Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/01/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Crusader Kings III. © 2024 Paradox Interactive AB. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2803174765 ZimskoSonce (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Crusader Kings III. © 2024 Paradox Interactive AB. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2803174765 ZimskoSonce (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Crusader Kings III. © 2024 Paradox Interactive AB. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2803174765 ZimskoSonce (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
stock photo (unknown source) ZimskoSonce (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Source appears to be this copyrighted Flickr image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/156137003@N02/34642904494/ Omphalographer (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. © 2023| National Peace Council, Ghana | Republic of Ghana source: https://www.peacecouncil.gov.gh/ahafo/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. author: erniedecker. source: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/fierce-possum-gm164188559-23449685 ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable school project app, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Image: CZECH POLICE/UNPIXS. article: https://www.themirror.com/news/world-news/prague-university-shooter-named-pictured-250244 ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Image: CZECH POLICE/UNPIXS. article: https://www.themirror.com/news/world-news/prague-university-shooter-named-pictured-250244 ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Signature of non-notable individual banned for spam, out of scope/SD:F10 may apply Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Map is fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 06:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SiamShaharia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: miscellaneous unused logos, most of them of non-notable web sites.
- File:Them bazer shop own logo.png
- File:Netfilex subscription.png
- File:Fbpromiot.png
- File:Php logo.png
- File:Hosting.jpg
- File:Ourhostter.jpg
- File:20231014 142917-removebg-preview.png
Omphalographer (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Intended as spam to me and so speedy. --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
LA PHOTO PUBLIEE REPRESENTE LE CARDINAL RICHELIEU VERS 1630. CE N'EST PAS LE DUC DE ROHAN 1975bosch (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense, no valid reason for deletion. --jdx Re: 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
замена на новое фото Andrey45mt9 (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|F8}} Andrey45mt9 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE at multiple projects. --Rosenzweig τ 21:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|F8}} Andrey45mt9 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment Still COM:INUSE at multiple projects. If by F8 you mean it's an exact or scaled down-duplicate, please name the file it is supposedly a duplicate of. Or even better use the {{Duplicate}} template. --Rosenzweig τ 10:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
{{speedydelete|F8}} Andrey45mt9 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: as before, still COM:INUSE, no valid reason for deletion shown. --Rosenzweig τ 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted character A1Cafel (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept - images trimmed towards main subject, the editor Jos Beekman. -- Mdd (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Map is fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. source: Getty Images (article: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30218257) ZimskoSonce (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Ana De Armas for Louis Vuitton Silhouette Blossom Fine Jewellery Line 2023 articles: https://celebmafia.com/ana-de-armas-louis-vuitton-silhouette-blossom-fine-jewellery-line-2023-3797079/, https://twitter.com/LouisVuitton/status/1683446935359746048 ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anaaugusto2006 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files tagged have vague sources (Facebook, etc).
- File:Capela de Santo António, Reriz.jpg
- File:Capela de N.ª Senhora de Rodes ou da Natividade.jpg
- File:Pastel da Cruz Alta.jpg
- File:Noz Dourada.webp
- File:Cafe-a-piriquita.jpg
- File:Desenho de um corso.jpg
- File:Grupo Coral Encanta Lamelas.jpg
- File:Logotipo de ACDR Lamelas.png
Spinixster (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all. "facebook" is a presumed-nonfree source. And uploader has a history of falsified license tagging. I'm going to block them, since they have continued this behavior even after many tag-notifications and a direct warning. DMacks (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted material FropFrop (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete SpongeBob Image is copyright. メイド理世 (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted material FropFrop (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not Archie Birkin, my bad, the source was defective SunflowerYuri (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The copyright of the pattern is unknown, and similar photos can be found on the Internet. 120.229.229.114 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; clear COM:DW copyright violation. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:CHAR, copyright of Daffy Duck expired in 2033 A1Cafel (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The captions on the page are very subjective and does not fit on this website. 185.45.22.249 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can undo the vandal's edit. This is not a reason to take out a photo for deletion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Free licensed photo in use in multiple projects. (anon's essay removed from photo page; inapproprate use of photo description page as noted is reason to revert, not to delete the photo.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope, Usage for promotional purposes CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation per reverse image search. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
stock photo. examples: https://roll-club.kh.ua/tovar/myasnoj-bum/, https://gubernia.net.ua/product/piczcza-pepperoni/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS: doesn't add something useful to the collection. Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Against deleting this one. This photo is special because of the clear focus on the penis and angle in which it was taken. Alice2Alice (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human Penis Glans.jpg Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/12/29#File:Human_Penis_Glans.jpg GnocchiFan (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: This is not the same photo as the previous of the same name, so previous deletion is not relevant. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
collage, made of copyrighted photos (Photo by Albert L. Ortega/Getty Images https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/michelle-ayers-attends-kristine-mirelles-birthday-news-photo/1415890399; etc,...) ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
stock image. examples: https://constructioncompanyinkisumu.co.ke/4-questions-to-ask-before-looking-for-prefabricated-houses-kenya/: https://westkenyarealestate.com/how-much-does-a-3-bedroom-house-cost-to-build-in-kenya/; https://realestatejournalke.co.ke/where-to-find-cheap-house-designs-in-kenya/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Photographs by Ryan Lowry. article: https://www.wmagazine.com/culture/lucas-bravo-emily-in-paris-season-3-ticket-to-paradise-interview ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Photo by Tim Whitby - © 2011 Getty Images. info: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0416524/mediaviewer/rm2906305280/?ref_=nm_ov_ph ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. source: https://thientrang.vn/dong-phuc-khach-san/dong-phuc-buong-phong/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PORN, contrary to mission GnocchiFan (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyright violation per reverse image search (Human sexuality, including unusual fetishes, not inherently out of scope, but copyright violation not allowed.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, COM:PORN GnocchiFan (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: undistinguished penis selfie. Human anatomy and sexuality are within project scope, but we have no need for more random penis selfies (with possible rare exceptions for example if they are very well photographed and show something unusual like a rare disease). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
photo downloaded from spotify ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Came across this image by chance. I don't know the rules here, but I'm not sure if this constitutes as public domain considering that it's the sheet music for a song not in the public domain. Leafy46 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. If the music is not in public domain, uploader has no authority to so license. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs)
[edit]copyright violation; contemporary artwork; no freedomm of panorama!
- File:Composition (1925) – Joan Miró.jpg
- File:Homme, femme et enfant – Pablo Picasso.jpg
- File:The couple - Pablo Picasso.jpg
- File:The Rabbi, Marc Chagall.jpg
- File:Marc Chagall - Der Jude in Grün (1914).jpg
- File:Der Jude in Rot, Marc Chagall.jpg
- File:Meaningless Gesture-Sam Francis.jpg
- File:Deep orange and black–Sam Francis.jpg
- File:The Burning Giraffe-Salvador Dali.jpg
- File:Perspectives - Salvador Dali (1936-1937).jpg
- File:Caroline II-Alberto Giacometti.jpg
- File:Standing Nude–Alberto Giacometti (1957).jpg
- File:The Philosophers Stone–Jean Dubuffet.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am interested for a clarification on the issue myself. They hang in the same museum and are from the same time as other images which are on display on wikipedia like The Burning Giraffe. The Burning Giraffe artist is Salvador Dali who died in 1989. My Burning Giraffe which I took the image myself shall not be able to used but the other one from an unaccessible webpage is allowed? Whats the problem?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 18:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation Ђидо (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket permission. --Krd 07:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Crusade777, suspected sockpuppet
- File:Angel of Death 谢明 Ming Xie 2.webp
- File:Angel of Death 谢明 Ming Xie 1.webp
- File:Angel of Death 谢明 Ming Xie.webp
94rain Talk 07:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. All those were created by a sockpuppet , see [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10)/Content intended as vandalism (G3). --Эlcobbola talk 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by group, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by group, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Krd. --Rosenzweig τ 18:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
rock camps 139.141.247.205 06:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain what 'rock camps' means. And why do you want this file to be deleted? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep: Just vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)- Keep: Nonsensical deletion rationale. ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: nonsense Wereldburger758 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Didym (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
TOO-Switzerland 111.125.106.57 11:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep There is nothing Swiss about this map. S5A-0043Talk 12:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure) - no coherent reason for deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by InêsAlmeida2023 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images have watermarks, and from two different sites: Unlikely to be own work.
Note: If the date is correct, File:Torrozelas12-09-1961.jpg seems to be a high-quality, historical picture, but it's not compatible with our license policies. Undelete in 2100? (sufficiently in the future to no longer be under potential copyrights).
Enyavar (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
All of these images appear to be un-used, noneducational, and suffer from various quality issues and artifacts. For instance, the faces in all of them seem to be screwed up and the hands aren't much better. Plus it's unclear what software or prompts were used to generate the images. So the they should be deleted as OOS per recent discussions about what's allowed or not when it comes to AI generated artwork.
- File:Circus Lady Illustration vintage 1.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 10.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 11.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 12.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 13.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 2.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 3.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 4.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 5.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 6.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 7.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 8.jpg
- File:Circus Lady Illustration Vintage 9.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality and usefulness unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Those faces are horrifying. About the only use I could imagine for these is to illustrate articles on clown phobias, but we already have Category:Creepy clowns (!) with photos for that. Omphalographer (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & above comment. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete would make an interesting horror game idea but can’t think of any educational purpose for these strange, creepy images Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
promotional, no educational scope Mussklprozz (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Portions of the photo that serve promotional purposes have been removed. Pentapixel (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by AFBorchert. --Rosenzweig τ 08:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [2]. License reviewed. Yann (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There are double bonds missing from both structures. The title and captions refer to maleate ions, but the structures are succinates. The uploader has already made the necessary correction, but uploaded it with a different file name (File:Малеат анион.png). This incorrect version should therefore be deleted. Marbletan (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete, wrong. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 13:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SamuelInzunza as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Censo2024.svg - Not eligible for speedy deletion because of differing file types, but unused and unlikely to be used The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Indeed, it is a file that I uploaded myself, but that I later intended to replace with a new file (File:Censo2024.svg), of better quality. Since Censo2024.png represents the same logo, but in worse quality, in addition to not being in use in any Wikipedia project, I proposed its elimination because it was redundant, and now I reaffirm my opinion in favor of its deletion. SamuelInzunza (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Illegitimate Barrister as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: NorthDakota-StateSeal.svg - Not eligible for speedy deletion because of differing file types, but unused and unlikely to be used The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded by an SVG. Current revision a duplicate, previous version factually inaccurate with an SVG version available anyway. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Illegitimate Barrister as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: NorthDakota-StateSeal.svg - Not eligible for speedy deletion because of differing file types, but unused and unlikely to be used The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Bad non-photographic JPEG, unused, and superseded by SVG. Current revision a duplicate and the previous version is factually inaccurate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by magazine, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not useful for educational purposes Henehot13666 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not useful. Personal photo. Garbage and peanuts in the background. Henehot13666 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps this photo might be used to show how ordinary people cut cakes and what kind of cakes, that they use a cake server and how that looks like, and perhaps even how their kitchen looks like, what they put on their counter. But I recommend to have more categories that reflect those aspects. JopkeB (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused photo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Low quality drawing with no identification or description. Belbury (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not useful for educational purposes Crazyheart1 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by non-notable musician, no use outside sandbox Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by non-notable musician, no use outside sandbox Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by non-notable musician, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by seeming company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete COM:NETCOPYVIO applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use out of userpage; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image. --Javidd (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The photo has a watermark Mostafameraji (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The photo has a watermark Mostafameraji (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dhananjay maharaj more (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data.
- File:कृष्णा सासवडकर यांनी बुलढाणा येथे साकारलेली रांगोळी.jpg
- File:भगवान विष्णू.jpg
- File:Bhanage-dattamandir-phaltan.jpg
- File:Mangwadi old hanuman मांगवाडी जुना हनुमान.jpg
- File:नवीन हनुमान.jpg
- File:HANUMAN OLD MANGWADI .jpg
- File:जोग महाराज.jpg
- File:Dhananjay Maharaj More धनंजय महाराज मोरे (9).jpg
- File:धनंजय महाराज मोरे.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/197707644@N02
[edit]Flickrwashing. 0 followers, newly created account etc. The Chemical Surf photo has FB MD
- File:Öwnboss in 2022.jpg
- File:Paradise Guerrilla 2022.jpg
- File:Ownboss performing live in 2022.png
- File:Chemical Surf in 2022.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Poor quality photo, cannot illustrate the subject properly, also question on potential educational value A1Cafel (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete we have plenty of photos of bottomlessness Dronebogus (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Person died in 1944, can not be own work of 2023. Original author, date, copyright? + https://abai.kz/lt/post/130753 Drakosh (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Attribution corrected. --RAN (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep due to the correct attribution, change file name to Amirkhan_Tileumaghambetov 95.57.235.84 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promotional images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promotional images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo of user राजकुमार(talk) 16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; very bad quality photo with no evident compensating value -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image. --Javidd (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Plain text document and personal file outside of COM:SCOPE. Marbletan (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope, seems to be a header for a promotional article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by seeming company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. credit: Pietro Martinello. article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/11/17/worlds-first-human-head-transplant-successfully-carried/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Dated and unflattering main image Dramateacher5000 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep In use in multiple projects; one of the unfortunately few free licensed photos we have of the person. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by company, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
not uploader's work. I can find it on many pages using google lens. ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
2007 music album cover ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by group, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by group, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
source: https://www.deviantart.com/rakanrel/art/Satoru-Gojo-823256620. © 2019 - 2024 RakanREL ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
article spam, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
photo: Myspace/Press Association/AP. article: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/06/world/britain-asia-child-abuse/index.html ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
tagged: Photo, all rights reserved. source: https://www.ias.tum.de/ias/network/iesp/who-is-iesp/organization/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by likely company rep, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
TinEye turns up hits prior to upload to Commons: https://tineye.com/search/530dc3c2e3756ed121f2643f8540056dc49fb2d4?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by non-notable band, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promo image uploaded by non-notable band, no use and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation (sourced from here): https://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/new-york-ehemaliger-hedge-fonds-manager-verurteilt-rigoros-gegen-den-insiderhandel-1.1096276 Bremps... 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
out of scope, personal artwork — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Photo by Marina Chichi - © Marina Chichi https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8473553/mediaviewer/rm2279240192/?ref_=nm_md_6 ZimskoSonce (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
VTV 2 TV channel screenshot (article: https://laodong.vn/gia-dinh-hon-nhan/tuoi-tho-nhieu-dau-buon-cua-a-hau-2-minh-kien-1219986.ldo) ZimskoSonce (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Palado ad © Palado ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Palado ad © Palado ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Palado ad, Metadata: Sepp Eder, Fotostudio Eder ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Palado ad, metadata: Sepp Eder, FOTOSTUDIO EDER ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio - scene from Srce se ne boji, 2019 short movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10380428/ (Studio Siposh) ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Unused text GIF, no educational use, out of scope. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Unused text GIF, no educational use, out of scope. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Star News watermark. source: https://www.starnewskorea.com/stview.php?no=2006122621450708316 ZimskoSonce (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. 2018 korean movie bebop barula promo (비밥바룰라). article: http://m.cine21.com/news/view/?mag_id=89248 ZimskoSonce (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
© 2023 Surf ZimskoSonce (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this painting, Alberto Abate, died in 2012. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2083 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes it is 178.243.3.254 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- No coherent deletion reason given in the nomination, but I'll provide one: this image has no source ("photo" is not a source) and no valid license (PD-US is clearly incorrect). Delete. Omphalographer (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Omphalographer. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this painting, Carmine Adamo, died in 2012. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2083. Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
source: Instagram.com/leonyvh. article: https://www.liputan6.com/showbiz/read/4073535/leony-vitria-pamit-dari-media-sosial-ada-apa ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
low quality and lack of notability FropFrop (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete also COM:TOYS--A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jayofpedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work. One is a DW the other has a watermark top left
Gbawden (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jayofpedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work, one is watermarked. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jayofpedia (talk · contribs)
[edit]More dubious claims of own work. If you look carefully at the image of Nagombe you will see the watermark of the studio they took the photo from. PCP
Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work as claimed. No meaningful exif. PCP Gbawden (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Giuseppe Barone
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these paintings, Giuseppe Barone, died in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027.
Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text; recreation of content deleted from eswiki (es:Jerónimo Patiño). Omphalographer (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Student paper about the results of a survey. Omphalographer (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Снимок крайне низкого качества MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dagfin Werenskiold
[edit]There's no FOP in Norway for anything other then buildings and the sculptor of these reliefs, Dagfin Werenskiold, died in 1977. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2048.
- File:Art on the façade of the Oslo City Hall (Oslo rådhus) (29585880630).jpg
- File:Art on the Oslo City Hall façade (Oslo rådhus) (29253324123).jpg
- File:Kunstverk - no-nb digifoto 20150625 00107 NB MIT FNR 11635.jpg
- File:Kunstverk - no-nb digifoto 20150625 00121 NB MIT FNR 11634.jpg
- File:NO-oslo-rath-aussen-2.jpg
- File:NO-oslo-rath-aussen-3.jpg
- File:NO-oslo-rath-aussen-4.jpg
- File:NO-oslo-rath-aussen-5.jpg
- File:Oslo City Hall (14266717903).jpg
- File:OSLO DOMKIRKE CATHEDRAL Lutheran cruciform korskirke (1697 later restored) Stortorvet Oslo Norway MAIN ENTRANCE western portal doors Dagfin Werenskiold 1938 Hovedinngang Vestportalen bronserelieffer dører Saligprisningene 2022 A.jpg
- File:OSLO DOMKIRKE CATHEDRAL Lutheran cruciform korskirke (1697 later restored) Stortorvet Oslo Norway MAIN ENTRANCE western portal doors Dagfin Werenskiold 1938 Hovedinngang Vestportalen bronserelieffer dører Saligprisningene 2022 B.jpg
- File:Oslo, Trerelieff av Werenskiold i rådhuset - no-nb digifoto 20151117 00045 NB MIT FNR 16124.jpg
- File:Oslo, Trerelieff av Werenskiold i rådhuset. - no-nb digifoto 20151117 00057 NB MIT FNR 16131.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
According to updated (after 2018) ToU (http://kremlin.ru/about/copyrights) TASS-works from kremlin.ru do not fall under CC-BY-3.0/4.0 permission. Alex Spade (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - уже был разговор на эту тему с файлами президента Ельцина в апреле ушедшего года, размещёнными на старом сайте Кремля. На нынешней версии сайта эти файлы отсутствуют и здесь необходимо заархивировать ссылку, поскольку на Викискладе нет ботов для архивации ссылок на закрытые сайты. Изображение в свою же очередь располагается по архивированной ссылке от 13 декабря 2007 года. На момент публикации фотографии на Викискладе ссылка ещё работала, но в сентябре 2009 года была запущена новая версия сайта президента России, а все материалы до 2009 года были перенесены на archive.kremlin.ru. 8 апреля 2015 года запущена нынешняя версия сайта, в которой почти все материалы архивных версий были объединены. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you translate your comment into English? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- To English, @Ooligan:
- Keep - There was already a conversation on this topic with President Yeltsin’s files in April of last year, posted on the old Kremlin website. On the current version of the site, these files are missing and it is necessary to archive the link here, since Wikimedia Commons does not have bots for archiving links to closed sites. The image, in turn, is located at the archived link dated December 13, 2007. At the time of publication of the photograph on Wikimedia Commons, the link was still working, but in September 2009, a new version of the website of the President of Russia was launched, and all materials before 2009 were transferred to archive.kremlin.ru. On April 8, 2015, the current version of the site was launched, in which almost all the materials from the archived versions were combined. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per @MasterRus21thCentury. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you translate your comment into English? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per MasterRus21thCentury. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Emma Watson as Hermione from Harry Potter movies. © Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved. ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Improperly attributed photo Wiki28734 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Image scraped from his Twitter profile, which means it's almost certainly not under a free license. C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyrighted content as this can be found as the thumbnail of one of his videos, which isn't under any Creative Commons license.
- YuhakGuardian (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this image could realistically be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep animal feces in the wild may be unappetizing, but is not out of scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion; talk with someone who has tracked animals in nature or made list of animal species in area if you cannont see how the topic of animal feces in the wild might be in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator's lack of imagination is not a policy reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would agree that unclear cases would need specific example. Hereby it is provided: an educational page about wolf poop. That doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. But for example it could be ecologically relevant or useful for finding wolves or used as a bioindicator etc. Thus I think it depends on how many alternative images of higher quality there are and there aren't many. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Hm, another one? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Why ever not? Defecation is of interest to biologists & ecologists, while scat-recognition is a valuable skill for hunters, hikers & other wilderness-users. Not just theoretically either: half a dozen of the pix in Bear feces are currently in use, and this one is of decent quality. Keep.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Mundane and unappetizing, but in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep User:GnocchiFan, I am concerned that you will interpret this comment as meant to mock you. Seriously, can I paraphrase your assertion as that you "cannot imagine an in scope use of this photo"? I suggest that shows a lapse in your powers of imagination.
- Yes, most people find smelling excrement, or stepping in excrement, distasteful. Some people may even find mundane pictures of excrement, distasteful. The community can even over-ride policy and delete an in-scope picture if it triggers a wide enough distaste. I think that is what you are really requesting.
- I echo User:Odysseus1479's point. This image is of potential use to anyone illustrating material aimed at (1) biologists; (2) ecologists; (3) hunters; (4) hikers &; (5) other wilderness-users.
- Disclaimer, I uploaded this image.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE - cannot see how this would be used for educational purposes. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Same as for all of these that you're bulk deleting. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Mundane and unappetizing, but in scope -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep your deletionism away from Biology-related media. Better stick to porn. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Within scope. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, COM:PORN GnocchiFan (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Human sexuality is within project scope, but this image is poorly photographed without evident compensating value. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Other images of men in thongs exist on Commons, not sufficiently different to others to indicate educational value per COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, poor focus, without apparent compensating value. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Spinixster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.alamy.com/lieutenant-colonel-sir-claude-edward-marjoribanks-dansey-1-kcmg-10-september-1876-11-june-1947-also-known-as-colonel-z-haywood-uncle-claude-image552089113.html?imageid=6B995BD1-ABEF-4D6C-B84B-CDCB0A0A9E15&p=2006478&pn=1&searchId=fe39e73db916d452420b7aac71e03566&searchtype=0
The link provided says it's PD, but doesn't explain why. 1930s or 1940s photograph, possibly public domain, but we'd need to know more about the photographer or the photograph itself. Abzeronow (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It is a crop from File:DANSEY, C.E. COLONEL LCCN2016859756.jpg --RAN (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. Keep. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed it is.
Kept: per discussion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Silvano Campeggi
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these paintings, Silvano Campeggi, died in 2018. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2089.
Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Massimo Campigli
[edit]Unfortunately FOP in Switzerland does not cover artworks located in interior spaces and the artist of this mural, Massimo Campigli, died in 1971. Although the files are in category for artwork "from" Italy, but the rules are the same. So the images are copyrighted until at least 2042 regardless of which country the mural was first published in.
Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The subject died in 2021, so it would be impossible for it to be made in 2024. Thus the source might be wrong. Spinixster (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation, no public domain. Name author is not the author but the webmaster. Tekstman (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Keitakamberkalne (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivative works with unclear copyright status
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Official Arjun Panchariya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images that are outside the scope of this project
Herby talk thyme 10:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Donsegudosombra (talk · contribs)
[edit]Old photos, unlikely to be own work
Gbawden (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Milanintlungu33 (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files with vague sources (Facebook).
- File:Gomora.jpg
- File:House of Zwide.jpg
- File:Isitha.jpg
- File:Sandile Mahlangu.jpg
- File:Anga Makubalo.jpg
- File:Cindy Mahlangu.jpg
- File:BBM 3.jpg
- File:BBM 4.jpg
- File:BBM 2.jpg
- File:Nikiwe (e.tv).jpg
- File:Uzalo (SABC 1).jpg
Spinixster (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Low quality amateur photo, hardly useful. Also potential privacy issues. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Person shown is subject of Wikipedia article (and categorized accordingly), so in scope; arguably shows their face the best of the 3 photos we have of them. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Having a watermark on the photo Mostafameraji (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
File:HK CWB Causeway Bay Lok Sing Centre mall Sugar Street Horror Movie Studio July 2021 SS2 17.jpg
[edit]Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlos Njitack Njitack (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files are from a blog page which has a copyright tag at the bottom of the page, so I doubt it's free.
- File:Homme bamileke 2.jpg
- File:1 types de vêtements bamileke.jpg
- File:Étouffe emblématique bamileke.jpg
- File:Homme bamileke.jpg
- File:Femme Bamileke.jpg
- File:Couple bamileke.jpg
- File:Rite et célébrations bamileke.jpg
Spinixster (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted character. Besides, Walt Disney died in 1966, so he hasn't been dead for 70 years --80.163.68.22 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. It would appear that while the copyright of the film is legitimately in doubt, it's not settled by any means, and thus we must err on the side of caution and delete. SchuminWeb (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The reason for deletion is invalid since this is a US work. In 1928, copyright law had nothing to do with the author's life. In fact, it's not until 1978 where the author's life becomes relevant. It's 95 years after publication date. And this has corporate authorship, so it would still be 95 years from the publication date today, not someone's death date.[3] However, due to copyright extensions (e.g. The Mickey Mouse Act), the U.S. copyright on Steamboat Willie will be in effect through 2023. Works must be free in the US to be allowed, not the uploader's country. Rocket000 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Josve05a imported a different Steamboat Willie image than the deleted one, which was on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steamboat_Willie.jpg. Platonides (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article for Steamboat Willie states that this poster was made in 1978 (as an anniversary poster), not 1928, and is therefore not in the public domain unlike the cartoon itself. Xeroctic (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment On the other hand, it could be argued that the colorization of a pre-existing frame from the movie (which I suppose this is), doesn't add a new copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This was moved here by me following Files for discussion on en.wp. All originality made post-1928 is below TOO. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While this particular poster was reportedly released in 1978, it is below the threshold of originality. The image is a frame from the original 1928 cartoon, with very simple coloring applied (using a color scheme that exists in 1928-vintage materials). The title of the film and the name of the character are added (which isn't copyrightable either). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, look at this eBay listing of the poster (archive). If this was a posted published in 1978, then it has no valid copyright notice and is ineligible for its own copyright. There is a notice in the corner "© Disney" — nothing else. Since there is no year in the claim, and I cannot find any registration in copyright.gov for the poster, that would mean the poster would be PD-US-defective notice-1978-89 even if it were above TOO (which it isn't). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per D. Benjamin Miller Sebbog13 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image. --Javidd (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
metadata: ©2007 University of Virginia. ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo of User राजकुमार(talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by مهند اليوسف (talk · contribs)
[edit]See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turki Alalshikh.jpg
--Alaa :)..! 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PORN GnocchiFan (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Mediocre penis selfie with sex toy. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a passable illustration of an artificial vagina in use Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS GnocchiFan (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; undistinguished penis selfie. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS GnocchiFan (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete random porn Dronebogus (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The artist of this painting, Giuseppe Balbo, died in 1980. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2051 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The artist of this painting, Stefano Benech, died in 1978. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2049. Adamant1 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
unused logo of not notable company Estopedist1 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It is logo and no permision to use AntanO 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-educational out of scope vanity image... Commons is not a personal photo album Acabashi (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-educational out of scope vanity image... Commons is not a personal photo album Acabashi (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-educational out of scope vanity image... Commons is not a personal photo album Acabashi (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Norway A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The memorial plaque dates to 1984 and is authored by sculptor И.В. Макогон. Still under sculptural copyright and not free for conmercial Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The décorative windowsills, according to Ukrainian Wikipedia, were likely to be authored by М. І. Гельман (died 1979) and were from 30's. Still under sculptural copyright and unfree for commercial Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The memorial plaque dates to 1971 and is authored by sculptor А. Фуженко. Still under sculptural copyright and unfree for commercial Creative Commons (CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/CC-zero/PD) licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:P1400078-001.JPG. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This may be OK on some basis, but I don't see how we can say that a photo of unknown authorship from a country with a copyright of 70 years p.m.a. is in the public domain. If the photographer lived even until 1954, it would still be copyrighted. How do we know that is not the case? Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Metadata indicates that this is from Facebook and has the President of Mexico as the copyright holder. Abzeronow (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Posters by Enrico Arvati
[edit]Per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter posters are usually copyrighted and the artist of these ones, Enrico Arvati, died in 2002. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2073.
- File:Manifesto pubblicitario, Enrico Arvati, Borletti... punti perfetti..., 1959.jpg
- File:Manifesto pubblicitario, Enrico Arvati, Fiera di Mantova, 1947.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Alfredo Caldini
[edit]Artwork in Italy is copyrighted and the artist of these paintings seems to have died at some point in the 1960s. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO. Although until an undetermined year since the exact year of death isn't clear. Unless someone can come up with more precise year of death then just the decade.
Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The artist of this painting, Pietro Annigoni, died in 1988. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2059. Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Antonio Maria Nardi
[edit]FOP in Brazil only covers "public places" and there's zero evidence that it extends to churches. In fact, churches don't qualify as public places in most countries and the artist of these paintings, Antonio Maria Nardi, died in 1973. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2044 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Antonio Maria Nardi 1.jpg
- File:Antonio Maria Nardi.jpg
- File:Capela do Seminário de Eugenópolis (MG).jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- A kép a WSPR üzemmódú összeköttetések térképen történő elhelyezését szemlélteti. Fellegis (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and that would be okay - but a GoogleMaps base layer is clearly visible. Maybe use an OSM base layer instead?. --Enyavar (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
2019 music album cover ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. COM:VRT permission from the copyright owner suggested. --Strakhov (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
music video screenshot ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work. --Strakhov (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
music video screenshot ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work. --Strakhov (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
tv show screenshot ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unlikely to be own work. --Strakhov (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
twiter photo, uploaded without permission ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of a free license at source. --Strakhov (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
not a free picture Les Meloures (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of a free license at source. --Strakhov (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No encyclopedic purpose GnocchiFan (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Seems fairly well photographed illustration of multiple categories the image is in. File has been on Commons more than 6 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. --Strakhov (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, COM:PORN GnocchiFan (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep shows an artificial vagina in use. We only have a few images of this Dronebogus (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Dronebogus. --Strakhov (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted per COM:NUDE. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Near-duplicate of File:Man see thru thong.JPG, not sufficiently different to satisfy COM:EDUSE. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Reasonably well photographed; nothing wrong with more than one photo of in-scope subject; potential reusers can chose which they prefer. I have linked the two photos to each other on description pages. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. --Strakhov (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Part of series of photos of 2006 event we've had a category for since 2014. Not everyone at the party needs to be identified for the photo to be useful illustration of the event. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, by the way. --Strakhov (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Part of series of photos at an event which has had a category since 2014. Not everyone at the party needs to be identified. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia. --Strakhov (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep part of series of photos; not everyone at event needs to be identified for photo to provide additional illustration of event. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia. --Strakhov (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Well photographed; one of the 2 people in the photo is identified by name; part of series of illustrations of an event which we've had a category for since 2009. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrogmation of New Orleans. BTW, one of them is not "unknown" according to the filename. --Strakhov (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The ‘signature’ is not true, and is based on a hoax by a writer called Richard Deacon, aka Donald McCormick. SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Dee's -Eyes Only- signature.svg too. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: unused and unlikely to be used because of SVG. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate, SVG version available. Bad GIF too. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: The gif is in use and there are noticable differances between the gif and the svg. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Outdated Policonbaek (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Outdated 105.30.50.162 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. source: WEDGWOOD weibo account: https://weibo.com/6004234283/NajdBotKF (publ 17 Jul 2023) ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
image used only by promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
unused logos, likely outside Commons:Project scope
Polarlys (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. One of these files is currently in use. It looks like a spam article, but it is not yet tagged for deletion on sw.wikipedia. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - none are currently in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 10 Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1953 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2, and died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 10 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1953 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2, and died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 10 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1953 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2, and died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
stock photo, not his/her own work ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joan Crawford Fan (talk · contribs)
[edit]It is possible that these files are in the public domain due to a lack of registration or renewal, but I do not have the capacity to verify that. To ere on the side of caution I am nominating them for deletion. If anyone has the time to verify then we might be able to not delete them. Additionally, these are all tagged under a CC0 license, and that is not the right license style. I've already gone through each image uploaded by this user and updated the tags if the image seems to be ok. Appropriate Undelete dates should be applied.
- File:Billy Haines Joan Crawford.jpg
- File:Joan Crawford and Cesar Romero.jpg
- File:Letty Lynton Dresses.jpg
- File:The Damned Don't Cry.jpg
- File:Berserk!.jpg
- File:Strait-Jacket.jpg
- File:I Saw What You Did.jpg
- File:Possessed 1947.jpg
- File:Female on the Beach.jpg
- File:Flamingo Road Poster.jpg
- File:Harriet Craig.jpg
- File:Torch Song.jpg
SDudley (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. False license claims, vauge sources. (Some might be out of copyright, but user gave no information helpful in making any determination). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
See Commons:AI-generated media#Special case: intentionally derivative works. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It includes some of the same elements as the putative original, but no one would confuse the two. So many of those elements are used differently. Daniel Case (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The idea of hanging feet above food is not copyrightable. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not by itself, but the prompt including "in the style of Jeff Koons" is what concerns me, since now we're not just making art on the same topic as the artist but doing so in the same style.
- This is obviously a new area with developing precedents, so I'm not attached to any particular outcome, but I feel obligated to raise the concern here so that we can discuss. And if this isn't a protected derivative work, then the language at the AI page ought to be changed to make clear that the provision is narrower than currently stated. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suppose I uploaded an image with the prompt "a four-by-four grid of the same image of an adult female human*, all using different colors for contrast". With a little tweaking, that would probably give you something that looked like a Warhol, even without mentioning his name. Would that not be useful and in scope in illustrating the appearance of his work without infringing the copyrights still on it?
*DALL-E, last time I checked, blocks every prompt with the word "woman" in it, presumably to keep people from using it to generate porn. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it better to just take a photo of Alice White instead and colorize it appropriately? I'm not saying that would be okay or not, or useful or not, but that would give you the equivalent effect without the random nature of AI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- But it would take more time ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it better to just take a photo of Alice White instead and colorize it appropriately? I'm not saying that would be okay or not, or useful or not, but that would give you the equivalent effect without the random nature of AI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suppose I uploaded an image with the prompt "a four-by-four grid of the same image of an adult female human*, all using different colors for contrast". With a little tweaking, that would probably give you something that looked like a Warhol, even without mentioning his name. Would that not be useful and in scope in illustrating the appearance of his work without infringing the copyrights still on it?
- Furthermore, as the Southern District of New York implicitly held when Andrea Blanch sued Koons over him using a portion of a fashion photograph she shot for Allure (the second pair of legs from the left in Koons's work), no copyright can lie in the sandals under US law as all clothing is useful. This was not disturbed by the Second Circuit when it affirmed the decision in Koons's favor.
Also, I would point this discussion toward Bill Diodato Photography v. Kate Spade LLC (388 F.Supp.2d 382; S.D.N.Y., 2005) where the complex idea of a photograph of a woman's panties around her ankles, just above her elegant high-heeled shoes, with a fancy handbag on the floor next to them, seen below a closed bathroom stall door, was held not to be copyrightable and non-infringing not least because the idea can't be copyrighted (and it had also been used before), and the fashion house's expression differed in ways (the color of the underwear, the shoes) that do not outweigh the many scènes à faire in the image (i.e., the placement of the model's toes, the angle of the shot and the position of the bag on the floor)
Yes, I realize that's not an exact comparison as there, the court was considering two photographs; here, we're talking about an artwork that's a collage of images from different photographic sources vs. an AI-generated take on the underlying idea. But I still feel the point is the same. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lean towards delete. Why is this in scope? It certainly would not be in scope if a user had drawn this themself and uploaded it as "own work". - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's in scope because it shows what a popular artwork is showing. Would have voted delete and asked the same question otherwise as well. This can help illustrate what this popular image shows as well as e.g. be useful in the context of (possibly critical) examination of popularity in contemporary painting art or the alleged communication of related abstract concepts. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Most of Koons's work is copyrighted and thus we cannot use it in some projects at all and in others (like the English Wikipedia) without justification. The enwiki article on Koons includes a lot of photos to get at the idea of his artwork that don't really help the viewer, that are sort of the best we can do within the limits of that wiki's fair-use policy (Any articles on individual works of Koons's are a different story, of course). An image that so readily evokes the look of one of his celebrated exhibitions without actually being one of the images in that is IMO within scope as helpful to the reader wanting to be able to appreciate Koons's work.
It's not our fault if Koons's preferred style of appropriation art so readily lends itself to being effectively imitated by an AI ... I'd like to think he'd agree that was part of the point (I mean, if he sued for copyright infringement over this, the giggles from the art world would be deafening). Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think our time would be better spent convincing artists like Koons to waive all copyright claims to AI imitations of their art, honestly. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- "It certainly would not be in scope if a user had drawn this themself and uploaded it as 'own work'"
- We've actually had some images like this for quite a while:
- File:Wie-mark-rothko-final.jpg: A clear imitation of the later work of Mark Rothko, (which I would argue is not copyrightable anyway under US law as it mostly consists of simple geometric shapes, but that's not the point here, and it may be copyrighted elsewhere) even categorized as such (I didn't know we actually had those categories). It is not clear if the "own work" refers to just the photograph, or the painting. But it's clearly intended to be the freely licensed expression of an uncopyrightable idea best known for being expressed by a single artist in many copyrighted works.
- File:Engigstciak image styled as 1980s Windham Hill album cover.jpg: Noticing that my picture of this little hill on the tundra in a remote area of the Canadian Arctic reminded me of the sort of pictures used on Windham Hill Records album covers during the 1980s, I decided to style mine as one, and upload it as a free equivalent to the use of one of the label's equally simple in design (but nonetheless copyrighted) album cover images when the style of those covers (part of the label's appeal in those years) is discussed. I note that it is used on the Spanish Wikipedia, where no fair use is allowed, which suggests to me my purpose in creating it is understood and that that image is within scope.
- No one has as far as I can tell objected to, much less tried to delete, either of these images, in the years that they've been here on Commons. Yet here they are as clear examples of "in the style of" images that no one would call derivative works. So why should there be any difference when we use AI to create a similar image?
- And before anyone says it was too easy, this took several sets of images generated by several revisions of the prompt before it produced one I was happy with. And that's with an artist whose style is, by design perhaps, as easily replicable as Koons. My attempts at getting DALL-E to generate a Roger Dean-like image that would be like his Yes covers has resulted so far in some interesting images that might make good fantasy-paperback covers, but nothing I'd upload here and say with a straight face it was an acceptable equivalent to something like Tales from Topographic Oceans or Drama. AI image generation is far from being sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic, I can assure you, if you aren't already sure. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any legal issue with "in the style of X", any more than we would have a legal issue with a human artist doing the same thing. But I don't see the point in these types of images, as per Jmabel. It doesn't show what a popular image is showing; it shows you some sort of weird interpretation. Your most reliable way to handle such things is to verbally describe the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It shows attractive female feet above unhealthy food in a strange way and style, exactly like the putative original.
visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry
is also done here and in a similar way. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- It's a very different strange way and style. That's the essence of the problem. It's sort of like if we couldn't show the Mona Lisa, showing File:Mistinguett Mona Lisa.jpg. And the closer you get, the more problematic it is legally. Again, it would be very hard to infringe on a painting in words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- There's less difference between that image and the Mona Lisa ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's a very different strange way and style. That's the essence of the problem. It's sort of like if we couldn't show the Mona Lisa, showing File:Mistinguett Mona Lisa.jpg. And the closer you get, the more problematic it is legally. Again, it would be very hard to infringe on a painting in words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It shows attractive female feet above unhealthy food in a strange way and style, exactly like the putative original.
- Delete Although weakly. This is one of the rare times I actually agree with Prototyperspective about something having to do with AI artwork. It does in fact show the "visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry" in some strange way. Although as others have pointed out such an image probably wouldn't be acceptable if created by a normal person who isn't a notable artist, which has to be weighed against the fact that it shows something in a novel way. Novel isn't necessarily educational either. All images are inherently evocative of something. But at the end of the day, so what? There's an infinite amount of ways women's body parts and objects can be combined to show the "visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry" and we already have plenty of images not created by AI that do it already. Although I'm weaker side of deleting the image because it's not nothing. It's just not enough of whatever the "something" is for me to think the image should be kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – I don't see a good reason to keep it. I fail to see how it could be educationally used or in other Wikimedia projects. I resonate with user Adamant1, who mentions we already have a lot of non-AI images that fulfill the same purpose without falling into a legally weird area. Personally, I also find it somewhat unethical to use AI-generated media, and especially the use of "in the style of"/"inspired by" style prompts. EdoAug (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Unethical" is a rather strange word to use in relation to Koons's work, given how many times he's been successfully sued for copyright infringement. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean in that in a general sense. The decision that is reached at the end of the discussion of this file might be used as a possible argument for future cases with AI-generated images based on ... less sued creators. EdoAug (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- See my longer reply above. We already have such images made without AI; I don't see how that means of creating them makes a difference. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Delete voters have read Daniel Case's point above in that this image can be useful for illustrating an existing artwork that is not on WMC. See the link he put there. No we don't have non-AI images that fulfill the same purpose of illustrating this artwork. The delete comments are made as if he wouldn't have raised and explained this point. Also see
in October 2006, brought over his use of a photographic advertisement as source material for legs and feet in a painting, Niagara (2000). The court ruled that Koons had sufficiently transformed the original advertisement so as to qualify as a fair use of the original image
. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)we don't have non-AI images that fulfill the same purpose
Which purpose? There's got to be images on here already that show the visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry or whatever the original thing was. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- The purpose of serving as a free equivalent that conveys the same information as a copyrighted work (in this its general tone, appearance and style). Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I get that. But what exactly is the "information" that isn't already being conveyed by other images on Commons? There's plenty of pther images on here that convey "show the visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry" and that don't happen to have the same issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The first comment and delete rationale reads like you don't get it at all that this image is illustrating this image.
what exactly is the "information" that isn't already being conveyed by other images on Commons
It illustrates how the image achieves that and roughly how it looks like. Plus there is not a "plenty of pther images on here that convey that", I count 5 artworks on WMC that anyhow have advertising as a subject of which zero do it even just remotely like the image. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- I mean, I get it. I just disagree with your conclusions about it. Regardless, at least IMO the fact that there's no images on here that "do it even just remotely like the image" doesn't really matter. The purpose of the project isn't to collect random, but "unique" images. However you want to define "unique" and personally I'd say this one is pretty generic, which is kind of the point of most pop art. All pop art does what this image does to some degree though. That's literally the point in it as a an art movement. To "show the visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry." Maybe you could none of the images on here do it this way, but then I'd ask why that matters. Otherwise we could up any number of random variations on an image of "x, y, and z" object combined in a novel way and say they are within the projects scope just because the objects and how they are combined is novel and be pop art if we create it in just the right way. Yet there's plenty of images in Category:Pop art that do exactly what this does, but again, without the same issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted let's say create an article about criticism of Pop art regarding why it's pretty bad and generic, a good example would be useful. The original work is generic but it was made by a notable artist and got popular. Thus an image illustrating what that notable work looked like is clearly in scope. None of the images in Pop art illustrate this particular artwork about which there even is at least one paragraph on Wikipedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- What about the fact that the woman on the right has a phantom leg? ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- As does the woman on the left. My prompt asked for crossed legs, like Niagara. This is what I got that had the legs dangling down from the top. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this AI-generated image serves as a good example, and I think it would be misleading to use it as an example for his work. There are other examples of pop art in the previously mentioned category that serve better in my opinion. I still don't see what purpose this image serves that. If it's only "We need a Jeff Koons' Niagara in Wikimedia", I don't think that it's suitable for that purpose, either. EdoAug (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not meant to serve as a broad example of pop art (a movement long dead by the early 2000s, anyway). It's meant to illustrate what Koons's Easyfun-Ethereal series looked like while avoiding the question of fair use, banned outright on a number of projects. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- What about the fact that the woman on the right has a phantom leg? ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanted let's say create an article about criticism of Pop art regarding why it's pretty bad and generic, a good example would be useful. The original work is generic but it was made by a notable artist and got popular. Thus an image illustrating what that notable work looked like is clearly in scope. None of the images in Pop art illustrate this particular artwork about which there even is at least one paragraph on Wikipedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I get it. I just disagree with your conclusions about it. Regardless, at least IMO the fact that there's no images on here that "do it even just remotely like the image" doesn't really matter. The purpose of the project isn't to collect random, but "unique" images. However you want to define "unique" and personally I'd say this one is pretty generic, which is kind of the point of most pop art. All pop art does what this image does to some degree though. That's literally the point in it as a an art movement. To "show the visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry." Maybe you could none of the images on here do it this way, but then I'd ask why that matters. Otherwise we could up any number of random variations on an image of "x, y, and z" object combined in a novel way and say they are within the projects scope just because the objects and how they are combined is novel and be pop art if we create it in just the right way. Yet there's plenty of images in Category:Pop art that do exactly what this does, but again, without the same issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The information is "how Jeff Koons chose to convey that message". If we can do it this way without infringing his copyright, why should we not? Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can we? I don't really see this artwork as doing so. By its nature, that problem is hard; by far the best way of showing how Jeff Koons conveyed a message is to show it. Anything else is like showing Spaceballs as an example of Star Wars.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I think the image does it very well and is in some ways better than the original while it's obviously not a new idea, which wasn't brilliant to begin with, and has mentioned misgeneration issues (the uploader should have taken care of that). (Also the Niagara falls in the background are kind of misleading.) If anything the image improves too much on the original. That doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with that, it can still be useful and the as Case argued, the image that is the subject can't be shown in many occasions (such as but not only various Wikipedias). Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to think this is less about "I don't think we can do this" than "I don't want to think we can do this". Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can we? I don't really see this artwork as doing so. By its nature, that problem is hard; by far the best way of showing how Jeff Koons conveyed a message is to show it. Anything else is like showing Spaceballs as an example of Star Wars.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I get that. But what exactly is the "information" that isn't already being conveyed by other images on Commons? There's plenty of pther images on here that convey "show the visual language of advertising, marketing, and the entertainment industry" and that don't happen to have the same issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of serving as a free equivalent that conveys the same information as a copyrighted work (in this its general tone, appearance and style). Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the Delete voters have read Daniel Case's point above in that this image can be useful for illustrating an existing artwork that is not on WMC. See the link he put there. No we don't have non-AI images that fulfill the same purpose of illustrating this artwork. The delete comments are made as if he wouldn't have raised and explained this point. Also see
- See my longer reply above. We already have such images made without AI; I don't see how that means of creating them makes a difference. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean in that in a general sense. The decision that is reached at the end of the discussion of this file might be used as a possible argument for future cases with AI-generated images based on ... less sued creators. EdoAug (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Unethical" is a rather strange word to use in relation to Koons's work, given how many times he's been successfully sued for copyright infringement. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete due to scope, not copyright - You cannot copyright a style of artwork or an idea of an artwork, even if it is a very specific style. (Otherwise, Supreme would owe Barbara Kruger a lot of money.) That said, I don't see how this image has any realistic educational value or value to our sister projects. Nosferattus (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Realistic use case: illustrating a popular artwork. Argument refuted. Additional edvalue: only the sixth image of advertising in art on WMC and first of this type. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jeff Koons or more importantly the image this one is based on really that popular? As Daniel Case has said, pop art by the early 2000s and Jeff Koons, as well as these styles of image, are a small niche of that. So really all you doing is making a false appeal to popularity. Even if it was popular though, so what? That's not a reason to keep something. Especially if it's not even the original work to begin with. This image isn't popular. The image it's based on probably isn't either. Nor is the person who created it, but hey, let's keep it because some authority, which is really just an extremely small group of people made up of you and Daniel Case) find it useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it is, it even has a paragraph about it on at least one / English Wikipedia that I cited earlier. Things may be different if we didn't have 100 million images of mostly far more mundane things of which there are already thousands of other images such as photos of random roads and whatnot. The standards and barriers set for images made using AI are excessively high and don't match other practices here. It's even a unique image in some regards while images are kept that are not only mundane and low resolution but also show things we already have countless images of. I'd suggest addressing this rather than images that clearly do have realistic educational value even though the magnitude of value and usefulness clearly is debatable. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of things that aren't popular have paragraphs about them on Wikipedia. They aren't mutually exclusive. If I look up "Jeff Koons Niagara" on Google there's only about 200,000 results, which is pretty piddling, and most of them related to the court case. Not the image. While I'd agree the court case got some traction at the time, that has nothing to do with the actual artwork. Let along this image since it isn't even the original.
- Yes it is, it even has a paragraph about it on at least one / English Wikipedia that I cited earlier. Things may be different if we didn't have 100 million images of mostly far more mundane things of which there are already thousands of other images such as photos of random roads and whatnot. The standards and barriers set for images made using AI are excessively high and don't match other practices here. It's even a unique image in some regards while images are kept that are not only mundane and low resolution but also show things we already have countless images of. I'd suggest addressing this rather than images that clearly do have realistic educational value even though the magnitude of value and usefulness clearly is debatable. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jeff Koons or more importantly the image this one is based on really that popular? As Daniel Case has said, pop art by the early 2000s and Jeff Koons, as well as these styles of image, are a small niche of that. So really all you doing is making a false appeal to popularity. Even if it was popular though, so what? That's not a reason to keep something. Especially if it's not even the original work to begin with. This image isn't popular. The image it's based on probably isn't either. Nor is the person who created it, but hey, let's keep it because some authority, which is really just an extremely small group of people made up of you and Daniel Case) find it useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Realistic use case: illustrating a popular artwork. Argument refuted. Additional edvalue: only the sixth image of advertising in art on WMC and first of this type. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- All this DR does if it's kept is set a precedent where even though we can't host an image because it's copyrighted, we can host an image that looks slightly similar to it as long as we put the artist's name in the description somewhere and handwave about how it illustrates the general theme of what their image was getting at. We can't host an image of a building because it's copyrighted? Who cares. Just create an image of a building that has the same number of floors and paint color, put the architects name in the description somewhere, and act like the AI generated image is in scope because it illustrates what they were getting at when they designed the apartment complex. Who cares if the buildings don't even look like each other. It's in scope because it's a "Vittorio Gregotti Teatro degli Arcimboldi theatre take 2" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- If there is a notable building we can't have a picture showing it because of freedom of panorama issues or simply because we don't have a photograph of it, this is a great example of how AI images can be useful for illustration (better than describing just via textual description if it's of good quality) on Commons (which isn't just WP). And the case is about the image plus that doesn't make it less notable.
- If the notability bar is even above works that have whole paragraphs and additionally an article for its artist, we should go ahead and delete ~95% of art-related images on WMC or even 60% of images overall. A new tool comes along and what does WMC do – discriminate against it as if nearly anything of value must be photos no matter how absurdly uneducational or mundane. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I noted above, I found two examples of imitations of styles otherwise expressed under copyright (both of which, like Koons's work, are styles that can easily be emulated even without involving AI (in fact, since one of them is an image I myself created, I can attest to that). If the idea of making free works that emulate (rather than imitate) non-free ones were so offensive to Commons, so far outside scope, these images would surely have been nominated for deletion as soon as they were uploaded. Yet they remain.
In your scenario, if an image didn't look like the actual building, there is a simple solution: don't use it in the article. (In actuality, we often host images of buildings taken in countries like France, Italy and South Africa that don't have FoP on the Wikipedia in question rather than Commons, particularly enwiki, since such images are freely licensable under US copyright law (I have one of the Pirelli Tower in Milan that was deleted here but is used on enwiki for that reason)). Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- All this DR does if it's kept is set a precedent where even though we can't host an image because it's copyrighted, we can host an image that looks slightly similar to it as long as we put the artist's name in the description somewhere and handwave about how it illustrates the general theme of what their image was getting at. We can't host an image of a building because it's copyrighted? Who cares. Just create an image of a building that has the same number of floors and paint color, put the architects name in the description somewhere, and act like the AI generated image is in scope because it illustrates what they were getting at when they designed the apartment complex. Who cares if the buildings don't even look like each other. It's in scope because it's a "Vittorio Gregotti Teatro degli Arcimboldi theatre take 2" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree with you on the emulated work not being popular. According to the page on Niagara at Koons's website, it has been exhibited in five countries, and I think it's part of the Guggenheim's permanent collection. It's also at issue in (as noted elsewhere on this page) a seminal copyright-law case. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Yeah but honestly, how much of that has to do with the court case versus the actual artwork? I guarantee the Guggenheim wouldn't give it a second thought if not for the court case, but the argument being made here is that the image itself is what's notable and worth having a similar copy of. Upload a copy of the court documents if that's the meaningful part of this whole thing though. But it's a piddling copy of an artwork that wasn't good to begin with and would have gotten zero attention on it's own if not for the court case. Not to say that's meaningless, but again, this isn't even the original image and looks nothing like it to begin with! --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- You guarantee? Speculation on your part and your own aesthetic judgement are not valid deletion criteria (And I already have the original in |the article about the court case where it would make sense; as for the decision itself it's used as a source in the article and since it's online in several places as a public domain text I fail completely to see what any point would be in uploading a copy here except to give you the semblance of a counterargument). Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that Jeff Koons is an important artist and Niagara is a notable piece of pop art. But I don't think either of those things have any bearing on this image being useful or notable or educational. Prototyperspective mentioned that this image could be used to illustrate a popular artwork (I'm assuming they mean Niagra), but even if such an article existed, I don't think it would be at all appropriate to illustrate such an article with this image. Nosferattus (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already said a few times that there is a paragraph about it. Don't know why you assume there must be an entire article. Furthermore, WMC media isn't just for Wikipedia so it can educational/valuable use-cases outside of it. Whether or not it would be useful to illustrate the artwork on WP is debatable and maybe some language Wikipedia disagrees with your opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The idea is that a) on Wikimedia projects that do not allow third-party copyrighted work or b) situations where such work is allowed but only under tight criteria that very often limits the use of such work to an article about that specific work and then only with ample sourced commentary, an image like this could be used to represent the style of an artist, a series of works by an artist, a period of work by an artist, where it would be harder under such a fair-use policy to justify the use of a copyrighted work. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that Jeff Koons is an important artist and Niagara is a notable piece of pop art. But I don't think either of those things have any bearing on this image being useful or notable or educational. Prototyperspective mentioned that this image could be used to illustrate a popular artwork (I'm assuming they mean Niagra), but even if such an article existed, I don't think it would be at all appropriate to illustrate such an article with this image. Nosferattus (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- You guarantee? Speculation on your part and your own aesthetic judgement are not valid deletion criteria (And I already have the original in |the article about the court case where it would make sense; as for the decision itself it's used as a source in the article and since it's online in several places as a public domain text I fail completely to see what any point would be in uploading a copy here except to give you the semblance of a counterargument). Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Yeah but honestly, how much of that has to do with the court case versus the actual artwork? I guarantee the Guggenheim wouldn't give it a second thought if not for the court case, but the argument being made here is that the image itself is what's notable and worth having a similar copy of. Upload a copy of the court documents if that's the meaningful part of this whole thing though. But it's a piddling copy of an artwork that wasn't good to begin with and would have gotten zero attention on it's own if not for the court case. Not to say that's meaningless, but again, this isn't even the original image and looks nothing like it to begin with! --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Speculation on your part and your own aesthetic judgement are not valid deletion criteria
The same could be said for the reasons you and Prototyperspective have given for why the image should be kept. This whole thing is speculation and personal judgement on both sides. We aren't lawyers or professional art critics. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)- First, as to the legal issues: I posted some relevant case law above, as well as a link to idea-expression divide, a widely accepted and easily understood principle of American copyright law that one need not be a lawyer to understand. If there has been any consensus in this discussion it has been that the image does not infringe Koons's copyright ... several delete !votes have accepted that.
As for Prototyperpsective and myself "speculating", where have we done so? We have simply responded with explanations as to how the image is within scope, which often does require speculations as to possible future use. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
the image does not infringe Koons's copyright
And no where have I said that I think it does. I could really care less about the question of copyright and that's not what I'm saying your speculating about. I'm solely talking about the claim that it's within scope, which apparently you agree "often does require speculations as to possible future use." At the end of the day I'm speculating that this isn't useful or otherwise in scope, and your speculating that it is. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- First, as to the legal issues: I posted some relevant case law above, as well as a link to idea-expression divide, a widely accepted and easily understood principle of American copyright law that one need not be a lawyer to understand. If there has been any consensus in this discussion it has been that the image does not infringe Koons's copyright ... several delete !votes have accepted that.
Deleted: per discussion. Name and description show it is an attempt to make a fake Jeff Koons; categorized as Jeff Koons - inappropriate. Unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
suspicious sources. One is from FB. Unlike that own works
Estopedist1 (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation (see Commons:Currency) Ђидо (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation (see Commons:Currency) Ђидо (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Per EXIF-data, not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploader does not own the copyright to their daughter's work. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Sakurako Miki Nutshinou Talk! 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There's no claim here that the uploader does own the copyright. However I would see a parent as being legally entitled to license their underage child's work, and that's what matters here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Andy Dingley. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:SAKURAKO is painting a picture of her mother. (51546162243).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:SurSousVeillanceByStephanieMannAge6.png: "We had tis discussion some years ago with WMF counsel -- the bottom line is that works by minors are problematic because, as noted above, the child can revoke the license on reaching her majority." - Not eligible for speedy deletion because of previous DR The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as above. This is based on a very assertive claim that WMF have 'ruled out' licensing by parents on the basis that such an irrevocable contract would be legally revocable by an underage child reaching maturity in the future. Do the courts know that WMF have such powers? Also can anyone even cite the WMF claiming such a thing? Because the opinion being cited meta:Wikilegal/Removal of photos uploaded by minors is about licences granted by minors, which is a very different thing.
- This also seems to be reliant on a legal fallacy here,
it's a well established principle of intellectual property that copyright is usually assigned to the author
. Yet this is doubly wrong; 'usually' is not a legal principle: it doesn't matter how often one outcome happens compared to another if the legal basis for which should apply is instead based on some other clear condition being met. Copyright doesn't necessarily reside with authors, as 'work for hire' comes into play. But also this isn't any question of moral rights as author (which would reside with the child), it's about the ability of an adult agent to act in loco parentis and assign a licence for that copyright. - I hold that parents can act as agents and can assign valid licences for copyright purposes to the child's work. These licences do not become revocable when the child reaches maturity. There is vast body of IP precedent involving commercially important 'child stars' and although I'm no expert on such, I know of no cases when a now-adult child star suddenly regained their rights from the studio. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hans Berger (painter)
[edit]Unfortunately FOP in Switzerland doesn't cover images taken inside of buildings and the artist of these paintings, Hans Berger, died in 1977. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until at least 2048 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Autoportrait. Vers 1920.png
- File:UniBastions-esc-rez1er-d-01.jpg
- File:UniBastions-esc-rez1er-d-plaque.jpg
- File:UniBastions-esc-rez1er-g-01.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- While it's not really useful in itself, File:UniBastions-esc-rez1er-d-plaque.jpg could be kept, because it doesn't contain anything copyrightable. And it's likely not made by the painter himself, but by someone placing the painting there. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I actually originally meant to leave it out of the DR since its clearly not copyrightable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: three and kept one, per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation - this is a screenshot of Google Earth. Till (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 10 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1953 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2 and who died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 8 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1943 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2 and who died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 8 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1943 composition by a Russian author who worked during WW2 and who died in 1975. Undelete in 2050. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. An image from the Palace Wedgwood campaign shot by Alasdair McLellan. Article: https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-features/palace-teams-wedgwood-skateboards-tea-set-strawberry-twist-1235877346/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. ©2023 Wedgwood source: https://www.wedgwood.com/en-dk/collections/all-collections/new-arrivals/charles-jeffrey-loverboy-hand-decorated-teapot-1-1072378 ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Aneesh gopal
[edit]Unable to verify free license claim - YT video is not cc
Gbawden (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Fake photo. His head looks weird and too big in comparision to his body. ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It may be fake, but it is currently in use in en.wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. (Article looks to have dubious aspects as well, but that's an en:W concern.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
source: instagram.com/hasbulla.hushetskiy. article: https://www.caravan.kz/news/v-kakikh-skandalakh-byl-zameshan-obidevshijj-kazakhov-bloger-khasbik-921894/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. metadata: Ivan Ponomarenko (different from description) ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. metadata: Ivan Ponomarenko (different from description) ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Фото: Фотобанк Фонда «Вызов». article: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6413412 ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pabloillustrations (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused, low quality artwork attempting (largely without success) to illustrate various abstract or hypothetical scientific concepts. Images are likely AI-generated - notice the deformed hands in images like File:False awakening.jpg, for instance - and many of them have other substantial defects, like the "reef" in File:Coral reef illustration.jpg looking like it's being consumed by a purple crystal.
I've left out a couple of images which are in use, but some of those have quality issues as well (e.g. the hands in File:Mindfulness meditation.jpg) and should probably be replaced with other images where possible.
- File:Orbital ring.jpg
- File:Cosmogony.jpg
- File:Alien space station.jpg
- File:Extraterrestrial life.jpg
- File:False awakening.jpg
- File:Coral reef illustration.jpg
- File:Life on Jupiter.jpg
- File:Qualia.jpg
- File:Directed panspermia.jpg
- File:Life on venus.jpg
- File:Life in europa.jpg
- File:Ego death.jpg
- File:Panspermia.jpg
- File:Lithopanspermia.jpg
- File:Quantum tunnelling.jpg
- File:Thermodynamic equilibrium.jpg
- File:Hydrobiology.jpg
Omphalographer (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Fictitious flag not useful for any purpose in wiki. Causes confusion with real flag. This image has been wrongly added to articles repeatedly in place of the real flag of the city. It's file page now also shows up first in internet search results for the flag of Norwich, causing further confusion with the actual flag. LegerityFortis (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Tineye finds a larger version in its database from 2014 (not online anymore) but also finds smaller versions predating the upload to Commons Tineye link Denniss (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this photograph is the work of the subject or the uploader. Looks like it was grabbed off Ayad's website. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
non free - Zard – Brezza Di Mare Dedication To Izumi Sakai 2007 cd cover ZimskoSonce (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work. Analakshimi has a url top left - PCP
Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Jessica Biel attends the 70th Emmy Awards at Microsoft Theater on September 17, 2018 in Los Angeles, California ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio (c) Achim Blazy M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of pic being licensed Mannie Sblash (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. FOTO: Cuarto Oscuro. article: https://oaxaca.heraldodemexico.com.mx/nacional/2022/11/2/fotos-amlo-visito-la-tumba-de-rocio-beltran-su-primera-esposa-quien-fue-de-que-murio-4829.html ZimskoSonce (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Courtesy of Jhemmylrut Teng (article: https://medium.com/inspired-writer/being-pope-francis-close-in-reporter-changed-me-for-the-better-12fa0aebcae7) ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I own the photos. The image will be retain in Wikimedia Commons. The image on Medium article has now been changed instead to not match the one in Wikimedia. Thank you. Ctengwestergaard (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: Check the edited Medium article with new image via this link: https://medium.com/inspired-writer/being-pope-francis-close-in-reporter-changed-me-for-the-better-12fa0aebcae7 Ctengwestergaard (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission via COM:VRTS. --Wdwd (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. courtesy of Jhemmylrut Teng (article: https://medium.com/about-me-stories/about-me-jhemmylrut-teng-a5c8eb3cf697) ZimskoSonce (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I own the photos. The image will be retain in Wikimedia Commons. The image on Medium article has now been changed instead to not match the one in Wikimedia. Check the updated Medium article thru this link: https://medium.com/about-me-stories/about-me-jhemmylrut-teng-a5c8eb3cf697 Ctengwestergaard (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission via COM:VRTS. --Wdwd (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
مخالفة حسب Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Violation according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria Mohammed Qays (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:CUR Algeria. --Wdwd (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. The other image: Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
Estopedist1 (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
not own work, need permission Docosong (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
previously deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pere Buxó Domènech.jpg Docosong (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
AI-generated but have intentionally deceptive/false info. Either correct or delete.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep In use--Trade (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The creation date was set to "Date 17 August 2016" by the uploader and previously the images did not have any indication of being AI-generated such as a category for that. The uploader has neither corrected that nor replied here so far. The DR could be kept open for a while. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no longer in use. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
COM:DERIV photograph of an artwork, uploader claiming not to know who the artist is or when they worked. Belbury (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Uploader of the image here; while I don’t remember the name of the artist or when exactly they worked, I did read about it at the kibbutz at the time, and distinctly remember thinking it was old enough to fall into public domain / that I should upload the picture I took to Wikimedia when I got an internet connection. I do regret not taking notes / more pictures giving context at the time though! Yitz (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no progress on identifying the artist and determining copyright status. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Bulgaria A1Cafel (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The Garden of Earthly Delights is 500 years old and in the public domain. Everything else in the image is either de minimis or not copyrightable. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
source: Sonia Eryka instagram account. article: https://www.idntimes.com/hype/throwback/iip-afifullah/dulu-artis-cilik-kini-fashion-influencer-ini-potret-cantik-sonia-eryka-c1c2 ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
possible copyvio. COPYRIGHTS BY ZARAKET ®. source: https://www.zaraket.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/C-1024x669.jpg ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A better picture is available on the talk tab. Wiki28734 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This has a valid Creative Commons license as of now and I've already provided its source as well (I've made sure that the source is the original video and there's no other duplicate of it) so this should be allowed, no? If the content is copyrighted or the author doesn't allow reuse/attribution of the content, I may reconsider the decision.
- YuhakGuardian (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no consensus to delete. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Low quality, no exif, unlikely to be own work as claimed. Widely available on the net incl https://bmiphd.hms.harvard.edu/people/robert-gentleman and https://infostatistics297.wordpress.com/ - very similar to https://www.scorpiontx.com/our-team/robert-gentleman-ph-d/ - PCP Gbawden (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
No proof of pic being licensed. The picture can be found widely on the internet Mannie Sblash (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
screenshot of tv show Arung dan si Kaya ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a damaged and/or improperly cropped image. The original uploader has already fixed the issue by uploading a corrected version (File:Curcumin-pd-1.jpg). This incomplete/damaged version should therefore be deleted. Marbletan (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyright © 2024 한국미디어뉴스통신. All rights reserved ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not appear to be CC license. YouTube description attributes copyright to Newsday, appears to be a screenshot of a video which the user does not hold license to. BRES2773 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Doctor of Law Doctoral gown advertisement. source: https://www.etsy.com/se-en/listing/678717696/university-gown-with-hat-and-matching ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
An old image that I imported, but it's a copyvio Wizly-08 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
An old image that I imported, but it's a copyvio Wizly-08 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
An old image that I imported, but it's a copyvio Wizly-08 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is not "own work" then? Strakhov (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP, unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
© Объединенный институт ядерных исследований, 2016 - 2024. Все права защищены. source: https://www.jinr.ru/posts/nauchnyj-kollektiv-iz-oiyai-laureat-natsionalnoj-premii-vyzov/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Фото: Фотобанк Фонда «Вызов». article: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6413412 ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
copyvio. Фото: Фотобанк Фонда «Вызов». article: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6413412 ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, uploaded among clear copyvios. Probably comes from currently unavailable website zhar-ptica.com Komarof (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm her husband, and this photo is my work. Фэтти (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a professional photographer who has created an entire photoset in a certain setting and costume (about 20 photos from this photoset are available online)? If so, it won't be a problem for you to upload the photo in its original quality and with metadata. --Komarof (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, i'm not professional photographer. If you look at the data on this photo, you will see that I posted it under my authorship and a free license more than 10 years ago. So I personally don’t see any problems. Фэтти (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- License is accepted. Фэтти (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, i'm not professional photographer. If you look at the data on this photo, you will see that I posted it under my authorship and a free license more than 10 years ago. So I personally don’t see any problems. Фэтти (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are you a professional photographer who has created an entire photoset in a certain setting and costume (about 20 photos from this photoset are available online)? If so, it won't be a problem for you to upload the photo in its original quality and with metadata. --Komarof (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Now has permission. --Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Create a new cropped file by accident, wanted to overwrite the first cropped picture Iojhug (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
СНИМКИ: ЛИЧЕН АРХИВ И ДЕСИСЛАВА КУЛЕЛИЕВА. article: https://www.24chasa.bg/ozhivlenie/article/9032230 ZimskoSonce (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am author of this portrait and do not want to be connected with this person for his present controversial xenophobic wiews NoJin (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. Image is freely licensed and has been in use for a significant period of time across multiple wikis. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know if it's technically possible. The uploader releases the image into the public domain (so no attribution is needed and the uploader's name is not required) and then the name of the uploader is hidden somehow (?). Strakhov (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, COM:INUSE. You can still mention in the description that you don’t supporter this person’s views. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: Commons licenses are irrevocable. --Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neelesh Pandiyath
[edit]- File:Sanjeev Nair.jpg
- File:RN Acharya.jpg
- File:Dr Rajashree Singhania.jpeg
- File:Maj Gen Ashwani Kumar Channan.jpg
Neelesh Pandiyath has uploaded a number of photographs, claiming that they are his own work. On English Wikipedia he has stated that he has had no contact with people in the photographs, despite the fact that most of them are clearly posed photographs, not casual snapshots taken by a passing member of the public. It makes no sense to claim both to have taken the photographs and to have had no contact with people who are the subjects of those photographs. When pressed to clarify the situation, Neelesh Pandiyath said that some of the photographs were ones that he had "clicked from album/screen shot". All this adds up to fairly convincing evidence that the photographs are not in fact his work, indicating copyright problems.
(I am listing only files which seem to me to he unambiguously posed photographs of people, which cannot possibly have been taken by someone without contact with the subjects of the photographs. There are other files which may or may not be the uploader's own work; I am not listing those.) --JBW (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
downsized version of File:Gym Cardio Area Overlooking Greenery.JPG; file-uses should be replaced with that Prototyperspective (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Processed as a duplicate. --Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The statue in question was only unveiled in 1992 as the date given on its podium suggests. As a result and since there's no FOP in Greece this photo should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
self-promotion, out of scope ZimskoSonce (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Part of series of photos of event; harmless at worst. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unremarkable, many others like this. --Gbawden (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per similar --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unremarkable, tightly cropped to only include her. --Gbawden (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); low-quality image, unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per similar - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, could be useful. --Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain FOP in Spain doesn't seem to allow for commercial usage which isn't compatible with Commons and the sculptor of this relief died in 1988. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Catgiraffe (talk · contribs)
[edit]wrong own work claim, missing source
- File:FrankClement62.png
- File:Tancredo Neves.png
- File:LeonelBrizola young.png
- File:LutVargas.png
- File:Goodwinknight62cropped.png
- File:Goodwin Knight 62.png
- File:Fdasfas.jpg
- File:Rfk62.png
- File:6FKqT4R.png
- File:I8wT1NQ.png
- File:AAMeLB9.png
Polarlys (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've went through and searched for each of those files.
- FrankClement62.png is sourced as Truman Library, but link is to different photograph.
- Tancredo Neves.png is a cropped version of File:Tancredo de Almeida Neves, primeiro ministro.tiff.
- LeonelBrizola young.png is a cropped version of File:Leonel Brizola, Governor of Rio Grande do Sul.jpg, but uploader puts everything as CC BY-4.0 so it needs investigation.
- LutVargas.png is a cropped version of File:Lutero Vargas.jpg, but I can't see an indication of CC0 license on the original
- Goodwinknight62cropped.png and Goodwin Knight 62.png are press photos from the Center for Saramento History.
- Frk62.png is from a press photo.
- 6FKqT4R.png is from FindYourGrave, which is attributed to the 1967 National Cyclopedia of American Biography.
- I8wT1NQ.png is a cropped b/w version of File:Frank Clement 1958.jpg.
- AAMeLB9.png seems to be a cropped b/w version of a Bob Gomel photo.
- I can't find anyhing about Fdasfas.jpg.
reppoptalk 23:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
- File:Boris and Ardyth.jpg
- File:Jeremy's decision cover.jpg
- File:AWB Kerson Leung 2023.jpg
- File:Ardyth Webster Brott 2023.jpg
- File:ARDYTH BROTT Colour(1).jpg
- File:Windermere marty.jpg
- File:Boris Brott Group Shot.jpg
- File:Boris Brott conducting.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Other than "Jeremy's decision cover.jpg" which should probably deleted, no images turn up on search engines anywhere (except some wikipedia mirrors). TheImaCow (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment One is a book cover. Do we have any reason to believe that a book cover is own work by the uploader.
- Three of them have camera EXIF, all taken with different cameras. How much variation in cameras should we expect? Normally, you don't buy a new camera for each photo you take.
- Some of the pictures look like professional studio shots. Do we expect brand new accounts to upload such images with no explanation?
- Several of the pictures have the upload summary
Uploaded while editing "Ardyth Webster Brott" on en.wikipedia.org
. I suspect that this means that the pictures were uploaded through a Wikipedia editing tool with little attention to the information on the file information page, so the information could be wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, too much doubt in my mind. PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
not his/her own work ZimskoSonce (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, taken from FB per MD. --Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Better version at File:MAtv logo.svg 2605:8D80:562:8694:712B:654B:AAA1:62A9 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: different logos. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Better version at File:MAtv logo.svg 2605:8D80:562:8694:712B:654B:AAA1:62A9 00:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: different logos. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
was able to update original file after all Xolani (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Almost identical to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monitor_001.jpg Henehot13666 (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Not in use Henehot13666 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tommytom23 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Both files was recreated of File:Edy Cohen as a Child With Wis Older Brother.jpg and File:81cJr2tyyBL. AC SY879.jpg, which have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jyix2944884.
-- Karim (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Not useful for educational purposes. Almost identical to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monitor_001.jpg Henehot13666 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Lightly edited version of File:Districts_of_aze.jpg by the same uploader - that other file is credited to Source: youtube.com, Author: idk man
, lacking permission from whoever drew it. Belbury (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Bad JPEG, unused, superseded by SVG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Please redirect to File:KrattBrothers.jpg, a high-resolution duplicate. Iketsi (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Alessandro Pomi
[edit]The artist of these paintings, Alessandro Pomi, died in 1976. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2047.
Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep both of the images: File:Accordo-Serenissima-Sette-Comuni.jpg was made for the new city hall of the municipality of Asiago, finished in 1929 see. According to article 11 of the italian copyright law, public administrations retain the copyright for the works made on their behalf and paid by them, and it lasts 20 years. Therefore, this painting is in PD at least since 1949. File:Cartolina 1920 R dettaglio inferiore tutto.jpg was made for an ecclesiastic entity, the Opera di Soccorso per le chiese rovinate dalla guerra, that as we can read here was a non profit-entity and therefore also included in the provisions of article 11 and 29 of the italian copyright law (copyright in this case expired in 1940).--Friniate (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Friniate. Ruthven (msg) 12:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Obviously not the work of User:Gemini167. They do not have the authority to release it in the public domain for free. Improperly licensed Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Team,
- This is the cropped version of the picture taken by me with my own camera. Metadata of the original file may be accessed at following URL:
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1imIrJ9IyYjCVv1cDwTHvryVbTxyG1z_a/view?usp=sharing
- Thanks Gemini167 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain how to open this file? Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- XMP (Extensible Metadata Platform) files are saved in a standard plain text format used by Adobe software to store metadata for camera raw files. You can open an XMP file in a text editor to view the metadata. Gemini167 (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The original picture from my camera, that was used to create the cropped version, can be accessed at this URL:
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hiNLrwGe3JwJDdgt7FSmTrwtWr06IkYv/view?usp=sharing
- Thanks Gemini167 (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have checked it. Although I am not sure how XMP data can be used to verify the image. I was more concerned about whether the image is free to use, as it is related to the Pakistan army. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The image does not relate to Pakistan Army. It is a portrait of DG PMSA who is a naval officer.
- Additionally, I have also provided the link of the original image that was used to create the cropped version.
- Thanks Gemini167 (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have checked it. Although I am not sure how XMP data can be used to verify the image. I was more concerned about whether the image is free to use, as it is related to the Pakistan army. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- XMP (Extensible Metadata Platform) files are saved in a standard plain text format used by Adobe software to store metadata for camera raw files. You can open an XMP file in a text editor to view the metadata. Gemini167 (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain how to open this file? Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Gemini167. Ruthven (msg) 12:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Giacomo Balla
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these paintings, Giacomo Balla, died in 1958. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2029 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Balla - Linee andamentali.jpg
- File:Balla - Mercurio passa davanti al sole.jpg
- File:Fiore futurista Giacomo Balla, 1914.tif
- File:Foulard Balla per Presidenza del Consiglio dell'Unione europea (2003)(1).jpg
- File:Giacomo Balla (1871-1958) Auto-ritratto stato d'animo (disegno, 1918).jpg
- File:Giacomo Balla - Bambina con fiori - 1902.jpg
- File:Giacomo Balla, "Affetti (studio)", 1910.jpg
- File:Giacomo balla, porta per casa balla, 1928 (lavinia biagiotti cigna).jpg
- File:Giacomo Balla, Sculptural Construction of Noise and Speed (1914-1915, reconstructed 1968).jpg
- File:Giacomo balla.jpg
- File:Koer keti otsas.jpg
- File:Ritratto del Principe Onorato I Caetani.jpg
- File:Ritratto del Sindaco Ernrsto Nathan.jpg
- File:Umberto Boccioni – La moglie di Balla con la figlia.tiff
- File:Villa Borghese, Parco dei Daini, by Giacomo Balla, 1910 - Galleria nazionale d'arte moderna - Rome, Italy - DSC05469.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- buongiorn, non mi è chiara la motivazione. Non si tratta del quadro, ma di un foulard. Non è soggetto a copyright. Bettylella (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bettylella: See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Essentially, scarfs can still contain copyrighted artwork. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's very sad because these deletions impoverish the information on Wikipedia but I understand that the rules must be respected. It would be nice if it could be removed with a kind of "suspension" and automatically restored once the copyright expires. Is it technically possible ? Bettylella (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It might be de minimis or something, but the closing administrator will have to decide. Anyway, files aren't technically deleted, just hidden from view. So if these images are "deleted" they should be restored when their copyrights expire in 6 years. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's very sad because these deletions impoverish the information on Wikipedia but I understand that the rules must be respected. It would be nice if it could be removed with a kind of "suspension" and automatically restored once the copyright expires. Is it technically possible ? Bettylella (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bettylella: See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Essentially, scarfs can still contain copyrighted artwork. They aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
* Keep File:Foulard Balla per Presidenza del Consiglio dell'Unione europea (2003)(1).jpg, since as we can see it's fairly different from the original painting and only "inspired" by it. The foulard is in PD since this January since it's an artwork made on behalf and paid by an italian ministry as per articles 11 and 29 of the italian copyright law, whose copyright lasts for 20 years. Keep also File:Umberto Boccioni – La moglie di Balla con la figlia.tiff: the artist is it:Umberto Boccioni, died in 1916, whose copyright expired in 1987.--Friniate (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Umberto Boccioni – La moglie di Balla con la figlia.tiff, the artist here is Umberto Boccioni who is already in PD, Balla's connected only with the portrayed woman, who is his wife. --Sailko (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, but Umberto Boccioni's painting. Ruthven (msg) 12:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Je ne suis pas sur de la licence Germalo (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant copyviol (looks like Google maps). Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploader does not own the copyright to their daughter's work. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Works by Sakurako Miki Nutshinou Talk! 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the painter of this statue, Aurelio Caminati, died in 2012. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2083 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Madonnetta Caminati 1.jpg
- File:Madonnetta Caminati 2.jpg
- File:Madonnetta di Aurelio Caminati.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As we can read in the file description, the municipality, owner of the statue gave the authorization to photograph and to publish them with a CC-BY-SA license.--Friniate (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but the way I understand it the statue was originally by someone else and Aurelio Caminati painted the figure on it. As he's not a sculptor. There's zero evidence that they paid for him to paint the figure or own the copyright to it though and that's what the DR is about, not the original sculptor. Since again, I don't think it was even made by him to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- But in this case, as stated in the long discussion, we assume that the municipality who is giving the right to take photos, has also the copyright on it: citing @Rosenzweig: : For the older type of authorizations, things are not so sure, but unless something contradictory turns up, we might be inclined to assume that the cities etc. at least meant to give a permission for that aspect as well, even if we don't have it in writing.. Friniate (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway Caminati was also a potter, so there is no reason to doubt that he made the statue... Here he is mentioned as the sole creator of the statue. Friniate (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I've said a couple of times now, cherry picking what one person says just because it agrees with you isn't a consensus and there was reason to doubt it in this case because there wasn't evidence that he created the statue. Although that's less the case now that you've provided evidence of him being a potter, but it would have bad practice IMO to assume that he created the statue if there was no reason to. Regardless, I'm more then willing to assume he did now that there's something to back it up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not cherry picking, that was AFAIK the final consensus on the matter, as it is proven by the fact that after that discussion no single DR was closed so far deleting the images when an authorization from the owner of the monument/artwork was available. I'm not assuming that he created the statue, I'm reading in an article that he created it. And since he was also a potter, I have no reason to think that what is written in the article is false, as I have no reason to doubt that the municipality didn't have the right to authorize taking photos of the statue and publishing them with a free license. Friniate (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by "assuming" I meant to accept it being the case. Like when someone assumes a role at their job or similar. Not that I think you were supposing it to be the case without evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for the clarification. Friniate (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by "assuming" I meant to accept it being the case. Like when someone assumes a role at their job or similar. Not that I think you were supposing it to be the case without evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not cherry picking, that was AFAIK the final consensus on the matter, as it is proven by the fact that after that discussion no single DR was closed so far deleting the images when an authorization from the owner of the monument/artwork was available. I'm not assuming that he created the statue, I'm reading in an article that he created it. And since he was also a potter, I have no reason to think that what is written in the article is false, as I have no reason to doubt that the municipality didn't have the right to authorize taking photos of the statue and publishing them with a free license. Friniate (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I've said a couple of times now, cherry picking what one person says just because it agrees with you isn't a consensus and there was reason to doubt it in this case because there wasn't evidence that he created the statue. Although that's less the case now that you've provided evidence of him being a potter, but it would have bad practice IMO to assume that he created the statue if there was no reason to. Regardless, I'm more then willing to assume he did now that there's something to back it up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway Caminati was also a potter, so there is no reason to doubt that he made the statue... Here he is mentioned as the sole creator of the statue. Friniate (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- But in this case, as stated in the long discussion, we assume that the municipality who is giving the right to take photos, has also the copyright on it: citing @Rosenzweig: : For the older type of authorizations, things are not so sure, but unless something contradictory turns up, we might be inclined to assume that the cities etc. at least meant to give a permission for that aspect as well, even if we don't have it in writing.. Friniate (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but the way I understand it the statue was originally by someone else and Aurelio Caminati painted the figure on it. As he's not a sculptor. There's zero evidence that they paid for him to paint the figure or own the copyright to it though and that's what the DR is about, not the original sculptor. Since again, I don't think it was even made by him to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: there's the copyright holder's permission (given that it was a work made for hire for the municipality). Ruthven (msg) 12:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:École du Mail (Genève)
[edit]Unfortunately Swiss FOP doesn't cover building interiors and these murals seem to be located inside of a school building. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:École du Mail-22.jpg
- File:École du Mail-23.jpg
- File:École du Mail-24.jpg
- File:École du Mail-25.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the "interior" of the building, but a part of the public playground that is covered ("préau couvert"), therefore the stone benches. This picture shows the place, although it is dark, it is possible to see the murals in the background File:École_du_Mail-20.jpg
.- MHM (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like it's under or in the building to me. depending the country and circumstances it could still be considered the interior of the building. Just like say an underground parking lot would be. Although I'm leaving it up to whomever closes this. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Poster_in_London_Underground.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshire.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![235 File:Agroparque Integradora "SuKarne", en el ejido "El Lucero".jpg](#File:Agroparque_Integradora_"SuKarne",_en_el_ejido_"El_Lucero".jpg){kind=link}
_메인_콘셉트_이미지.png){kind=link}
![254 File:John Dee's "Eyes Only" signature.jpg](#File:John_Dee's_"Eyes_Only"_signature.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![312 File:Плакат на филма "Градина на земните удоволствия. Рай".jpg](#File:Плакат_на_филма_"Градина_на_земните_удоволствия._Рай".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
,_T.Bt_&_Bar_(Cropped_Version).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_Joan_Mir%C3%B3.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}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=847426283#File:The_sims_4_moon_sofa_set.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Poster_in_London_Underground.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Poster_in_London_Underground.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Poster_in_London_Underground.jpg){kind=link}
_Poster_in_London_Underground.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_04_02_2020_08.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}
_(29585880630).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(29253324123).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Stortorvet_Oslo_Norway_MAIN_ENTRANCE_western_portal_doors_Dagfin_Werenskiold_1938_Hovedinngang_Vestportalen_bronserelieffer_d%C3%B8rer_Saligprisningene_2022_A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Stortorvet_Oslo_Norway_MAIN_ENTRANCE_western_portal_doors_Dagfin_Werenskiold_1938_Hovedinngang_Vestportalen_bronserelieffer_d%C3%B8rer_Saligprisningene_2022_B.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshire.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshire.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshire.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_gailhampshire.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/01/03#c-Abzeronow-20240103232000-File:Agroparque_Integradora_"SuKarne",_en_el_ejido_"El_Lucero".jpg){kind=link}
![06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/01/03#c-Krd-20240110060900-File:Agroparque_Integradora_"SuKarne",_en_el_ejido_"El_Lucero".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%EB%A9%94%EC%9D%B8_%EC%BD%98%EC%85%89%ED%8A%B8_%EC%9D%B4%EB%AF%B8%EC%A7%80.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%EB%A9%94%EC%9D%B8_%EC%BD%98%EC%85%89%ED%8A%B8_%EC%9D%B4%EB%AF%B8%EC%A7%80.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_메인_콘셉트_이미지.png){kind=link}
_메인_콘셉트_이미지.png){kind=link}
![07:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/01/03#c-SchroCat-20240103072300-File:John_Dee's_"Eyes_Only"_signature.jpg){kind=link}
![07:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/01/03#c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240113075700-File:John_Dee's_"Eyes_Only"_signature.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
_logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
,_T.Bt_%26_Bar_(Cropped_Version).jpg){kind=link}
,_T.Bt_%26_Bar_(Cropped_Version).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_T.Bt_&_Bar_(Cropped_Version).jpg){kind=link}
,_T.Bt_&_Bar_(Cropped_Version).jpg){kind=link}
(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Auto-ritratto_stato_d%27animo_(disegno,_1918).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%22,_1910.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per MHM. The trees in the background are an internal garden. The murals are outdoor. Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I have no concrete knowledge of these toys, but it seems likely to me that the educational organization that posted the picture on Flickr owns the design. In this case I would like to know whose copyright you think is being infringed, although COM:PCP holds me back from an uninformed Keep.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: precaution; unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:5 Tereshchenkivska Street, Kyiv
[edit]The building itself is unfree for commercial licensing distribution, considering Ukraine not permitting commercial freedom of panorama. According to the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, the architectural work was built in 1934 and authored by Architect Сергієм Вікторовичем Григор'євим (died 1975). The work will fall out of copyright by January 1, 2046.
- File:80-391-1269 Kyiv SAM 9189.jpg
- File:80-391-1269 Tereschenkivska 5 2.jpg
- File:80-391-1269 Tereschenkivska 5 3.jpg - also shows an unfree memorial plaque, see this for artwork details
- File:80-391-1269 Tereschenkivska 5.jpg
- File:Kyiv Tereschenkivska SAM 9188 80-391-1269.JPG
- File:Київ, Терещенківська вул. 5.jpg
- File:Київські памятки (113).jpg
- File:Київські памятки (114).JPG
- File:Киев, 2021 год, 62.jpg
- File:Киев, 2021 год, 63.jpg
- File:Терещенківська 5.JPG
- File:Терещенківська вул 5.jpg
- File:Терещенківська, 5. Червень 16.jpg
- File:Терещенкивська 5. Будинок, в якому мешкали з 1944 р. поети, громадські діячі Бажан М. П., Тичина П. Г.; у 1980-1988 рр. Турчак С. В.JPG
File:Терещенковская 5 Киев 2012 01.JPG(removing this from nomination as the user has turned it into a censored file good to be sent to the Ukrainian parliament for the effects of a non-commercial FoP they recently introduced) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- * File:Терещенковская 5 Киев 2012 01.JPG - I do not agree with the nomination for removal. The file and its description have been edited, the building is behind the trees, it is not the main subject of the photo
- AMY (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Looks to me like a rather generic style rag doll, similar to types made for over 100 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Infrog. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Taken from websites, so these qualify for speedy deletion (Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site (F1)), but maybe I missed something in Indonesian copyright law???
- File:MUHAMMAD HIDAYATTOLLAH.jpg
- File:Cak Imin.png
- File:Novri.jpg
- File:Aida Muslimah.jpg
- File:Syafrudin.jpg
- File:Hasnuryadi.jpg
- File:Difriadi.jpg
- File:Heru Widodo.jpg
- File:ANTUNG FATMAWATI.jpg
- File:HABIB ZAKARIA BAHASYIM.jpg
- File:GUSTI FARID HASAN AMAN.jpg
- File:PANGERAN SYARIF ABDURRAHMAN BAHASYIM.jpg
- File:HABIB HAMID ABDULLAH.jpg
- File:HABIB ABOE BAKAR, AL HABSYI, S.E.jpg
- File:Ganjar Pranowo Kemeja Putih.png
- File:Khairul Saleh.jpg
- File:Prabowo Subianto Kemeja Putih.png
- File:Wabuphst.png
- File:Bupatihst.png
- File:Pj Bupati Barito Kuala.png
- File:Wakil Bupati Banjar Said Idrus.jpg
- File:Bupati-Banjar Saidi Mansyur.jpg
- File:Pj walikota iskandar.jpg
- File:Mukhyar.jpg
- File:Effenfi Ritonga.jpg
- File:Komarudin.jpg
- File:Siddik Susanto.jpg
- File:Asful Anwar.jpg
- File:Riduan Iman.jpg
- File:Walikota Adenan.jpg
- File:Kepala-Daerah-Banjarmasin-Tk II.jpg
- File:Walikota-Banjarmasin Horman.jpg
- File:Walikota Besar Banjarmasin Aidan Sinaga.jpg
- File:Walikota Midfai Yabani.jpg
- File:Walikota Banjarmasin Sofyan Arpan.jpg
- File:Walikota Sadjoko.jpg
- File:Pjwalikotafydayeen.jpg
- File:Storage emulated 0 Download 2-wakil-walikota.jpg
- File:Walikot ibnuu sina.png
- File:Arifin Noor.png
- File:Mansur, Wali Kota Besar Banjarmasin.jpg
- File:M Hanafiah, Wali Kota Banjarmasin.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{PD-IDGov}} may apply, thus I won't rush with deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader is active on id.wp and didn't even bother to comment here or correct the licenses of these files. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 02:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Angelo Biancini collezione Museo Internazionale Design Ceramico di Laveno Mombello, 14.jpg
[edit]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this sculpture, Angelo Biancini, died in 1988. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2059. Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pymouss Let’s talk - 10:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
unnecessary image 2409:4052:4D11:DC39:3D94:3CF0:20E1:2E86 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Appears to be in use in hi:w -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is no longer COM:INUSE as mentioned by Infrogmation, but IP’s rationale is not valid and it does not seem to be a copyright violation. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:CHAR, copyright of Goofy expired in 2030 A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Character copyrights. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's the copyright status of Betty Boop? We have some images of her, where a patent application from 1931 is used as PD rationale. Would this apply to this derivative work as well? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit skeptical regarding File:Betty Boop colored patent.png. U.S. Patent D86,224 was filed for a "doll or similar article" depicting the Betty Boop character, and the line of thought here is, as the patent does not contain a copyright notice for the character, that at least this particular depiction of Betty Boop is in the public domain. But I wonder if this really covers derivative works such as the altered and colored version which is at least partly based on "a more recent drawing of Betty Boop", as the uploader comments: I colored the original black and white drawing, and I also altered the drawing a little bit. I lengthened the dress. I made the eyes more symmetrical. I shortened the lengthy eyelashes to model them after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I added green irises to the eyes which I modeled after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I fixed the unrealistic thicknesses of the knee joints. Lastly, I changed the thigh accessory to make it a heart design. - The Betty Boop character design existed prior to that patent application, and was assumedly already copyrighted. So I think this rests on shaky grounds. For the christmas decoration, I'd say it's another unique design incorporating additional elements that would probably create a copyright protection even if the Betty Boop character were in the public domain which I think it probably isn't yet (but in two or three years from now). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. What date would be her first publication? Our article says 1930, but with a quite different appearance, the current form was used from 1932, which is then after that patent, however. That would make her PD for sure in 2028 (also in Europe, since the author is unknown). PaterMcFly (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia's article says that the Betty Boop character was "designed by Grim Natwick at the request of Max Fleischer". As Grim Natwick died in 1990, this would make Betty Boop protected by copyright until 2060 in European countries with 70 years p.m.a. and a treaty with the USA that grants US works the same protection (such as Germany's Urheberrechtsübereinkommen zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und den USA]). Maybe even longer, as there were more people involved in the design, according to the English WP article, such as Bernard Wolf (died in 2006). This doesn't matter for Commons, as we host US works that are free in the US (per the "must be free in the US and the country of origin" rule), but will probably prevent some language versions of Wikipedia (that don't have a fair use provision) from using Betty Boop images. - I'm not sure which year we should consider as the year of first publication, as I'm also not sure how much the change of appearance matters. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- PS: I see that this phrasing is the result of today's edit by User:PCC556; previously, it said "created by Max Fleischer, with help from animators including Grim Natwick". If Fleischer were the creator, protection in 70 years p.m.a. countries would last "only" until 2042 (expiring January 1, 2043). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia's article says that the Betty Boop character was "designed by Grim Natwick at the request of Max Fleischer". As Grim Natwick died in 1990, this would make Betty Boop protected by copyright until 2060 in European countries with 70 years p.m.a. and a treaty with the USA that grants US works the same protection (such as Germany's Urheberrechtsübereinkommen zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und den USA]). Maybe even longer, as there were more people involved in the design, according to the English WP article, such as Bernard Wolf (died in 2006). This doesn't matter for Commons, as we host US works that are free in the US (per the "must be free in the US and the country of origin" rule), but will probably prevent some language versions of Wikipedia (that don't have a fair use provision) from using Betty Boop images. - I'm not sure which year we should consider as the year of first publication, as I'm also not sure how much the change of appearance matters. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. What date would be her first publication? Our article says 1930, but with a quite different appearance, the current form was used from 1932, which is then after that patent, however. That would make her PD for sure in 2028 (also in Europe, since the author is unknown). PaterMcFly (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit skeptical regarding File:Betty Boop colored patent.png. U.S. Patent D86,224 was filed for a "doll or similar article" depicting the Betty Boop character, and the line of thought here is, as the patent does not contain a copyright notice for the character, that at least this particular depiction of Betty Boop is in the public domain. But I wonder if this really covers derivative works such as the altered and colored version which is at least partly based on "a more recent drawing of Betty Boop", as the uploader comments: I colored the original black and white drawing, and I also altered the drawing a little bit. I lengthened the dress. I made the eyes more symmetrical. I shortened the lengthy eyelashes to model them after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I added green irises to the eyes which I modeled after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I fixed the unrealistic thicknesses of the knee joints. Lastly, I changed the thigh accessory to make it a heart design. - The Betty Boop character design existed prior to that patent application, and was assumedly already copyrighted. So I think this rests on shaky grounds. For the christmas decoration, I'd say it's another unique design incorporating additional elements that would probably create a copyright protection even if the Betty Boop character were in the public domain which I think it probably isn't yet (but in two or three years from now). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Character copyrights undelete in 2026. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per Commons:Character copyrights. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Although the artwork is very beautiful, this image does not depict Vespula germanica (the antennae are yellow, which is not the case for V. germanica). In order to not mislead wikimedia commons users, I recommend to delete the image (re-upload in other section is not meaningful as the writing in the image states the wrong species). All the best, seewiese Seewiese (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: It's still a valuable image. I've added a template to warn reusers. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the both photos of this image, and also the text, were created and therefore owned by the Flickr account Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- See also at bottom left, the vertical text "carta numero 063". Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I created this file, and now I've created its successor: Onfreq.png Bob K (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. Ruthven (msg) 12:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This art is protected by copyright. It can not be covered ffrom FOP-Germany, because it's just a temporary art. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The YouTube video is inaccessible. The channel where the videos were posted has been terminated due to multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding the material posted by the user. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The channel had copyrighted videos (with India TV logo watermarks) when existed. The channel might have been terminated for some other issues. The channel is now renamed as: India TV Mysuru. --106.51.179.131 16:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The link that you removed from the file had a warning - "This account has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted". The channel was terminated for copyright infringement and not for other reasons. Jeraxmoira (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Francesco Camarda
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this painting, Francesco Camarda, died in 1962. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2033 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Francesco camarda, fabbri ferrai, 1910 (cropped).jpg
- File:Francesco camarda, fabbri ferrai, 1910.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that this paragraph (from the first bullet point) is applicable here:
- "Note that before 1996/7 the duration was 50 years after the author's death, with wartime extensions of six years for any work published before August 16, 1945. Therefore the calculation of the duration of copyright before the URAA date must consider these protected for 56 years after the author's death, meaning that were in the public domain at the URAA date works of authors died before 1940. Artistic photographs had been protected for 50 years from creation, plus the same six-year extension, so non-simple photographs created before 1940 were public domain on the URAA date."
- Based on my reading of that, all works by this individual would be protected for 56 years following their death because the works were published prior to August 16, 1945. This means they became public domain in 2002. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe its just me, but I don't see how a rule having to do with paragraphs would be relevant to paintings. Their different mediums, obviously. And there is no special rule as far as I can tell saying that Italian artwork created before 1945 is de facto, or otherwise,PD simply because of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#General rules. Let alone for any other reason. Otherwise be guest and point it out. These images should still be deleted as COPYVIO in absence of that though. Since there's still the normal term of 70 years after death in Italy, which isn't nullified by the URAA. At least not that I'm aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The rule doesn't have anything to do with paragraphs. The content of the paragraph is applicable here as this work was published in 1910 (according to the file name). The artist, as you mentioned, died in 1962. Per the paragraph I quoted above, that means the copyright expired after the end of 56 after his death, which would be in 2002 (which is two years prior to the date in the tag on the images dated 2004). Additionally, any work published prior to 1929, regardless of where in the world it was first published, is public domain in the United States and multiple other countries. Once a work is in the public domain, it cannot be taken back out of the public domain. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah well, works have to public domain in both the United States and the country of publication. So the only thing that matters here if its PD in Italy or not, and as far as I know the normal term in Italy is 70 years after the creators death. As I've said that doesn't change because of the URAA or the work being PD in the United States or any other country outside of Italy either and there is no stipulation in Italy that works published there before a certain date are public domain, IN ITALY. The URAA is a seperate issue that only pertains to the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Does Italian law allow things that became public domain to be removed from the public domain? From my understanding, the 70 year time frame came into effect after 2002 (2004 or so, I think), so unless Italy removed a bunch of stuff from public domain retroactively, that 70 year timeframe doesn't apply since the works had already entered public domain under the 56 year timeframe. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's how it works. There's zero evidence that there are two terms based on if the work was PD before or after 2002. I linked to the guideline a few comments ago though. Your free to read through it, but from what I can tell it doesn't say that's how things work. Everything has the same term regardless of if it was created before 2002 or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Does Italian law allow things that became public domain to be removed from the public domain? From my understanding, the 70 year time frame came into effect after 2002 (2004 or so, I think), so unless Italy removed a bunch of stuff from public domain retroactively, that 70 year timeframe doesn't apply since the works had already entered public domain under the 56 year timeframe. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah well, works have to public domain in both the United States and the country of publication. So the only thing that matters here if its PD in Italy or not, and as far as I know the normal term in Italy is 70 years after the creators death. As I've said that doesn't change because of the URAA or the work being PD in the United States or any other country outside of Italy either and there is no stipulation in Italy that works published there before a certain date are public domain, IN ITALY. The URAA is a seperate issue that only pertains to the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The rule doesn't have anything to do with paragraphs. The content of the paragraph is applicable here as this work was published in 1910 (according to the file name). The artist, as you mentioned, died in 1962. Per the paragraph I quoted above, that means the copyright expired after the end of 56 after his death, which would be in 2002 (which is two years prior to the date in the tag on the images dated 2004). Additionally, any work published prior to 1929, regardless of where in the world it was first published, is public domain in the United States and multiple other countries. Once a work is in the public domain, it cannot be taken back out of the public domain. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe its just me, but I don't see how a rule having to do with paragraphs would be relevant to paintings. Their different mediums, obviously. And there is no special rule as far as I can tell saying that Italian artwork created before 1945 is de facto, or otherwise,PD simply because of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#General rules. Let alone for any other reason. Otherwise be guest and point it out. These images should still be deleted as COPYVIO in absence of that though. Since there's still the normal term of 70 years after death in Italy, which isn't nullified by the URAA. At least not that I'm aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Nihonjoe has it wrong. The pma term changed from 50 to 70 years in 1997. At that time, these works were not PD yet, so they got the extra 20 years added to them. They never fell out of copyright in the first place. —holly {chat} 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sound recordings have different copyright rules. Undelete in 2033. SDudley (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The logo design contains shading, gradients, and drawing that are above the threshold of originality in the UK. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Stifle Just wonder, that whether the 2023 version has same issue or not? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Eurostar Group is based in Belgium, so TOO UK wouldn't apply, but this appears to be above TOO US anyway. I'm not making any judgement about the 2023 version. —holly {chat} 20:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per similar --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); low-quality image, unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per similar -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Madonna di Fatima (Milan)
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Enrico Lenti, seems to still be alive or at least hasn't been dead for then 70 years since it was built in 1962. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Madonna di Fatima in Vigentino, esterno LU05508.jpg
- File:Milano - Chiesa della Madonna di Fatima in Vigentino - 2023-09-24 12-44-27 001.jpg
- File:Milano - Chiesa della Madonna di Fatima in Vigentino - 2023-09-24 12-44-27 002.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Enrico Lenti died in 1981 cfr Friniate (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; undelete in 2052. —holly {chat} 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 8 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.
Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1943 composition by a Russian who worked during WW2 and died in 1975. Undelete in 2050 Abzeronow (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Enrico Lenti, seems to still be alive or at least hasn't been dead for then 70 years since it was built in 1962. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Madonna di Fatima in Vigentino, interno e controfacciata LU04271.jpg
- File:Madonna di Fatima in Vigentino, interno LU04268.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Enrico Lenti died in 1981 see. Friniate (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; undelete in 2052. —holly {chat} 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these drawings, Antonio Carbonati, died in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027 per the normal term of 70 years after the artist's death.
- File:Antonio Carbonati, veduta del Maschio Angioino a Napoli, 1924.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, veduta del porto da Castel Sant'Elmo a Napoli.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Steamboat Willie
[edit]While these are drawings that were ultimately used in a public domain work, I do not believe them to have been considered published in 1928. These are unpublished works most likely and should be treated with such rules. I believe we should delete these until 2042, which will be 70 years after the death of Ub Iwerks, the likely animator of the works.
SDudley (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment from Uploader - Thank you so much for letting me know. Especially with the unpublished nature of the drawings. I found both of them at a Heritage Auction site. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! It is a new and exciting time with Mickey Mouse in the public domain, so I'm glad to see the excitement for the character shining through in the upload. SDudley (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course. When I uploaded them, I thought that the unpublished sketches was part of the public domain since they were made for Steamboat Willie - which was published. I will wait and see what Wikimedia Commons (or the other users) says about it. Worst case scenario, I'll reupload them in 2042. I even have both images saved onto my computer. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! It is a new and exciting time with Mickey Mouse in the public domain, so I'm glad to see the excitement for the character shining through in the upload. SDudley (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'd imagine they might have been considered published when they incorporated in Steamboat Willie, much as a court once ruled that McLintock's script was PD because it was incorporated in the movie. Thoughts, Clindberg? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 05:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Any expression that exists in these which also exists in Steamboat Willie was published. In other words, you can't consider Steamboat Willie a derivative of still-copyrighted unpublished works. But, if there is expression in these which does not exist in the movie (pretty much certain), then that much remained unpublished. When did these drawings first surface? Were they kept private by Disney and/or Iwerks until recently? Or have they been sold before? Definitely agree they were not published in 1928 but I guess the main question is whether they were still unpublished as of 1989. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2042. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Giuseppe Capogrossi
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these paintings, Giuseppe Capogrossi, died in 1972. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2043 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Ines morigi, su dis. di giuseppe capogrossi, superficie 332, 1957.jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6340884.jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6356371.jpg
- File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6361507.jpg
- File:“Superficie 672” - Giuseppe Capogrossi.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Ines morigi, su dis. di giuseppe capogrossi, superficie 332, 1957.jpg, File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6340884.jpg, File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6356371.jpg, File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico - BEIC 6361507.jpg: as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Loro e Parisini building, we generally assume that cultural institutions, such as Biblioteca di Informazione e Cultura and Museo d'Arte di Ravenna, have the legal right to release images under a creative commons license, and they have cleared the rights through their legal departments. In the past, if the institution withdraws the license then we should delete the image.--Friniate (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
we generally assume that cultural institutions "have the legal right to release images under a creative commons license, and they have cleared the rights through their legal departments."
No we don't. And as you should be aware from previous DRs BEICs licensing of photographs by Fondo Paolo Monti is questionable at best, if not totally bad at worst. As much as you can point out that one DR related to BEIC that was kept I point out multiple other ones where the outcome was that images were deleted. One's that I'm pretty sure you participated in. Just to reiterate what I said in the other DR for whomever closes this though Commons:BEIC clearly says their claim that Paolo Monti obtained the rights to the buildings from the originals architects is "the story of the photos as they know of it" and that even if he did retain the rights, said rights specifically only covered "future publications authored by Paolo Monti." Commons and re-users of the image clearly aren't Paolo Monti. So the images can't be hosted on Common based on their own licensing terms. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- Yeah, it was before the other one closed keeping the images, I wasn't aware of this practice before reading that other DR and I couldn't cite it as a precedent. Anyway the first one doesn't have to do with BEIC. Friniate (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK. There have been ones having to do BEIC and photographs from them by Paolo Monti that were deleted because of the questionable license on their side though. But I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this to decide if their own license terms restrict reusage like I think they do or not. Otherwise, I guess one of us could start a discussion about it on the Village Pump so it can be clarified, but I rather we didn't. Although it would be good if there was clear consensus about it either way. Instead of every other DR involving images from BEIC being deleted or kept based on whomever closes it at the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was before the other one closed keeping the images, I wasn't aware of this practice before reading that other DR and I couldn't cite it as a precedent. Anyway the first one doesn't have to do with BEIC. Friniate (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
File:Ines morigi, su dis. di giuseppe capogrossi, superficie 332, 1957.jpg - This one was specifically authorized via OTRS for WLM Italy 2016, so should not be deleted. Authortization is clearly stated in the file AND in the category of the museum. --Sailko ([[User talk:Sailko|
- @Sailko: I moved your comment. I'd appreciate it if you didn't alter my comments or insert other people's words into them. Thanks. Also, just because there is an authorization from WLM Italy doesn't mean museum owned the copyright to the statue in the first place or could therefore give WLM permission to photograph it. There's been plenty of files uploaded as part of WLM projects, including WLM Italy, that have been deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is already been discussed so many times... I'm tired to explain all over again any time. It DOES NOT matter the agreement between the museum and the artist's fund, as long as the museum has guaranteed us to freely upload the images of their artworks, for that specific event. Any legal problem will be eventually addressed back to the museum. The authorization was explicit about the artworks, not generic (like they authorize the building, not the single items inside it), so this is not the case of WLM deletion for COPYVIO. PLEASE help me to find a better way to EXPLAIN this in the file description, as I am tired of having to discuss this every time. There have been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016. Everytime the file was saved. Then there's another user asking again "Are we sure?" Yes - we are definitely sure by now. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sailko: What part of me asking you not to edit my comments are you having such a hard time with? Seriously, stop doing it. There's already a comment from you saying the file has ORTS permission without you having to screw with the original nomination. Also, no one has nominated these image for deletion before. So your comment that there has been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016 is patently false. Regardless, we don't just host images that might be copyrighted until any legal problems are eventually addressed back to the museum or whatever nonsense your going off about. The files have to be usable by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose and ones where the source of the files says the original artists only authored Paolo Monti to use the images for future publications clearly doesn't meet that standard. ORTS permission isn't a free pass either. Nor is getting defensive about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not syaing this single file was nominated before, but some else in the same category. You can understand it is very annoying to have somebody doubting again after 8 years of reviewing authorizations and legal aspects. Same about BEIC files, as Friniate already explained. This is a behaviour that wastes users' and admins' time, we could use to do something more useful for the project. --Sailko (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- See this, closed with law citation by User:Ruthven --Sailko (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I don't really see how people nominating other files in the same category for deletion before is relevant to this. Like we can only nominate a certain number of images per category for deletion or something. That's not how it works. No offense, but I don't really care if you find the whole thing annoying. No one is forcing you to upload the files or participate in these discussions. It's your responsibility to make sure the licenses on files you upload are valid and verifiable. I've cited BEICs own terms as a reason why neither one of those. To which your only response seems to be going off about how inconvenient the whole thing is. It's no wonder this keeps coming up if that's how you respond to people.
- See this, closed with law citation by User:Ruthven --Sailko (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not syaing this single file was nominated before, but some else in the same category. You can understand it is very annoying to have somebody doubting again after 8 years of reviewing authorizations and legal aspects. Same about BEIC files, as Friniate already explained. This is a behaviour that wastes users' and admins' time, we could use to do something more useful for the project. --Sailko (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Sailko: What part of me asking you not to edit my comments are you having such a hard time with? Seriously, stop doing it. There's already a comment from you saying the file has ORTS permission without you having to screw with the original nomination. Also, no one has nominated these image for deletion before. So your comment that there has been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016 is patently false. Regardless, we don't just host images that might be copyrighted until any legal problems are eventually addressed back to the museum or whatever nonsense your going off about. The files have to be usable by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose and ones where the source of the files says the original artists only authored Paolo Monti to use the images for future publications clearly doesn't meet that standard. ORTS permission isn't a free pass either. Nor is getting defensive about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is already been discussed so many times... I'm tired to explain all over again any time. It DOES NOT matter the agreement between the museum and the artist's fund, as long as the museum has guaranteed us to freely upload the images of their artworks, for that specific event. Any legal problem will be eventually addressed back to the museum. The authorization was explicit about the artworks, not generic (like they authorize the building, not the single items inside it), so this is not the case of WLM deletion for COPYVIO. PLEASE help me to find a better way to EXPLAIN this in the file description, as I am tired of having to discuss this every time. There have been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016. Everytime the file was saved. Then there's another user asking again "Are we sure?" Yes - we are definitely sure by now. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- As to the law cited by Ruthven, according to this website by the Italian government "The Art bonus allows a tax credit, equal to 65% of the amount donated, to those who make donations to support the Italian public cultural heritage." Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how a law having to with tax credits has anything to do with whom owns the copyright to these paintings. So can you cite what part of the law you think is relevant here? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a comment: the authorization was NOT from Wikimedia Italy, but from the museum Museo d'Arte di Ravenna and it's visible here. I understand that there have been doubts regarding the authorizations from BEIC, but sofar no one has raised doubts regarding the authorizations from this other specific institution. So I don't see why we should assume that they didn't have the right to authorize the WLM participants to take photos of their collections. Friniate (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it or anything if that one file is kept. The other ones should clearly be deleted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a comment: the authorization was NOT from Wikimedia Italy, but from the museum Museo d'Arte di Ravenna and it's visible here. I understand that there have been doubts regarding the authorizations from BEIC, but sofar no one has raised doubts regarding the authorizations from this other specific institution. So I don't see why we should assume that they didn't have the right to authorize the WLM participants to take photos of their collections. Friniate (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- As to the law cited by Ruthven, according to this website by the Italian government "The Art bonus allows a tax credit, equal to 65% of the amount donated, to those who make donations to support the Italian public cultural heritage." Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how a law having to with tax credits has anything to do with whom owns the copyright to these paintings. So can you cite what part of the law you think is relevant here? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Ines morigi, su dis. di giuseppe capogrossi, superficie 332, 1957.jpg, but delete all the other files because they weren't uploaded during WLM. Besides, the link to the specific permission should be linked in the file, not to a general directory, in order to license review it. --Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Kept: most, whether through a WLM authorization or that we can trust BEIC here that they have cleared the legal rights. Deleted the last one, Undelete that in 2043. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- A prova e resolução da conjetura de Goldbach não é plágio, esta tem os limites mínimos e máximos de encontra primos, primos gêmeos e até mesmo dois pares de primos formando o mesmo par. Com um simples algoritmo além de reduzir a procura de uma forma como uma balança. Posso afirma que sou autor único desta Obra que demorou mais de 300 anos para ser confirmada no seu aspecto ideologico. José Carlos Dias de Araújo (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Para um nome comum no Brasil pode existir dezenas o que difere são documentos de identificação quanto ao trabalho exposto é único José Carlos Dias de Araújo (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Estou certo que esse arquivo pertence a JOSE CARLOS DIAS DE ARAUJO 177.66.82.58 19:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Realmente me pertence este texto José Carlos Dias de Araújo (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Etchings by Antonio Carbonati
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these drawings, Antonio Carbonati, died in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027 per the normal term of 70 years after the artist's death.
- File:Antonio Carbonati, Il Palazzo Ducale - Mantova, 193.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, Il Rio - Mantova.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, Piazza Sordello a Mantova, 1927.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, Strada San Gregorio Armeno, 1924.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, veduta di castel dell'Ovo a Napoli, 1923.jpg
- File:Antonio Carbonati, veduta di piazza del Plebiscito a Napoli, 1923.jpg
- File:Raffineria Aquila Antonio Carbonati.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that my file File:Raffineria Aquila Antonio Carbonati.jpg has to be deleted. The photo does not portray the works in detail, which can be seen from afar and with a fairly low quality. The photo was taken with the full consent of the museum that exhibits it --Moxmarco (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The photo was also uploaded as part of a GLAM project --Moxmarco (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Moxmarco: I can see the details perfectly fine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the fact the photograph was taken with consent of the museum really matters either. Since I assume they wouldn't own the copyright to the drawings to begin with and we really need permission from the original copyright holder to host the images. Same for the files being uploaded as part of a GLAM project. They aren't the copyright holders anymore then the museum would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Moxmarco Devi dire al museo di mandare l'autorizzazione via VRT. Friniate (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Ma come spiegato sopra, il museo non detiene comunque il copyright. Circa i permessi del Museo, la foto è stata scattata nell'ambito di un progetto GLAM a cui ha partecipato il Museo, che ha finanziato l'acquisto delle attrezzature fotografiche con cui lo scatto stesso è stato realizzato, quindi era già tutto parte del progetto. --Moxmarco (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Moxmarco Ah, se il museo non detiene il copyright c'è poco che tu possa fare, ma glielo hai già chiesto se ce l'hanno o no? Se non ce l'hanno loro va chiesto il permesso agli eredi. Friniate (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Ma come spiegato sopra, il museo non detiene comunque il copyright. Circa i permessi del Museo, la foto è stata scattata nell'ambito di un progetto GLAM a cui ha partecipato il Museo, che ha finanziato l'acquisto delle attrezzature fotografiche con cui lo scatto stesso è stato realizzato, quindi era già tutto parte del progetto. --Moxmarco (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Moxmarco Devi dire al museo di mandare l'autorizzazione via VRT. Friniate (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Moxmarco: I can see the details perfectly fine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the fact the photograph was taken with consent of the museum really matters either. Since I assume they wouldn't own the copyright to the drawings to begin with and we really need permission from the original copyright holder to host the images. Same for the files being uploaded as part of a GLAM project. They aren't the copyright holders anymore then the museum would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The photo was also uploaded as part of a GLAM project --Moxmarco (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2027. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
For the two monograms, not own work and too complex for pd-textlogo. For the award photo, COM:DW of said monogram. Closing admin, please also delete the category as it'll be empty.
- File:Thailand Developed Temple Award 06.jpg
- File:ตรา อ.อ.ป..png
- File:ตราประจำพระองค์สมเด็จพระสังฆราช พระองค์ที่ 20.png
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for File:Thailand Developed Temple Award 06.jpg, as a COM:FOP with publicly published, not fall to COM:DW (in case of two cyphers are subject to copyrighted.
- Comment for File:ตรา อ.อ.ป..png and File:ตราประจำพระองค์สมเด็จพระสังฆราช พระองค์ที่ 20.png, it could be discussed. Although the cyphers are too complex to be PD logotype, the cyphers might be recreated differently from the original one and goes to COM:COA. Wutkh (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Restored File:Thailand Developed Temple Award 06.jpg per UDR. Covered by FOP in Thailand since it is displayed outdoors. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)