrighted works when given generic prompts; personally I am quite confident there as I haven't seen examples to the contrary except when prompts make reference to specific copyrighted entities or are specifically engineered to produce anomalous results. (One area we might want to focus on is the regulation of prompts, though of course if there's something obvious in the final image then that takes precedence.) That's also why I'm in favor of accepting bystander selfies where the shutter-presser literally has no way of proving they took the photo and has shown clear intent to abandon all relation to the photo: Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/04#Permission for own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is hard to believe that ChatGPT can have an innate knowledge of the visual representations of what you will ask, so it have to search and analyse somewhere. One of the question can therefore also be about the analysed material. E.g. if you ask the image of a little girl ChatGPT have to search somewhere what are exactly the characteristics of the images of a little girl, and it is likely that ChatGPT make kind of analyzes of existing images of little girls. But what are thoses images? who owns them? in what extent the result given that ChatGPT is similar to the analysed models? Also did ChatGPT uses existing images that are subsequently modified by ChatGPT? It's hard to have a point of view without being a specialist in how this kind of AI works to generate the images, I can only speculate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting. I have always maintained that Midjourney has no rights to this image (seeing them as no more than the breeder of a monkey who takes a selfie), and while I was ambivalent on whether the human user had rights, your comment pushes me a little further in the direction of saying it's OK on that front, though I'm not willing to commit to a definitive answer either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment As of February 24 2023, Zarya of the Dawn's images are no longer protected by copyright on the grounds that they are not created by a human. Since Alice and Sparkle is created using the exact same program, I think it's fair to say that it is not copyrightable either. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I was about to link as well. Original copyright office decision (PDF); The Hill article about it. This apparently resolves the issue of copyrightability if in the United States (may not apply in other countries). It probably does not resolve if there is any COM:DW issues. It might or might not resolve issues around proprietary software used; I don't know. I request we get Wiki Legal involved for guidelines. I notice the issue has already been mentioned at Commons:Product and technical support for Commons_2022-23/WikiLegal for Commons -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am now prepared to say Keep on account of the Copyright Office ruling that the human author of a prompt is not eligible for copyright protection on the output of the prompt, which was the only grey area in my mind. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am now prepared to say
Kept: Current state of the discussion (also per Commons:AI-generated media as it currently stands) seems to be that - despite Midjourney's copyright claims - neither the prompt creator nor the AI provider can claim a copyright on AI-generated art and {{PD-algorithm}} applies, except if it can be shown that it is a derivative work of a specific existing artwork - or maybe even of an artist's style, but neither has been shown here. This image is also in scope, as the AI-created book apparently "sparked controversy" (nice pun) and is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article en:Alice and Sparkle where the cover image is in use (COM:INUSE). --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
This file has human-created graphic design in the title and credit that would be considered copyrighted when it was created, so this cannot be considered to be in the public domain as a work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence. The previous deletion discussion only addressed the image from Midjourney, not the human contributions of graphic design. Elspea756 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Pinging previous participants @King of Hearts, Jmabel, Ricky81682, Andy Dingley, Gestumblindi, Brianjd, Jameslwoodward, Infrogmation, TilmannR, Nosferattus, Di (they-them), Piramidion, and Christian Ferrer: --Trade (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The title is very clearly below the American threshold of originality. See Template:PD-text and Template:PD-textlogo. To claim that the title and author credit alone are copyrightable is ridiculous. Facts, data, and unoriginal information (such as a title and author) are not copyrightable, and the text itself is an extremely basic and simple font. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- The "human-created graphic design" is obviously {{PD-text}}, as it is only consists of the (purported) author and title in a standard typeface, none of which is copyrightable. I would suggest Speedy keep as this deletion request seems quite baseless to me. We have countless simple book titles as PD-text on Commons, and the AI image was already discussed, so I think there's not much to discuss here. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: The previous discussion was prior to the March 26, 2023, US Copyright Office's release of "Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence," which says that in some "cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that 'the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'" Elspea756 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that this changes anything in this case. It's a Midjourney-generated image combined with non-copyrightable credits text, nothing particularly creative about it. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not saying it's the highest creativity I've ever seen, just that it looks to me like there could be a plausible copyright claim that's worth discussing in light of newer guidance. Myself, I'd rather err on the side of using any of the more obviously public domain images, where the Midjourney image is just by itself. Elspea756 (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that this changes anything in this case. It's a Midjourney-generated image combined with non-copyrightable credits text, nothing particularly creative about it. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep While it's true that human graphic design is typically protected by copyright, in this case the title and author text are clearly below the threshold of originality. Nosferattus (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per TOO and Commons rules, though I personally would still rather nuke nearly all AI images to oblivion, and feel doubly so where we have not been provided with full information about the prompts used. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Gestumblindi and as per previous DR.
- We agreed to keep the image last time. I see no change to any of the arguments on that basis. The new claim of "human-created graphic design in the title and credit" is particularly fatuous. It would be hard to claim "graphic design" here (in the sense that UK copyright law makes a point of over some FoP issues) because the "design" work is absolutely trivial computer typesetting. There has been no human "graphic design" involved in its creation other than feeding the bare text string to a printer or font renderer engine. The nominator might also do well to learn just how little copyright protects metadata such as author or title.
- As to the issue of recent guidance from the US Copyright Office, then that changes nothing here. Yes some AI cases might contain copyrightable human input. There have been a series of cases on Commons where a human artist appears to be using AI as an initial generator and then extensively reworks them manually. For those cases, that could well apply. But in this case? Some of the point of how these images came to be is about how much AI was used and how little human intervention was thus needed in producing the book illustrations. No case has been attempted that the illustrations here have involved such appreciable effort, and the captioning certainly isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author died in 1958, so not PMA+70 until 2029.
1947 photograph so Undelete in 2043. Converting to DR for easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:UK#Known author (Walter Stoneman). ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The bust installed in Romania where freedom of panorama does not allow comercial use, and thus we cannot host them. I have not look up who was the artist, but Hermann Oberth died in 1989 and this sculpture was made likely afterwards. Günther Frager (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. The essential information seems to be found here:
- http://www.razvanpop.ro/2012/03/04/istoria-ora%C8%99ului-nostru-sibiu-15/ (which, by the way, includes a photo of the sculpture)
- Statuia a fost amplasată în octombrie 2001, sculptată fiind de Ioan Cândea
- my attempt at an English translation: The statue was erected in October 2001, having been sculpted by Ioan Cândea
- I uploaded the picture back in 2005 when I knew little about FoP in Romania; I am much more careful now. – Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Statue of Tamasi Aron by János Szabó (1952-2018) installed in Romania where freedom of panorama doesn't allow comercial use, and therefore we cannot host these images.
- File:Bustul lui Áron Tamási (1).jpg
- File:Bustul lui Áron Tamási (2).jpg
- File:Bustul lui Áron Tamási (3).jpg
- File:RO HR Odorheiu Secuiesc Tamasi Aron statue.jpg
- File:Tamási Áron bust Székelyudvarhely.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The statue was installed in Mendoza Argentina in 2014 (see the inauguration video). There is no freedom of panorama for non-architectural works in Argentina. Günther Frager (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gsbubu&hl=tr&re=df&st=1692480397101&p=AUM6UZDiPudnr_eWewX4f3cZQ-gyLM3TeRlkwZYaspisAjR-52lcayt6J0LABVT8abFrfwpnr4sGwkDhVR-HbpiB2e0JBuGidy7dXxhQzmixyYfutYldQ4Bnul4pB__IkLchx8qfS1JVGoFL48w9QwtsjEDu2BCd8vkkemMohAtLaonO67jdXcdG8vp-5Zt-tfopsvjfNRELl6RhyRr1UX-l#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKRFkyTVRJNE1HSmhMVFZqWldFdE5HUmhOQzFoTURneUxXRTRabU0wWWpRMVl6aGtPQklmUVRSVGFGRlZWVEpuVmpSWmIwUk1aa3hPVEZCZlpVNWhja0ppTjI5Q1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLDEyLFtdXV0= Zafer (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Can be restored if an appropriate email is sent to COM:VRT. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
unknown author, but released under a free license Polarlys (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Even if the author is unknown, it was taken around 1965 (if we trust the info provided), so it is not even PD. Günther Frager (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lieber Herr Frager
- Das Foto habe ich von Sabine Schmaling-Weischedel bekommen, der Tochter des Philosophen. Sie hat mich gebeten, das Foto ihres Vaters hochzuladen.
- Emil Zopfi Bergliteratur (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Permission? 186.175.110.105 23:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio of a historic government logo, I think the licensing info is inaccurate. Fork99 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio of a historic government logo, I think the licensing info is inaccurate. Fork99 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio of a historic government logo, I think the licensing info is inaccurate. Fork99 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Suspected copyvio of a historic government logo, I think the licensing info is inaccurate. Fork99 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"Noticias Magazine"
[edit]Images from Noticias, an Argentine magazine, published in the 1990s. They are PD in Argentina, but they are still protected by copyright in the United States.
Günther Frager (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/"Viva magazine"
[edit]Images from Viva, an Argentine magazine, published during the 1990s. The photos are currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but they are not in the United States (70 years pma).
- File:Serrat revista viva 1994.jpg
- File:Viva andreadelboca.jpg
- File:Maradona revista viva.jpg
- File:Valeria mazza viva 1994.jpg
- File:Viva araceli gonzalez.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
صوره تم تحمليها بالخطاء أحمد الرائد (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
انا صاحب الصوره واريد الحذف لو تكرمتم وشكرا جزيلا لكم أحمد الرائد (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request 8 days after upload, not in use. --Achim55 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by UltimoGrimm as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://allthatsinteresting.com/franz-stigler-charlie-brown The source lists the photograph as "public domain" but does not state why. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also File:Charlie Brown (pilot).jpg Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- on that site the license is not specified, it doesn't say anywhere that it is PD--UltimoGrimm (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It says public domain in the caption under the photograph. But that's not sufficient for our purposes, we have to know why it's public domain if it is so. Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did not see it--UltimoGrimm (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It says public domain in the caption under the photograph. But that's not sufficient for our purposes, we have to know why it's public domain if it is so. Abzeronow (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- on that site the license is not specified, it doesn't say anywhere that it is PD--UltimoGrimm (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-US-not renewed" is the correct license for the American. "PD-EU-no author disclosure" would cover the German. I made the change. --RAN (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- What about URAA for the German photograph? 1940s photographs were not public domain in Germany on January 1, 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Were confiscated Nazi copyrights and trademarks eventually restored? Merck and Bayer US assets and copyrights and trademarks were confiscated and not returned at the end of the war. Bayer bought copyrights and trademarks from then owner, Sterling Winthrop, in 1994. The patents seized had already expired. --RAN (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete for the photo of Franz Stigler. RAN added here a {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template. The English version of that template has the text: "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 ..." So before one can add that template to a photo at least the following two conditions should have been met
- the photo must have been published before 1953
- in that publication before 1953 the name of the photographer was not mentioned.
- What publication before 1953 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is referring to is unclear. Also unclear is what he ment with confiscated Nazi copyrights. Not every German in 1940s was a nazi, so who knows if the photographer in this case was a nazi? Without clarification I see no convincing argument for a valid free license to keep the photo of Stigler on Commons. For removing or not the photo of Brown I'm neutral. - Robotje (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- During World War II the Office of Alien Property Custodian seized all Nazi Germany "trademarks, copyrights, patents and pending patent applications". You did not have to be a member of the Nazi party to have your assets seized, just be a citizen of Nazi Germany. You are using your vague FUD trick again when you write: "so who knows if the photographer in this case was a nazi?". You can read the legalese at "PD-US-alien property". --RAN (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you have evidence that the Stigler photograph was confiscated, please show it. There were many 1940s German photographs that were not confiscated by the Allies. It is a plausible explanation but something that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, the photos were not confiscated, any legal rights in the United States that would have earned the Nazi regime money in the US were confiscated. Any rights to "trademarks, copyrights, patents" were confiscated, and not the images themselves. The rights were never returned, the rights to Bayer aspirin, for instance, had to be bought back in the 1990s. In 1979 we did something similar with Iran, we froze assets instead of confiscating them. --RAN (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- On your request I did look at the {{PD-US-alien property}}. I see there nothing that the USA confiscated or froze or so all copyrights of all citizens of Nazi Germany. I do read at the English version of that same template "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons." I asked you above for information of a publication before 1953 of that photo without the name of the photographer so it would clear that it is also PD in Germany. So far you did not give that information and therefore I think it is beter to remove the photo of Franz Stigler. - Robotje (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: one, kept the other. You can find these photos on the internet going back to November 2009. Digging a bit deeper, I found that the author of a book about the incident, en:A Higher Call (which features the photos on the dust jacket), received the photos from the men themselves when he interviewed them a few years before the book was published (you can look inside the book at Amazon and see the photo credits). So these are essentially private photos. They might have been taken by official photographers, but we don't know. The American photo is likely not copyrighted because of the nature of US copyright at the time (one would have needed to specifically register the photograph and after 28 years even renew the copyright, which is unlikely to have happened). That did not change later. German copyright legislation changed over time however and even, in 1995, restored copyrights for photographs that had already expired. So the German photograph, taken ca. 1939 to 1945, is most likely still copyrighted unless the photographer died before 1953, which we do not know (so we cannot claim PD-EU-no-author-disclosure because we know nothing about the circumstances of original creation/publication). So I've kept the one showing only Brown (as I could not find a copyright registration or renewal for Charles Lester Brown), but deleted the one showing both. That one can be restored after 120 years, in 2066, with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Painting from Israeli artist Roni Taharlev who is still alive. We need a COM:VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete 604K subscribers on YouTube, but this is not a selfie. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The bust installed in Romania where freedom of panorama does not allow comercial use, and thus we cannot host them. I have not look up who was the artist, but Hermann Oberth died in 1989 and this sculpture was made afterwards.
- File:Hermann oberth statue photo by mark benecke sighisoara new location 2017 IMG 0585.jpg
- File:Hermann oberth statue photo by mark benecke sighisoara new location 2017 IMG 0586.jpg
- File:Hermann Oberth, Sighișoara, Romania.jpg
- File:RO MS Sighisoara Bustul lui Hermann Oberth (1).jpg
- File:RO MS Sighisoara Bustul lui Hermann Oberth (2).jpg
- File:Schäßburg Stadtansichten 04.JPG
- File:Schäßburg Stadtansichten 04B.JPG
- File:Sighisoara IMG 4705.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|2=I want to delete my photo from Wikimedia Commons, and I afraid to have someone took my photo to bad intention use.. Too old for COM:CSD#G7, but Delete as courtesy. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as courtesy, but the user should remove it from their user page in the meantime. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as unused photo, but also we have a (then) minor as main person in the photo (and another one in the end), which means that there's another reason for deletion, I think. NikosLikomitros (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Theo4421 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: its my own photo and I want it out of the internet. Converting to DR. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Theo4421 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: its my own photo and I want it out of the internet. Converting to DR. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Theo4421 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: its my own photo and I want it out of the internet. Converting to DR. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by S.s.Grigera as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7. Slightly too old for COM:CSD#G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dibyadarsi Nayak as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7. Too old for COM:CSD#G7. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Fireworks in Abu Dhabi during night time. Taken towards some holiday (assuming New Year's). Esta descripcion y tamano del archivo me dicen que esto no es un trabajo propio como tal. 191.126.1.126 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Too low resolution, somehow blurry. I suspect this is not own work. The user account Wikpedia account100 (talk · contribs) is equally suspicious. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File properties that make it suspicious:
- Resolution is 480 × 800px (very low for photos that date to 2020s like this), and
- Strange incomplete metadata containing Software used: Google.
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Not to mention the description "Taken towards some holiday" seems suspiciously vague. If this were in fact the photographer's own work, surely they'd know when they took the photo? Omphalographer (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete This photo is suspected of copyright infringement. Per COM:PCP. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely to be a free image or to have been created by the uploader - see https://lens.google.com/search?p=AUM6UZA-C4l8LCdGbpUmAdBqZntzewYjc6M5DSlkLVdJmEZXd3vCnGE8hfxkhIQ6B7lmN01W4irynDDV0OHH8erjITUz8b5WdRrQRelacYWZXcXspLd1KRrk1hNf1R4-IU6pKPRF7KZkmpZTgVUk1Mupd_4ZtqDZzyUoLGwAqJT55m7Ups_n2RPjZS-wwWOmsGDyB0whmlS6AkmFo4QY-IhY&plm=ChAIDxIMCNXMgKcGENiLpacDChAIFxIMCNXMgKcGEKDrp6cDChAIGBIMCNXMgKcGEODO0bEDChAILRIMCNXMgKcGEPjD0rEDChAILhIMCNXMgKcGEIjJiLYDChAIEBIMCNXMgKcGEMCQ9rYDChAIGRIMCNXMgKcGELjg%2BLYDChAIGhIMCNXMgKcGEOCOgbcD#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKRFptTmpJNVlqRTVMV1JsT1dZdE5HWmhOeTFoTkdSa0xUSTRZakk0WWpGbU9XWXhPQklmV1hkS2FXeENabTFYZUZsUlNVVXhUR3gwZUVKVlRISkpOVzFUTlc5Q1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsbnVsbCxbbnVsbCxudWxsLFswLDAsMTAwMDAwLDEwMDAwMF0sbnVsbCw1XV0= BilCat (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). There is indeed no license tag, but this appears to be a fairly simple logo and it's used in an EnWiki draft. Is this above or below COM:TOO USA? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Okina Chosei(1906-1968)[10] in 1959.[11] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Japan. This statue was erected by Isshiki Kunihiko(1935- , stil alive)[12] in 1989.[13] Unfortunately Commons cannot hold this file. Y.haruo (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Unclear who this is or why he’s important Dronebogus (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination / out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Same image can be found at higher resolution a 2008 blog entry at http://naprapamcham.blogspot.com/2008/03/12.html. This looks like an uncredited newspaper photo rather than the uploader's own work. Belbury (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Small image with no EXIF. Higher resolution versions exist elsewhere online (https://twitter.com/airnews_vja/status/1400681936859717635/photo/1), and File:Kara mastar.jpg was a different crop of this same image, showing more of the subject's hands, which was deleted as no-permission in 2012. Belbury (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Xavier121 as Fair use (EDP) Xavier121 10:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Italy --RAN (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Not CC-by-sa, Fails COM:TOO HK John123521 (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very bad resolution better file:File:Claude Monet - Still Life with Pheasants and Plovers - Google Art Project.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file is a duplicate that I've uploaded for a second time. Here is the link to the original https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pump_On_The_Green.jpg Michael Rowe (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The center of the image is mostly taken from here which is copyrighted. Furthermore, the dove above the cross has some weird artifacts that make me thinks suspect it was taken from somewhere. Also, there is no proof this is the person's coats of arms, so per COM:SELFIE and in order to avoid any kind of slander, this should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Specifically the copyvio part. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
File:一個國中少女的腳.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete Apart from being creepy (personality rights), this is just an unused {{Image extracted|一個國中少女的腳.jpg}}. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems to be non-notable. Used for page up for deletion: fa:محمدرضا عطائی. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Deleted twice before: File:Mohammad Reza Atai against Sahel Ziabar team.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of Angry Birds Trade (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of Mario Trade (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Low quality image Wkee4ager (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for 2D works in the United States, copyrighted photgraph. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Japan. LR0725 [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The image seems to have been used elsewhere before it was uploaded here in February 2023 (2018 example), so I believe this user does not own the copyright and has copied it here without permission. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The uploader of this logo, of Estádio Cícero Pompeu de Toledo, is highly unlikely to be its copyright holder, and the chance of it having been made available under CC0 is zero. Solon 26.125 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete quite obviously isn't shared under free license, doesn't fit text logo with the shape of the stadium around the text. Plus, it's uploaded as own work and it most definitely is not. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
COM:FOP Qatar is noncommercial only. Jonteemil (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
All seem to be bogus own work claims. Since COM:TOO Qatar doesn't exist I don't now how much or little complexity is needed for copyright protection in Qatar so I decided to nominate all of the logos uploaded by the user.
- File:Snoonu1.png
- File:Al-Rayyan Bank.jpg
- File:QPM.jpg
- File:سليمان و اخوان.jpg
- File:Dreama1.png
- File:SharqInsuranceLogo.jpg
- File:Doha Bank.jpg
- File:Dreama.png
Jonteemil (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Child-like test drawing, out of scope Юрий Д.К 20:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weak delete Not too low quality, but it does not really seem to be a serious upload. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 10:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted book cover Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
The real source and the license are unclear. No evidence of a free license Avron (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: own work? https://lens.google.com/search?p=AUM6UZCuhZvhqthgiTuvLi3nI9SOlwjSncpJNw_5XtwbqvuavhwrnwzqhznQJRmsTJIZjISqAAiCsqmr5NM9IajE9Ue28DPee1XUP5BgxwiChPKPxzqMb-ZpaNNTh3N-TyoPEXTabTuxR9ZFSYxOoV84fR4pV1PTb7IX1zavcVLmDN5NJMjcTNHO92n6qk6I13swK9Ir0ZhtZ7iX-8k2BYksyAnqb1xFd6_vrLjulVxJaqEbXuKJJ7PHdj83SDTRz6AzkA63gJiwFQ%3D%3D&plm=ChAIDxIMCMWxg6cGEIjkufwBChAIFxIMCMWxg6cGEPDivPwBChAIGBIMCMaxg6cGEJiZtOUBChAILRIMCMaxg6cGEMiGteUBChAILhIMCMaxg6cGEPin6eoBChAIEBIMCMaxg6cGEPjX1usBChAIGRIMCMaxg6cGEPCn2esBChAIGhIMCMaxg6cGELjv4%2BsB#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR0ZsT0RkbE5XRXpMVGxtTXprdE5ERXlZaTFoWkRoa0xUQXlNVFU0TVdZeVpXRmpNeElmYXpCaFgzWjFhM05YZERoYWIwUk1aa3hPVEZCZlpVNDJTM1pZYTI5Q1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLDEyLFtdXV0= May be simple enough. Yann (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as Logo PD-textlogo in USA. What about South Africa? Yann (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, too me this logo seems to surpass the US's too as well. Jonteemil (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also, to quote IronGargoyle's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BullsFan44: This article suggests that South Africa has a low threshold of originality for copyright. So regardless of the logo being unfree in the US or not, it certainly is unfree in South Africa. Jonteemil (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Question Does COM:INUSE override a courtesy deletion of a photo uploaded 4 days ago? I think it should, but I don't know. The spelling mistake should be changed if we keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Courtesy deletions: “Current or recent use on the mainspace of another project reduces the likelihood of deletion, use on multiple projects means deletion is very unlikely.” So it's a factor to consider. --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- They are welcome to remove it from the articles it's in first. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Courtesy deletions: “Current or recent use on the mainspace of another project reduces the likelihood of deletion, use on multiple projects means deletion is very unlikely.” So it's a factor to consider. --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
image personelle je shouaite la garder pour moi Aurélienvincent (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In use at fr:Grand Glacier. --Rosenzweig τ 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dr.Endless (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files causally tagged as own work. Two are clearly handwritten text by two different Ayatollahs, one historical picture and two taken with different cameras, one lacking exif. Copyright status unknown.
- File:اجازه اجتهاد سید علی اصغر حسینی.jpg
- File:اجازه اجتهاد ملک حسینی به حسینی.jpg
- File:سید کرامت الله ملک حسینی1.jpg
- File:سید کرامت الله ملک حسینی.jpg
- File:میرزا حسن فسائی.jpg
- File:سید علی اصغر حسینی.jpg
- File:بقعه شیخ محمد.jpg
- File:آسیاب مسجد سنگی داراب.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Redundant & promotional: 1:1 copy of Category:Yash Gupta. Achim55 (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- But both are different one is gallary and another category. Wintri01 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep It is entirely possible to have a gallery identical to the category. As the category has more images added, only the best will be added to the gallery. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, Category:Yash Gupta has been deleted twice and User:Wintri01
looks like (to be polite) an alternate account of User:Yshguptais one of several accounts of his. So I will file another DR. --Achim55 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)- Images in the gallery have been deleted. --Lymantria (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: empty gallery. --Lymantria (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Crop of Parc Victoria-Terrain de baseball 2-Installations.jpg, with the parking removed, wich does make sense. Dirac (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
File:HK 港島東區 Eastern District 炮台山 Fortress Hill 英皇道 301 King's Road 麗宮大廈 Building shop 大孖醬園 January 2021 SS2 02.jpg
[edit]COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems that this person is not Vryzákis, but German industrialist Werner von Siemens instead. See complaint in Greek (https://el.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A3%CF%85%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7:%CE%98%CE%B5%CF%8C%CE%B4%CF%89%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%92%CF%81%CF%85%CE%B6%CE%AC%CE%BA%CE%B7%CF%82) and this article where this photo is identical with this (https://www.sansimera.gr/biographies/314). NikosLikomitros (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good catch, we fix rather than delete. I changed the name and the category. We still show usage at Creator templates, but that will resolve shortly. We already have several crops of the same image. The original file name should be deleted after this closes to prevent more confusion in the future. --RAN (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per RAN. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect/anachronistic flag, this current Portuguese flag was introduced in 1911. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, dubious, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded from a website of unknown copyright, this seemingly official photo has no META data to justify the claim of the uploader of copyright free. Pierre cb (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope personal artwork, only used in a couple of abandoned pseudo-draft/vanity pages Dronebogus (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Low-quality filtered photo (that is paradoxically an image of a boy and a woman?) Dronebogus (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused, OOS. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, published before Commons: 29 September 2016. Komarof (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
out of scope: Niserne/Nismerm doesn't exist.
- File:Nismern map dimoi 1-5-2020 blankblank dialects isogloss.png
- File:Nismern map dimoi 1-5-2020 blankblank dialects.png
- File:Turkey niserne rec.png
Enyavar (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution better File:Monet - Red Mullets, c. 1870.jpg Oursana (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - smaller res but different image, in no way "very bad". --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
own selfie, only used on abandoned sandbox (last edit July 2020) Nutshinou Talk! 11:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Not, strictly speaking, a text logo. I believe the crown atop the shield is above the COM:TOO. Nick (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- This logo consists of a seal with text, it might just all see if they cf. the Commons logo with the original. Both text and seal are INGREDISENTS which together form the logo. It should not be deleted. User talk:Carsten R D 13:13, 4 september 2015 (CET)
- The issue is that you've tagged the image as being ineligible for copyright as what we call a "text logo". Logos are only ineligible for copyright if they consist only of text and simple geometric shapes. The shield and crown together (especially the crown) aren't simple geometric shapes, they're too complex for that, so they're eligible for copyright protection. Nick (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Norwegian coats of arms are PD. {{Norwegian coat of arms}} Fry1989 eh? 21:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per user:Fry1989. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Exact duplicate of File:NGU hovedlogo svart full engelsk.png. The text isn't actually part of the logo and is uneccessary. Source: https://snl.no/Norges_geologiske_unders%C3%B8kelse Worldlydev (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- And no global usage. Worldlydev (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Higher quality SVG equivalents available: File:NGU hovedlogo svart.svg and File:NGU hovedlogo svart full norsk.svg. --Iketsi (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Wrong license: there is CC BY-NC 4.0 on website, not CC BY-SA 4.0 91.193.178.244 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This work does have a copyright notice. See higher resolution version at [14]. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not a selfie, thus Philippe Boxho cannot be the author of it. We need a COM:VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: as unused, OOS. (Timers on cameras are common and easy to use, zero reason to say that the person in photo "cannot" be the author). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
All the images in this screenshot are under copyright (see notice at the bottom). Image would have little to no value if they were to be blurred or removed Nutshinou Talk! 19:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Marcha del 27 de junio de 1985 por aniversario del Golpe de Estado de 1973 en Uruguay.jpg and derivatives
[edit]The source indicates that these images are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND, an incompatible license with commons. In fact two of these images are DW. Günther Frager (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Not the uploader's own work; the silhouettes of the boat, plane, and tank are likely above the threshold of originality. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete creatively made artistic logo, not merely text Dronebogus (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gandvik as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Doubt about licensing. Not a 2d image. 3d turnover, there is a background, etc. There is an author's contribution of the photographer (albeit small). The author's claims are possible. Yann (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality very low resolution better file: File:Monet - Rosenstraeucher im Garten von Montgeron.jpg Oursana (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Who drew this picture? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lucie Bouniol (1896-1988) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Who drew this picture? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Source given does not actually provide evidence of pre-1963 publication without a copyright notice. The image also shows some signs of digital manipulation as it has traveled across the internet. There is also apparently some doubt over whether this image depicts Byers at all, but I have been unable to confirm this either way. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete So for transparency I had spoken to AntiCompositeNumber prior which led to this being made, but I used Tineye and found multiple postings of the uncropped image (obv NSFW warning) from 2010 being associated with WW1 veterans, it was apparently posted somewhere on DocumentingReality back in 2013; since Tineye doesn't give me the actual *page* it's useless beyond showing a date and I already had to see a ton of horrific shit trying to find it. Someone at some point around 2016-2021 decided to falsely post it on the internet labelling it as Eben Byers. For what it's worth Crispin Glover also had a book from 1995 with the image as the cover photo. --NorthTension (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- This image is first found (as far as i know) to this book! https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.550449/page/n37/mode/1up Kedokinnie (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It's almost certainly not Eben Byers, as it bears little resemblance to the description given by an attorney who visited him to take a deposition: "his whole upper jaw, excepting two front teeth and most of his lower jaw had been removed" and that "All the remaining bone tissue of his body was disintegrating, and holes were actually forming in his skull." (Source) As noted above, the image is to be found in a 1943 military work on treating battlefield wounds, in which it is described as an injury to the jaw. BillC (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that if this is deleted, the file talk page on enWikipedia needs deleting too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Closed - moved to mass deletion request. EthanL13 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Audacity-corrección etiqueta-.jpg Iketsi (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 18:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
OK to delete. Znuddel (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment User's contribution history suggests that he is affiliated with the en:London Youth Games, as all of his uploads are for files related to that event and he submitted ticket:2020102110016879 to cover many of them. With the white border on one edge and the general fuzzy look, this is probably a scanned print photo. I suspect it comes from the London Youth Games archives and he just didn't bother with VRT like he did for the others. On the other hand, I just tagged one of his "own work" photos for being a copyvio as the EXIF said it came from a press agency, so
—holly {chat} 18:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
_Graham_Hayman.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![83 File:ТВРС-44 "Ладога".jpg](#File:ТВРС-44_"Ладога".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_오버워치_게임_레고.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Graham_Hayman.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Graham_Hayman.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Graham_Hayman.png){kind=link}
_Graham_Hayman.png-1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_R%C3%BCckseite.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Vorderseite.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_R%C3%BCckseite.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Vorderseite.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/08/19#c-BilCat-20230819021900-File:ТВРС-44_"Ладога".jpg){kind=link}
![16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/08/19#c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20230831163700-File:ТВРС-44_"Ладога".jpg){kind=link}
-20230819163600-File:Rock_'n'_Roller_Coaster_starring_Aerosmith_10.jpg){kind=link}
-20230819201300-File:A_book_from_the_Guantanamo_captives'_library.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
-20230819195900-File:War_Thunder_logo.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: If this gets named as part of a VRT ticket, I'll restore it. Otherwise, I doubt this is an own work. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
No publication date and publicator, it's polish photo, so this licence template doesn't apply. PD-Poland also. On source web site there are not also any information about date. Matlin (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Jest to zdjęcie wykonane do dokumentu tożsamości, nie jest dziełem. Autor nieznany. W2k2 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: ID Documents are not usually published how the Berne Convention defines them so this was probably first published when uploaded to the Internet. Deleted per COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Sueter Revista Pelo 1995
[edit]Image published in Argentina in 1995. It is in the PD there, but not in the United States (at least 70 years protection). The source uses CC-BY-NC-SA license [15] that is incompatible with Commons.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Günther Frager (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not freely licensed or PD in the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Revista Gente
[edit]Images that appear in Gente, an Argentine magazine, after March 1989, when the United States entered Berne Convention. The images are PD in Argentina (25 years after publication) but not in the US (70 years pma).
- File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993.jpg
- File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993 (cropped).jpg
- File:Gente Magazine (Argentina) (26 January 1993).jpg
- File:Maradona casamiento gente 1989.jpg
- File:Maradona drogas 1991.jpg
- File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(26_January_1993).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Günther Frager (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg was previously nominated and kept in this DR. Fma12 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- The argument in that DR is wrong. As I stated the files were published after the US entered the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention implies that all works published in a member state (Argentina in this case) are protected automatically in the other member states (the US in this case). It follows that the US did not restore the copyright of any of these images at URAA time for the simple reason they were never in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, these are all from March 1989 so these were always copyrighted in the US. Maradona cover from 1989 is from November 1989. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment No need to delete the PNG files unless the SVGs are more accurate. They are not identical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for the late response. The PNGs are my own, so I would like for them to be deleted, as they have been made redundant by higher quality SVGs (uploaded by myself also) Do also note the differences in colour and some differences with the symbols. EthanL13 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Deletion and redirect approved per Commons:Deletion requests/PNG files superseded by SVGs by User:EthanL13. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Fichier pixellisé, aucun intéret. Sa seule utilisation est par un utilisateur spam qui l'utilise pour faire sa publicité sur divers projets Wikimédias. CKali (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope since it's a pixelated flag with no education use. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:javigbureba
[edit]Screenshot of a short video of Metal Magazine. The video was uploaded to Vimeo by Javier Bureba, the editor of the video. This is likely a WFH and the copyright holder is Metal Magazine. Notice that the Vimeo user uploaded also TV advertisement under CC-BY (even less likely to own the copyright).
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 06.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 02.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 03.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 04.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 05.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PCP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Very suspicious. Claims own work, but why is it so low-quality, and why is there a watermark? QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 11:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: TinEye shows a web hit before upload to Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
_%EC%98%A4%EB%B2%84%EC%9B%8C%EC%B9%98_%EA%B2%8C%EC%9E%84_%EB%A0%88%EA%B3%A0.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%EC%98%A4%EB%B2%84%EC%9B%8C%EC%B9%98_%EA%B2%8C%EC%9E%84_%EB%A0%88%EA%B3%A0.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of LEGO Trade (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
_오버워치_게임_레고.png){kind=link}
- The Overwatch Lego series, a collaborative product between Blizzard and Lego, has been released.
- This is an image of promoting Overwatch Lego products on SNS of game YouTuber 이녕 at the request of Blizzard Korea.
- I would appreciate it if you could let me know what the problem is. 민혁123 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Blizzard and Lego have agreed to let their product packaging be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are many agreements between Blizzard and Lego to launch an Overwatch game collaboration product on the Lego website or in media articles.
- Isn't the collaboration product a licensed brand?
- LEGO homepage - https://www.lego.com/ko-kr/themes/overwatch/about
- a press story - http://gamefocus.co.kr/detail.php?number=89799
- 민혁123 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The license that the collaboration product uses is proprietary which is not compatible with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Trade (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you upload a version of the image where the LEGO box art is blurred i will be willing to withdraw the deletion request Trade (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your kind words.
- But isn't it impossible to upload an image because it's a duplicate upload if you mosaic it?
- Even if I can, I think I'll make a mistake because I don't know how.
- Please delete it
- Thank you for taking care of me even though you are busy.
- Have a nice day!! 민혁123 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I dont counts as a duplicate if you mosaic the box art. Trade (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind reply.
- Do I need to upload a new version of this file through upload?
- Replication upload is not available in this domain. There is a warning.
- I've tried many times, but I can't upload it because I don't know how.
- So I mosaiced the Lego box image and re-uploaded it.
- File:South Korean YouTuber 이녕 OVERWATCH 게임 레고.png 민혁123 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I dont counts as a duplicate if you mosaic the box art. Trade (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Blizzard and Lego have agreed to let their product packaging be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 00:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
_오버워치_게임_레고.png){kind=link}
There is no indication that this photo is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree the website does not release under the cc license, I changed it to more appropriate "PD-Romania". --RAN (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- What is your rationale to use PD-Romania? and not Germany where Oberth also lived? That is, where was this image taken / published? And in case of PD-Romania is right, why wasn't it restored by URAA? Günther Frager (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Info: From 1923 until 1938 Oberth lived in Transylvania which was part of Romania since 1920. --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Salute! I apologize if I uploaded the image incorrectly. Tell me, please, what is the difference between Romanian and German PD? What is the URAA? Richard Arthur Norton, thank you for your support! Qupeed66 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The image is a cropped version of this photo, and the copyright is claimed by the Smithsonian Institution. Notice that the logo on the bottom-left corner is from Universum Film AG, a German film company located in Berlin. According to our Wiki entry Oberth advised Fritz Lang during 1928-1929 for the film Frau im Mond. Maybe the copyright claim is bogus, but unless there is a strong evidence the image is in the public domain in Germany and the US we should follow COM:PCP. Günther Frager (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- How can this situation be resolved? Do we need to write to someone and ask for permission? Qupeed66 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Under German law, a company cannot be the copyright holder, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} will work, but 70 years puts it after the URAA date, so it won't be PD in the US until 2025. —holly {chat} 01:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Sculpture by Raimondo Puccinelli (1904-1986) located in the Garden of Castle Gemen, Germany. Freedom of panorama in Germany requires that the picture to be taken from a "public" place, but that notion is quite restrictive, for example photos taken inside train stations, museums or churches are not OK. Günther Frager (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no indication that the image is free from copyright in the country of origin (USSR/Russia), which is a necessary condition for a file to be placed on Wikimedia Commons, even if the claim to be free from copyright in the US is true. Yellow Horror (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added license. I struggle to understand why you are so pervasive in attempting to delete Russian and Soviet visual history en mass across the Commons, but so uninterested in identifying whether suitable licenses exist before requesting deletion. – Abovfold (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The PD-RU-exempt license template you added does not correspond to the nature of the work, which is neither an official document or symbol, nor a work of folk art, nor a message of an exclusively informational nature.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- It came from an official Soviet state biography, which is a state document. - Abovfold (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a "official Soviet state biography". Any biography is a copyrighted creative work, because it isn't a material of legislative, administrative and judicial character. Moreover, even if a photo is a part of an unprotected government document, removing it from the context of the document returns the photo under copyright protection.--Yellow Horror (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- It came from an official Soviet state biography, which is a state document. - Abovfold (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- The PD-RU-exempt license template you added does not correspond to the nature of the work, which is neither an official document or symbol, nor a work of folk art, nor a message of an exclusively informational nature.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Random authorship claim, fake PD rationale, this is not an 'official document of state government agencies' as stated by the uploader. --Komarof (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Komarof very curious how you have so much knowledge of Wikipedia shorthand and admin requests for a month old account whose entire contribution history has been mass deleting Russian history across the platform collaborating together with @Yellow Horror here. What is the agenda here? Is this a derivative account? Why are you concealing your prior wiki experience, and why so aggressive in demanding punishments for other users? - Abovfold (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: 1) imgur is not a valid source because it does not indicate the author or publication date; 2) this is not a valid item for the PD-RU-exempt license. —holly {chat} 01:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The author was Apolo Ronchi Desquier (1896 - 1963), and it is marked as PD. However, Uruguay has 70 years pma. Notice that in the past it was 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. Günther Frager (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; undelete in 2043 thanks to URAA. —holly {chat} 01:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photographs by Apolo Ronchi
[edit]The Uruguayan photographer Apolo Ronchi Desquier died in 1963. The copyright in Uruguay is 70 years pma, thus all these images are not in the public domain in its country of origin. Notice that in the past protection was for 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. I don't know when they can be undeleted because the copyright in the United States was probably restored in 1996.
- File:Antonio Cadenacho.jpg[1]
- File:Atalibio Ribeiro.jpg[2]
- File:Bonifacio Fleitas.jpg[2]
- File:Braulio Manuel Ojeda.jpg[1]
- File:Dionisio Almeida.jpg[3]
- File:Emilio Rivero.jpg[1]
- File:Francisco Giacosa.jpg[4]
- File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con acordeon.jpg[3]
- File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con guitarra.jpg[3]
- File:José Gabriel Carró.jpg[3]
- File:José Ramírez.jpg[3]
- File:Juan A. Feijoo.jpg[5]
- File:Justo Peralta y uno de sus nietos.jpg[1]
- File:Lucas Buschiazzo.jpg[1]
- File:Marcelino Barrientos.jpg[3]
- File:Perico Díaz y Marcelino Barrientos.jpg[3]
- File:Presbiter Moltracio.jpg[6]
Günther Frager (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to the website: https://cdf.montevideo.gub.uy/articulo/el-archivo-historico-disponible-en-alta-resolucion the images are released under Sobre la licencia "CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)" . --RAN (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- That links says the images under CC0 are the ones that the government commissioned and doesn't include the donations. The relevant text is as follows:
El contenido liberado pertenece al archivo fotográfico histórico producido por la Intendencia de Montevideo y custodiado por el CdF. No está incluido material proveniente de donaciones.
- The photos by Apolo Rochi are from the private collection of Lauro Ayestarán and you can find them here. Notice that they are not part of the catalog. If you click on any of the images you can see "© Fotografías del Archivo Lauro Ayestarán / Centro Nacional de Documentación Musical". On the contrary, when you click on any image from the catalog, for example this one, you will see that it clearly states it is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Undelete as follows:
very bad quality very low resolution better file:Claude Monet - Nature morte au melon d’Espagne.jpg Oursana (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: they are two different files, we can keep both. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality very low resolution, better: File:Apples and Grapes MET DT1561.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
very low quality very low resolution better file File:Fleurs dans un pot (Roses et brouillard) .jpg Oursana (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Colors are different, we can keep both. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
very bad quality, very bad resolution better file File:Claude Monet - Apples and Grapes - 1933.1152 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg Oursana (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Two very different files, can be kept. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
copyright infringement derivative work of non-free map in Japan. 61.120.241.1 14:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP for maps in Japan. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, no colors, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Fictional (and indeed illegal, as per sections 6 and 8 of the Act on the Flag of Finland) flag, completely unsourced yet purported to be real. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope for Commons. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. The green color is also incorrect, it is supposed to be blue (possibly an effect of being a highly compressed image from the Norwegian government achives in 2009?) Worldlydev (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of scope as an incorrect logo. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file is unused and is replaced with a SVG file 2603:6010:F006:964B:1D11:4BE4:A8A8:E8E6 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see which file replaced it. We can still use png versions of files regardless. Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per Abzeronow. --Ellywa (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
PNG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2603:6010:F006:964B:6566:90F2:A8BF:6A67 22:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; this file is unusable with the state's shape being so wrong. The replacement file is File:Utah Presidential Election Results 1976.svg —holly {chat} 21:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
A screen of a game that is not freely licenced.
After a bit more research I found that it is a screenshot from the video game en:FlightGear which is licenced under the GPL licence (so this part is no longer an issue). The question that remains is weather a screenshot (of a game licenced under GPL) can be published under CC-BY-SA-4.0. IMHO we should have a template for screenshots of FlightGear since there are more of them in Category:FlightGear.
If unclear: The remaining question of this deletion request is if the used licence is correct (since you can not free licence files for which you do not own the copyright) --D-Kuru (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- More updates:
- This image itself is taken from http://wiki.flightgear.org/ and there is no further link that would give any clue that it was created outisde of this project. However, the Screenshot of the month (SOTM) on the wiki's main page links to https://forum.flightgear.org/. An example would be this image that links to this forum page. The "Participation Rules" say:
- 10. You agree to license your screenshot under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for publication by the FlightGear project.
- 11. You agree that the screenshot may be used to promote the FlightGear project, including publication on the flightsim.com forum with proper attribution according to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.
- If we just look at the forum, it seems that CC-BY-SA-4.0 is the correct licence. However, it is not said at all that the game devs really allowed licencing screenshots of their GPL licenced game under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I went through the page on wikipedia, their wiki and the official website but I couldn't find any note on that. It's possible that I missed something, so feel free to check again.
- If CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not the correct licence we could still use eg. {{Free screenshot|license={{GPL}}}} for the image since the game is without a doubt licenced under the GPL.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I asked them on xtweet. Maybe they can help out. --D-Kuru (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Screenshots from programs are not covered by the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2).
- The first sentence in the second paragraph of section 0 of states that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
- Johan G (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
pt: Vide diversos casos semelhantes (1, 2, 3, etc.): segundo o levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (Assembleia Legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: according to the survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Solon26125: This looks to be a full-resolution photo with EXIF. Are you sure that the uploader got it from ALERJ? What if they are actually the photographer? —holly {chat} 01:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP, other three examples have been deleted as well. --Ellywa (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
