Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/03/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![19 File:"De mujer a mujer".jpg](#File:"De_mujer_a_mujer".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![151 File:Валентинка в цветах "флага настоящей любви".png](#File:Валентинка_в_цветах_"флага_настоящей_любви".png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![198 File:Couverture du livre d'Henri Cordreaux "Fabrication des accessoires de théâtre".jpg](#File:Couverture_du_livre_d'Henri_Cordreaux_"Fabrication_des_accessoires_de_théâtre".jpg){kind=link}
_Logo.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Because it is Press photo Haya4 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio. --Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This sculpture was created by Alexander Apollonov, dead in 2017, so the sculpture is copyrighted. PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Because I want to and it’s my work WavyPhoton (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Because I want to and it’s my work WavyPhoton (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Please delete Bazric (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A better quality version of the official flag of Wallonia is avaibalble (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Wallonia.svg). The file is useless and should be deleted. Sthubertliege (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: It is COM:INUSE. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I want to remove since I was testing it on my wikipedia page. Jayantakumar54 (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by LE MARECHAL as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: фото содержит надписи на другом языке и относится к украиноязычной Википедии, дублируя похожее — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Foto mal editada Nicosaintt (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 11:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
uploaded by me but faulty Geopersona (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Буду исправлять Traffic62 (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
wrong pronunciation Exilexi (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Taivo. --Rosenzweig τ 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
No permission from RIA Novosti. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Fake source. There is no such photo on the website of the government of the Moscow Region. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 13:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Fake source. There is no such photo on the website of the government of the Moscow Region. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 13:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Fake source. There is no such photo on the website of the government of the Moscow Region. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --A.Savin 13:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mateus2019 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: appeared in the inet one year earlier, not own work https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=de&re=df&p=AbrfA8pE51pW4WjpEUtJmI6iSD6nJK8C_jDlXxDfCXdrr1U229IWBH9PFEsSlMZN6qIQQF97NB6X481F3BdO8AOGvLwFtRKv_GLo480AEn_5X08akRvSqW9hMlrv7wKFljba9s_C6zyl2216MPHGajt7-ZCWpN3uT0nOJP0fxsHCZwvhEnHXsq7VzBkVPkMuyB6i-rJgJANjgRatrg%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR1F5TnpjMk1XSmpMVGsxT0RrdE5Ea3dOeTFoTURjd0xUWTFZakV5TURnNFlUZ3hNaElmVVhwYVJFd3paV3RWUWxsaFRVbG5SM0JuU1V4dVVERnZYekV5WlRWb1p3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW11dXQ== Mateus2019 ([[User talk:Mateus2019|{{int:Talkpagelinktext Mhhossein talk 15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/03/23#c-Mhhossein-20240323155600-File:"De_mujer_a_mujer".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation per the privided link. --Mhhossein talk 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/03/23#c-Mhhossein-20240323155800-File:"De_mujer_a_mujer".jpg){kind=link}
From Getty Images: "Indonesian marine corps search for separatist rebels of the Free Aceh Movement, GAM) at a village in Lhok Seumawe, in Aceh 21 May 2003. TNY (Indonesian troops) killed 10 civilians at a village, civilians told journalists. AFP PHOTO/CHOO YOUN-KONG (Photo by CHOO YOUN-KONG / AFP) (Photo by CHOO YOUN-KONG/AFP via Getty Images)" Thuresson (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See page 7 of this book for reference.
Obviously the multipage file File:EDMA - La psychanalyse, Le Livre de Poche, 1975.djvu should also be cleaned (re-upload of a version with this image blank and history cleared).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete. --Newnewlaw (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)- Delete. Draco flavus (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I have uploaded a new version of the File:EDMA - La psychanalyse, Le Livre de Poche, 1975.djvu with replacement of the picture by a black page.--Cunegonde1 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Superseded and usage on wikipedia replaced by File:Evangelische Kirche Hermannrode zu Hermannrode, Neu-Eichenberg.jpg, 2003:E4:5F11:700:151D:EDE1:FAC4:7E98 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim55 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
違うファイルをアップロードしたため RYOU WATANABE (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
umutberk Umutberkorum (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
personal photo Umutberkorum (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a personal picture and I don’t want to use it on commons anymore Charliegab (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 22:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
This is my own work, and I no longer want it to be used. Tuncalbay (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
need update Football1675 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
need updates Football1675 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
違うファイルをアップロードしたため。 RYOU WATANABE (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
違うファイルをアップロードしたため RYOU WATANABE (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
アップロードするファイルの間違い RYOU WATANABE (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
アップロードするファイルの間違い RYOU WATANABE (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Because it is Logo Nonamessz (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not a deletion reason, but I don't put it past an admin to "Delete per nom." It's probably over COM:TOO anywhere, though. Ubiratan Esporte Clube, if this is associated with it (it's not used in https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiratan_Esporte_Clube), is notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion, obviously copyrighted. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No value to a new small raster when we have already-existing File:Tetrabrommethan.svg. DMacks (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In addition, the file has a checker-like background. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No License Mcages20 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 18:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no source that corroborates that the logo changed. Disney+ still officially uses its only logo which is more recognizable, and it is not immediately clear what change has occurred, or if it is just an alternate version of the logo that is common but informal. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:D02B:A55C:695B:C8D 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep I confirmed that this new variation of the current logo appeared for the first time at "Well Said" big game teaser that showcasing the new logo in February last month, and since then, it appeared at many teasers of the upcoming shows such as Doctor Who's new episodes and Taylor Swift | The Eras Tour. If you as a IP user (2604:3D08:9476:BE00:D02B:A55C:695B:C8D) didn't know, it is the first time that the modified logo has been appeared officially, so your argument is not enough reason to justify the deletion. Yayan550 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy kept: per Ikan Kekek. 2603:7000:B800:3400:8080:DFD0:EECA:4580 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Keeteria as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete 削除票用のテンプレートが分からないのでとりあえずこれにします。当該画像をGoogleで検索した結果、IRいしかわ鉄道のページ、https://www.ishikawa-railway.jp/station/index.html のモバイル用路線図(https://www.ishikawa-railway.jp/assets/img/map_sp_v2.png )と当該画像が一致しています。IRいしかわ鉄道のウェブサイトの下には © IRいしかわ鉄道株式会社. All rights reserved.とあるため、当該ファイルは著作権侵害にあたると考えます。--Keeteria (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment 削除・存続表には {{Vd}} と {{Vk}} が使えます。 鈴音雨 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete Lischa Jael Lydia Arakelow (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete out of courtesy. --Achim55 (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Fehlende Urheberrechte, bitte um schnell Löschung. Lischa Jael Lydia Arakelow (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per belated uploader request, unused personal photo, license mistake. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Per Commons:Licensing#GNU Free Documentation License GFDL is not permitted as the only license since the content is a photograph of a person licensed in 2024. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Namaste,
- I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to express my sincere apologies if my previous actions regarding the photograph's upload on Wikimedia were not in line with the appropriate procedures.
- Following the initial notification with the ticket template, I promptly reached out to the owner, urging them to respond to the email sent by VRT. The directive was clear: the photographer must provide explicit permission for the photo's use. Consequently, the photographer duly sent the required permission, which was subsequently accepted.
- However, it's disheartening to find the photo now facing a deletion nomination. This news has left me quite dismayed. Nevertheless, I fully respect the rules and regulations governing Wikimedia, and I am committed to adhering to them diligently.
- In an attempt to resolve this matter, I left a message on your talk page, but I understand if you might have missed it. Could you kindly provide guidance on the specific permissions necessary to retain the photo on Wikimedia? I will promptly relay this information to the owner and ensure compliance.
- Thank you for your understanding and guidance in this matter.
- Warm regards. Theshubhz (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Theshubhz: There appears to be a miscommunication in the VRT ticket, I suppose. The image can be kept if it is also licensed under any CC BY-SA license, or any other compatible license, alongside GFDL which appears not very practical given what is at Commons:Licensing#GNU Free Documentation License, "(GFDL) is not practical for most content, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license." If a file is only licensed under GFDL, it is not permitted to remain here. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello dear @Aafi, thank you for your kind reply. I will proceed to ask the photographer to reply to the email with the following statement:
- 'I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.'
- Is that going to be okay? or Please let me know if there are any further steps required. Thank you. Theshubhz (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Theshubhz, that's perfect. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Aafi, @AafiOnMobile, The photographer has sent "Dear VRT team, I agree to publish the above-mentioned content (Vinitha.jpg) under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International." to the same email with ticket #2024032110009795. Kindly check that email and please make the necessary changes to file page also. Thank you so much :) Theshubhz (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Theshubhz, that's perfect. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Theshubhz: There appears to be a miscommunication in the VRT ticket, I suppose. The image can be kept if it is also licensed under any CC BY-SA license, or any other compatible license, alongside GFDL which appears not very practical given what is at Commons:Licensing#GNU Free Documentation License, "(GFDL) is not practical for most content, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license." If a file is only licensed under GFDL, it is not permitted to remain here. ─ Aafī (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: the deletion reason no more stands valid. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurry and unused photo, such digitally altered photo could be out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
not own work, photographed from derivative work Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=887078426#File:_Valadi_Krishnaiyer.jpg){kind=link}
low quality personal doodles, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ice24081990 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
User has previously uploaded one copyvio that was deleted. It is likely this is also a copyvio. There's no metadata and in this context of a user with a previous copyvio that's suspicious. Should be deleted per COM:PCP Frodar (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
photo with Facebook metadata (FBMD string in EXIF data), doubtful that this is own work DCB (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation.
- File:Isaac Asimov previendo el impacto de Internet.ogv
- File:Somos-los-unicos-fondo-de-escritorio.jpg https://funitsfun.blogspot.com/2011/01/26-most-creative-adobe-photoshop-images.html January 6, 2011, earlier than commons upload date 10 July 2011.
RZuo (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
copyvio; no fop; pd in 2055. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Has copyright notice, name not matching uploader, no reason why uploader would have authority to license offered; seen elsewhere online eg [2] Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am one of the people in this picture--the drummer and it's been seen elsewhere online on my colleague's business page because he is in this photo as well--the keyboard player. The photo is taken by Steve Lombardi--a friend of mine and has given me permission to use the photo. Lkdccommonwiki (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Lkdccommonwiki: Great! When uploading copyrighted works by third parties, confirmation that the original author/copyright holder has granted a free license is needed. That can be submitted by email; see COM:VRT for details. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If proper VRT message confirming free license is received, can be undeleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: logo of a non-notable urban exploration club. (Also, copyright issues with the Red Bull can in the center of the image.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope: numerous AI-generated logos of a non-notable urban exploration club. Copyright issues with the Red Bull can in the center of many of these images.
- File:Urbexados Aventuras.jpg
- File:Urbexados Epic Urbex and Redbull.jpg
- File:Urbexados.jpg
- File:Urbexados Aventuras Épicas con AaalaS.jpg
- File:Urbexados Abandoned Urbex.jpg
- File:Urbexados La clave del Éxito con Red Bull.jpg
- File:Urbexados ES Aventuras con Aaalas gracias a Red Bull.jpg
- File:Urbexados ES - Imparables en el Urbex.jpg
- File:Urbexados ES.jpg
- File:Urbexados ES - Aventuras Épicas Urbex.jpg
Omphalographer (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violations; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.
- File:La nouvelle galerie nationale (Berlin) (11478136755).jpg
- File:Neue Nationalgalerie (51703080878).jpg
_(11478136755).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, F10
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The source does not indicate the pictures are free to share CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: From Facebook CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Flyer for a concert CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The author died in 2004 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: the model is marked as the author, F10 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work, Seems to ba a screenshot of a video CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Seems to be from a video from France Culture. As far as I know, they are not under Creative Commons CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Screenshots of music album covers and official website of an artist
- File:Philippe recording.png
- File:Capture d’écran 2022-08-01 à 15.24.37.png
- File:Capture d’écran 2022-07-23 à 18.18.59.jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Biography, not on the encyclopedia CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ranaaftabakram (talk · contribs)
[edit]Possible copyvio: The model is marked as the author, F10
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Apparrent copyvio, architectural model in the photograph is clearly not de mimimis, and is too new to be in the public domain. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C87D:9AB2:956F:6521 21:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Seems to a selfie, The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation?? Source quoted ("my teachers lecture") is inadequate. This image dates back to 2010 according to the Google image search. The possible source is https://www.immunologyclinic.com/jpg/300_96dpi/12-300.jpg. There is no indication at this site that this image is available on a licences acceptable to Commons. Headlock0225 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete. "My teacher's lecture" isn't just inadequate; it isn't a source at all, just like other common non-sources like "google". You can use {{No source since}} (aka. {{subst:nsd}}) to tag unsourced or improperly sourced images like these for deletion. Omphalographer (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Fictional and out of scope N Panama 84534 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Not certain that this low-resolution video is suitable in quality, nor specifically educational — billinghurst sDrewth 23:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't even really a video - it's a slideshow! And the products being displayed are so blurry (and sometimes obscured by text) that it's hard to make them out in any detail. Omphalographer (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as what they said, unfortunately. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 01:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ingrid Seddig
[edit]copyright violation; artist died in 2008; no freedom of panorama.
- File:CM-1792-0273.jpg
- File:CM-1792-0409.jpg
- File:Ingrid Seddig im Atelier .jpg
- File:Markuskirche Aalen.jpg
- File:Melanchthonkirche Fellbach, Foto- Constantin Meyer.jpg
- File:Osterfeldkirche Esslingen.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ingrid Seddig
[edit]copyright violation; no freedom of panorama; pd in 2078
- File:Fellbach luther altarkreuz hinten1600x1200 guntherseibold.jpg
- File:Fellbach luther altarkreuz hintennah1599x1409 guntherseibold.jpg
- File:Fellbach luther altarkreuz hintenschraeg1600x1200 guntherseibold.jpg
- File:Fellbach luther innenhinten1600x1200 guntherseibold.jpg
- File:Hn-kirchhsn-db-kirche-2015-1.JPG
- File:Hn-kirchhsn-db-kirche-2015-2.JPG
- File:Hn-kirchhsn-db-kirche-2015-3.JPG
- File:Lutherkirche fellbach griechisches Kreuz.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
out of scope, children Xocolatl (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of the project scope, not usable for any educational context Nutshinou Talk! 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
not certain how this meets our educational criteria — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be own work; taken from e.g. here
- File:Montagediamondcity.png
- File:Jjart8.jpg
- File:Jjart6.jpg
- File:Jjart4.jpg
- File:Jjart1.jpg
- File:Jjart3.jpg
- File:Jjart2.jpg
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TarasBulba18 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Отсканированная подпись персоны.png
- File:Партийный съезд.jpg
- File:Правительство Оренбурской области.jpg
- File:Единая Россия.jpg
- File:Ореняк Вадим Олегович.jpg
- File:Начало карьеры.jpg
Mitte27 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Obviously not a selfie. Achim55 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vladimirdobysev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Фото из карточки музыканта Яндекс музыка ВладимираSOLIS.jpg
- File:Фото из карточки музыканта Яндекс музыка.jpg
- File:Фото из карточки музыканта.jpg
Mitte27 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.
Mitte27 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yazidinfos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very unlikely that all photos are the uploader's own work. The small resolutions suggest they are probably COM:NETCOPYVIO; a bunch of them are for example also on display at https://cheikh-bentounes.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_17.html.
- File:Khaled bentounes - La reunion - Saint Paul.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Khilafa.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Jordan 2008.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Jordan abu ghazala 2008.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - johannesburg 2005.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - jeune - Mosque.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - jeune.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Jakarta.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Islam Darma.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - ishibliya 2006.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - inter religieux 2008.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - indonisie 2006.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - IMA Paris 2002.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - hakhamat bruxelle 2005.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Hadj 1981.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - flamme espoir mediterraneenne 2009.JPG
- File:Khaled bentounes - Fes 2010.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - fes 2008.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Eau.JPG
- File:Khaled bentounes - Desjardin.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - cinquantenaire Sidi Adda 2002.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - chaine initiatique.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - centenaire 2009.JPG
- File:Khaled bentounes - centenaire 2009 2.JPG
- File:Khaled bentounes - Caravane Alger 2009.JPG
- File:Khaled bentounes - Alif 1984.jpg
- File:Hakhamat ishbilya 2006.jpg
- File:Khaled bentounes - Raffarin - Sarkozy.jpg
- File:Djanatu Al Arif.JPG
- File:Cinquantenaire du cheikh Al Alawi Chessy 1984.jpg
- File:Cheikh Mehdi Bentounes.JPG
- File:Cheikh Al Alawi.jpg
- File:Cheikh El Hadj Adda Bentounes.JPG
- File:Aissawa - Mawlid - Saint Florant.jpg
- File:Caravane espoir Bou Saada 2009.JPG
- File:Abdu Es-Salam Ibn Machich Maroc 2003.jpg
- File:Mehdi Bentounes.jpg
HyperGaruda (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sogn Benedetg, Sumvitg
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Architect Peter Zumthor is still alive and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:S. Benedetg Innen1.jpg
- File:Saint Benedict Chapel 3.jpg
- File:Saint Benedict Chapel2.jpg
- File:Sogn Benedetg innen.jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:San Giovanni Battista (Mogno)
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (for churches) in Switzerland. Architect Mario Botta is still alive and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Botta Mogno 02.jpg
- File:Bottas Kirche 20171015 112425.jpg
- File:Chiesa di S.Giovanni Battista, Mogno-Fusio - Mario Botta Church (8102572894).jpg
- File:Chiesa di S.Giovanni Battista, Mogno-Fusio - Mario Botta Church (8103119867).jpg
- File:Chiesa San Giovanni Battista a Mogno TI.jpg
- File:Church Impressions - Flickr - Magdalena Roeseler.jpg
- File:Church Impressions 2 (124327523).jpeg
- File:Church Impressions 3 (125028435).jpeg
- File:Interior of San Giovanni Battista Mogno TI CH.jpg
- File:Kirche San Giovanni Battista in Mogno, Lavizzara, Kanton Tessin 1.jpg
- File:Mogno Botta Altar (1030472024).jpg
- File:Mogno Botta IMG 0130 (3442226082).jpg
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 1.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 2.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 3.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 4.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 5.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 6.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 7.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen 8.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen Chor 1.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen Chor 2.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen Chor 3.JPG
- File:Mogno Botta-Kirche Innen Dach.JPG
- File:Mogno San-Giovanni-Battista Deckenkonstruktion 0124.jpg
- File:Mogno-Kirche -Hochbild.jpg
- File:MognoKircheDachbögen.jpg
- File:RB 20151010 Valle Maggio Mogno.jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (2839573561).jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (2839576675).jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (2840403836).jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (47688180492).jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (Mogno) Altar.jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (Mogno) glass roof.jpg
- File:San Giovanni Battista (Mogno), interior.jpg
- File:SanGiovanniAtMogno.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Altar.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_glass_roof.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_interior.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:San Giovanni Battista (2839566697).jpg. That is an exterior view not an interior view. See trees in background. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Removed that file from the DR.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no FoP for interior views (for churches) in Switzerland. Architect Mario Botta is still alive and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably video screenshot. Small size without EXIF data. Yann (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably video screenshot. Small size without EXIF data. Yann (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
File:DALL·E 2024-03-22 18.06.12 - Imaginez un jardin luxuriant et bien entretenu, sous un ciel clair et ensoleillé, où une famille souriante est en train de choisir une table pliante p.webp
[edit]
what's the use-case for this? It's probably useless, for example because there are photos of this and it shows nothing special Prototyperspective (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Violation of COM:FANART, seems too similar to the actual character artwork for the show. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
-20240323022200-File:Doremon_cartoon_character_drawing_images_6.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy delete per nominator. Also, I converted it in no time. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 02:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC); edited: 08:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sad to take down someone's hard work, but that's the way copyright is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bremps... 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Violation of COM:PACKAGING. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
-20240323023300-File:X360Packung.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Vietnam's FOP was revoked since 2023, image uploaded afterwards are not allowed on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Small dimensions, and looks like a cropped image of an original photo.
0x0a (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Text-only image with an irrelevant title and description, out of scope. 0x0a (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in North Macedonia A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Website watermarked on photo, unlikely to be own work. 0x0a (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
per COM:TOY. 0x0a (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not seeing how this meets are educational purposes standard — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing how this photograph qualifies as educational — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio © Thomas Bruns M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio © Tim Nowitzki M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio © Tim Nowitzki M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio © Tim Nowitzki M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio © Stella Geppert M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Where are internships allowed to attend to the Prime Minister's meetings? Yann (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
en:GFX Beats is deleted. Probably its logo is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:1936 Winter Olympics badges
[edit]Per page 50 and the plate after page 114 in the official report of the 1936 Olympic Winter Games (see [3]), the official emblem of the 1936 Olympic Winter Games at Garmisch-Partenkirchen we see here is the work of German artist Fritz Uhlich (1893–1973), so still protected in Germany until the end of 2043. The files can be restored in 2044 (the US copyright which was restored by the URAA will have expired by then as well).
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.342-1).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.342-3).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.343-1).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.343-3).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.345-1).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.345-3).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.360-1).jpg
- File:Badge (AM 1996.71.360-3).jpg
- File:Nazi Germany badges pins etc Drittes Reich Abzeichen Anstecknadeln usw IV Olympische Winterspiele 1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen XI. Olympiade Berlin 1936 Filmabteilung, Deutsches Frauenwerk, Lofoten Krigsminnemuseum WW2 Museum Norway 202.jpg
- File:Nazi Germany badges pins etc Drittes Reich Abzeichen Anstecknadeln usw IV Olympische Winterspiele 1936 Garmisch-Partenkirchen Lofoten Krigsminnemuseum WW2 Museum Norway 2022 DSC01185.jpg
- File:Olympic plakette Garmish 1936.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 12:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This is my own work, and I no longer want it to be used. Tuncalbay (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload, but still COM:INUSE at en:Turkish Air Force. --Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
pre-1951, not own work Hekerui (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Relativity equation of Einstein in Ulm Minster (Germany).jpg
- File:Fenster Ulmer Muenster-2.jpg
- File:Fenster Ulmer Muenster-3.jpg
- File:Fenster Ulmer Muenster-4.jpg
- File:Fenster Ulmer Muenster-5.jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster (49203627388).jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster (49203628043).jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster (49204113876).jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster (49204326577).jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster - View South on Modern Stained Glass Window II.jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster - View South on Modern Stained Glass Window.jpg
- File:Ulm - Ulmer Münster - View West on Stained Glass Window commemorating the Holocaust.jpg
- File:Ulm Minster inside6.jpg
- File:Ulmer Münster (226327959).jpeg
- File:Ulmer Münster 2012 033.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This was uploaded by a very notorious sockpuppet master on the English Wikipedia. It comes from the Instagram page of the artist whom it claims to represent, but these are clearly all AI-generated images: https://www.instagram.com/peweeddpdjdominic/ . There is no educational value held here. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
out of scope? Trade (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This looks like a giant plushie, not a cosplay Trade (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Derivative work. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Over Saturation TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Image looks good. Commons does not have many image like this. @TAPAS KUMAR HALDER, in that case you should fix/edit the image (click here to reupload). এই লিঙ্কে ক্লিক করে সঠিক রঙের ছবিটি আপলোড করুন। ধন্যবাদ। আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Usable, but TAPAS KUMAR HALDER, why don't you edit the photo to your liking? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nguyennhukhoi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
- File:PT Gym là gì?.jpg
- File:PT Gym.jpg
- File:Giá Thuê PT Tập Gym 1 Kèm 1 Tại FIT LIFE Private Gym.jpg
- File:Giá Thuê PT Gym.jpg
- File:Giá Thuê PT 1 Tháng.jpg
- File:FIT LIFE Private Gym - Phòng Tập Riêng Tư, Huấn Luyện Cá Nhân Giá Rẻ HCM.jpg
- File:FIT LIFE Private Gym - Phòng Tập Riêng Tư, Huấn Luyện Cá Nhân HCM Tận Tâm.jpg
- File:FIT LIFE Private Gym - Phòng Tập Riêng Tư, Huấn Luyện Cá Nhân HCM Giá Rẻ.jpg
- File:PT Gym Khởi Nguyễn.jpg
Trade (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tupadresergio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: plain text.
- File:PROBLEMAS MATRIMONIALESA2.jpg
- File:PROBLEMAS MATRIMONIALESA1.jpg
- File:PROBLEMAS MATRIMONIALES.png
Omphalographer (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
WQGR logo files uploaded by Rockford87 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not likely to be CC-licensed "own works", as these images depict the logo for radio station WQGR. Does the stylized gold record put this above TOO?
_93.7_Logo_Transparent.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_93.7_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 09:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This is arecanut tree. Orwinpinto890 (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
wrong information its arecanut tree not coconut tree Saikiran020 (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- If so, the image should be renamed not deleted Askeuhd (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion, please follow COM:RENAME. --Wdwd (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
This image is purely edited. Orwinpinto890 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
it is edited Saikiran020 (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Inaccurate AI upscaling, somehow completely removing the subject's white moustache. Belbury (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Belbury, it occured to me too and I checked two other images of the same person (this and this). He might have sported a moustache in life but the poor quality original image with white blotches might not be a moustache. Psubhashish (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was starting to have second thoughts as well. Evidence on the other hand is File:Godabarisha Mishra.png, a drawing that looks to be from the same time in his life as this photo (it may even be based on the photo), and which shows a moustache.
- If we don't know for sure whether he had a moustache at this point in his life we probably shouldn't create a high-resolution AI image of what he would look like if he 100% unambiguously did not have one. Belbury (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. We can't ignore the chance considering the example. I did see that but didn't assume anything conclusive. There is a 50:50 chance and it's better not to take the chance that might potentially even offend some as AI is too experimental and barely trustworthy. Psubhashish (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 04:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This file is not used anywhere in the community. It's sole reason for existence is to soften the image of a confirmed neo-Nazi (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sewell_(neo-Nazi)) by attempting to portray him with children. Per the excellent essay at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis we shouldn't put up with these people tricks and delete this. TarnishedPathtalk 11:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep English Wikipedia has an article about the subject that is not very short so the photo appears to be potentially useful. Thuresson (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Thuresson, the photo is not used on the article and will not be used unless consensus is obtained for it. TarnishedPathtalk 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- in WP no Consensus is needed for anybody to integrate an image whatever the depicted person's ideals maybe. Keep strongly. --Zenwort (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Zenwort, it's a copyvio in any case refer to below vote. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- in WP no Consensus is needed for anybody to integrate an image whatever the depicted person's ideals maybe. Keep strongly. --Zenwort (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thuresson, the photo is not used on the article and will not be used unless consensus is obtained for it. TarnishedPathtalk 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio. The Image was posted online by the subject in December 2023 and uploaded here in February 2024. https://gab.com/Thomas_Sewell/posts/111520993543173332. The upload was by a new user who has 1 edit here and another edit at English Wikipedia to insert the photo. COM:VRT is an option if the uploader does have permission to upload. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Это работа какого-то российского ведомства, а не загрузившего участника. Справа вверху виден вотермарк с гербом. — Redboston 01:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Это стоп-кадр из видеоролика отсюда (00:26).— Redboston 01:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted for Investigative Committee of Russia. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
article, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISN_00149,_Salim_Hamed.jpg, duplicate Bremps... 03:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
File:Флаг настоящей любви.png
File:"Флаг настоящей любви" с валентинкой внутри.jpg
Out of scope. Unlike file:Anti-LGBT.svg and File:Strefa wolna od LGBT - cropped, background removes.jpg , this symbol is not widely used and has not gained any attention, as the uploaded claims. The only mention of this flag that I could find were these Pikabu posts: [4] [5] 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
We don't know if all these images are available under a free license or not 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- yes , they are under a free license Wendish (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: the original images are free indeed but the collage is of no additional educational value. Out of the scope. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Not educationally useful 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The image has been circulating on the Internet, and has been used in Maldivian community. I completely understand that it may be offensive for some, but so are other political memes, which can be found here on Wikimedia Commons. "Not educationally useful" is not a claim that can be applied here, as I am preserving part of the humour and creativity of the Internet. If so, you may as well as delete the rage face Internet comic as it obviously is not "educationally useful". Ismehela (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still Delete as possible copyvio. The author is unknown. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 07:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
not his own content stolen from some where else Saikiran020 (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bike rides in moodbidare Royal park Tejeshmavinamar (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
No evidence of deletion claim provided. --Zenwort (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
L'image est trop flou Saliousoft (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Mitte27 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Это не личная фотография. Это известный блогер 81.222.177.234 07:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep not overly-blurry (not great quality, but not unusable; forgivable given this is from the early age of digital photography). Only photo we have of Swedish fans in the crowd at this notable game. SecretName101 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, Blurry and unused image. --Javidd (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: A lot of much better pictures of the same event. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
1943 is not own work Hekerui (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: PD accordung to Indian law. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use and out of scope
Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Claim "own work" most likely incorrect, resp. not warranted. Image has information "E.Metzke, Dessau, Kavalierstr. 40" in lower right corner. A telephone book from 1934 lists "Metzke, Erich, Photogr. Kavalierstr." in Dessau with 1429 as his phone number. URL: https://digi-alt.ub.hu-berlin.de/viewer/fullscreen/1526458284282/241/?activetab=fulltext If photograph was taken in 1952, as claimed, year of death of photographer is at an unknown time point in or after 1952.; based on these pieces of information no license type from group "PD-OLD-xxx" should be applicable here. Archie02 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg){kind=link}
Othello-4_Kopie2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Es ist derzeit nicht möglich, die Lebensdaten des Bildautors anzugeben. 2003:E6:3F28:A3E0:9461:9A9D:E961:A828 09:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:BOOK: photos and book covers without authors' permissions.
0x0a (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This image to delete Banten TV Cigarette Channel (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This image to delete Banten TV Cigarette Channel (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Zunter as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Author/uploader request. Bad quality. No usage. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
probably above COM:TOO US. 0x0a (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Promotional images, as said in the description A1Cafel (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
File:HK WCN 灣仔北 Wan Chai North 香港會展 HKCEC 佳士得 Christie's 拍賣前 Auction 預展 preview exhibition November 2021 SS2 237.jpg
[edit]
Artist denotes works to be under copyright.[6] Labattblueboy (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Pas sûr de la Liberté de panorama du monument au mort Lanoe Hawker. Certe, il est mort en 1916, mais sait-on qui a fait ériger le monument ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not own work anyway, screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Pas sûr de la Liberté de panorama du monument au mort étant sonné qu'il inclut les morts de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not own work anyway, screenshot. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- File:A market scene, signed Paul Joanovitsch.jpg
- File:Portrait of August Hückel 1914 by P Joanowitsch.jpg
This is a painting by w:Paja Jovanović, and not "own work" of User:Mickeygainz as claimed. Not yet 70 years since the death of Jovanović. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
COM:FAN 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, as per that very page you linked to, which outlines that fan art in fact is allowed in particular circumstances. I would not have uploaded these artworks if I believed them to fall outside these permissible exceptions. Let me cite the page in question to demonstrate why I believe these uploads to be permissible:
As explained in more detail below, certain types of fan art are in principle allowed provided they do not copy any creative element of the original work of fiction. However, in practice it is often very difficult to tell whether the fan art has been made by copying, or whether it is an independent work of art which merely shares with the original work of fiction some basic non-copyrightable aspects or features. This is where common sense and judgement have to be applied.
Without wishing to denigrate the skill of any individual artist, experience teaches that many creators of fan art find it easier to copy than to create wholly original works of their own. Images that at first sight appear original are often found on investigation to have been copied from, say, a copyrighted representation of a character in a movie or a computer game. For that reason, all fan art uploaded to Commons should be evaluated critically. It may be relevant to consider the apparent skill of the artist and whether any other uploads can be shown to have been copied from a known source.
Considering the skill of the artist, it seems obvious that the artworks are wholly original creations featuring Glaceon, and not copied from any copyrighted representation of Glaceon found in official media. One of the most basic fundaments of copyright law is that only expressions are copyrightable, not ideas. Here, the artist has created their own, unique expressions based upon the idea of a Glaceon, which differ significantly from the official, copyrighted expressions of Glaceon.
[...] generally there is no copyright in an abstract idea or concept as such. Copyright is not a monopoly right that protects each and every type of creative content, even at the highest conceptual level; it simply restricts copying of the specific realization that the author has used, in words, images or sound. US courts distinguish between an uncopyrightable "idea" and a copyrightable "expression".[1]
Thus, in order to establish a copyright violation the copyright owner has to be able to point to some original and creative specific realization (or expression) that has been copied, either directly or indirectly, exactly or inexactly, and either with or without additional artistic embellishments. The specific realization is typically some graphic work such as an illustration in a book, or a visual representation in a movie or computer game.
The difficulty, of course, is to decide what level of generalization is considered to be a non-copyrightable abstract idea, and what a copyrightable specific realization. The courts have much trouble with this, and there is no “bright line” rule that provides an easy answer.
Where the specific realization is an illustration or a depiction of a creative graphic element within a movie, comic book, computer game or the like, copyright will typically be infringed if the fan art drawing has copied that original creative element.
Were this image to be deleted, that would set a regrettable precedent, as images which are currently allowed (such as this one) might be reconsidered for deletion. This would, needless to say, make Commons a significantly poorer place. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, COM:FAN is vague about non-human characters.
- The fan art shows the color and the lock of fur on the head, almost identical to the character in the original series. In addition, I doubt that (fan art) Glaceon can be presented as an ordinary blue fox. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would say, based on the many examples shown here, that the artistic styles are entirely different. It does not look like a violation to me. Fry1989 eh? 16:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete It seems to be too close to the original. According to Commons:Derivative works, "Even your own drawing of Pikachu cannot be published under a free licence." IMO this is an example where the description can be applied literally. --Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement". --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:FAN 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, as per that very page you linked to, which outlines that fan art in fact is allowed in particular circumstances. I would not have uploaded these artworks if I believed them to fall outside these permissible exceptions. Let me cite the page in question to demonstrate why I believe these uploads to be permissible:
As explained in more detail below, certain types of fan art are in principle allowed provided they do not copy any creative element of the original work of fiction. However, in practice it is often very difficult to tell whether the fan art has been made by copying, or whether it is an independent work of art which merely shares with the original work of fiction some basic non-copyrightable aspects or features. This is where common sense and judgement have to be applied.
Without wishing to denigrate the skill of any individual artist, experience teaches that many creators of fan art find it easier to copy than to create wholly original works of their own. Images that at first sight appear original are often found on investigation to have been copied from, say, a copyrighted representation of a character in a movie or a computer game. For that reason, all fan art uploaded to Commons should be evaluated critically. It may be relevant to consider the apparent skill of the artist and whether any other uploads can be shown to have been copied from a known source.
Considering the skill of the artist, it seems obvious that the artworks are wholly original creations featuring Glaceon, and not copied from any copyrighted representation of Glaceon found in official media. One of the most basic fundaments of copyright law is that only expressions are copyrightable, not ideas. Here, the artist has created their own, unique expressions based upon the idea of a Glaceon, which differ significantly from the official, copyrighted expressions of Glaceon.
[...] generally there is no copyright in an abstract idea or concept as such. Copyright is not a monopoly right that protects each and every type of creative content, even at the highest conceptual level; it simply restricts copying of the specific realization that the author has used, in words, images or sound. US courts distinguish between an uncopyrightable "idea" and a copyrightable "expression".[1]
Thus, in order to establish a copyright violation the copyright owner has to be able to point to some original and creative specific realization (or expression) that has been copied, either directly or indirectly, exactly or inexactly, and either with or without additional artistic embellishments. The specific realization is typically some graphic work such as an illustration in a book, or a visual representation in a movie or computer game.
The difficulty, of course, is to decide what level of generalization is considered to be a non-copyrightable abstract idea, and what a copyrightable specific realization. The courts have much trouble with this, and there is no “bright line” rule that provides an easy answer.
Where the specific realization is an illustration or a depiction of a creative graphic element within a movie, comic book, computer game or the like, copyright will typically be infringed if the fan art drawing has copied that original creative element.
Were this image to be deleted, that would set a regrettable precedent, as images which are currently allowed (such as this one) might be reconsidered for deletion. This would, needless to say, make Commons a significantly poorer place. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, COM:FAN is vague about non-human characters.
- The fan art shows the color and the lock of fur on the head, almost identical to the character in the original series. In addition, I doubt that (fan art) Glaceon can be presented as an ordinary blue fox. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would say, based on the many examples shown here, that the artistic styles are entirely different. It does not look like a violation to me. Fry1989 eh? 16:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - "per nomination - "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement". --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
not a useful template Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Mike Peel, thank you for letting us know about this nomination.
- At the moment, you can see this template is used by 8 files, in their "Other versions" section. These files are part of a collection that will soon grow significantly. Not only does it make it easy to find all the files in this collection, but it also saves time since you just need to use it to display all the files rather than manually writing all the addresses of the others files each time (which can be tedious, in addition to making the code heavier on each file).
- In addition, each time a new file is added to Commons, we just have to add it to the template and everything else is done automatically and in alphabetical order.
- This template is also used in the BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem gallery and in the same way, each time the template is updated, everything is coordinated in the gallery.
- So as you can see, this template is used and useful.
- Thank you for your understanding and we remain open to any suggestions or comments.
- Kind regards
RED🔴ƎYE (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy. (non-admin closure) — doclys (❀) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This sculpture was created by Alexander Apollonov, dead in 2017, so the sculpture is copyrighted. PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- De minimis? --Zenwort (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stays in the middle of the image! -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not DM. --Gbawden (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding NEW ZEALAND freedom of panorama .
- This is an ‘artwork’— not considered ‘graphic work’.
- I have a degree in Visual Communication.
- REFERENCE
- OK for 3D works {{FoP-New Zealand}}
- OK for 2D "works of artistic craftsmanship" {{FoP-New Zealand}} AnnWoolliams (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @AnnWoolliams sorry but, two-dimensional artworks that are flat arts like murals are not covered by the FoP exception. The FoP exception only covers buildings, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship (like textiles, mosaics, and stained-glass artworks). Delete JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per JWilz. --Gbawden (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, in scope as an actor. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
RedPanels comics
[edit]
These files come from a website that states that "you may repost it anywhere without restriction". That being said, I think this falls short of an actual Creative Commons license or release of copyrights. The page certainly doesn't mention the CC0 license or the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license that the files are labeled with. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The statement by the copyright holder that "you may repost it anywhere without restriction" is a clear unambiguous release to the public domain. TarnishedPathtalk 05:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like the statement could be perceived as more of a {{Copyrighted free use}}. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about that I read it in context of the question that is asked in FAQ form (http://redpanels.com/about_page.php). Question: "May I share this comic?" Answer: "Yes, you may repost it anywhere without restriction." The important bit to me is "without restriction". To me that would include making derivative works when sharing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; it's not a statement that directly mentions the public domain, but it could be close enough from that interpretation, so the CFU template might be more appropriate for the licensing. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about that I read it in context of the question that is asked in FAQ form (http://redpanels.com/about_page.php). Question: "May I share this comic?" Answer: "Yes, you may repost it anywhere without restriction." The important bit to me is "without restriction". To me that would include making derivative works when sharing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like the statement could be perceived as more of a {{Copyrighted free use}}. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The statement grants an unlimited right to make copies. It says nothing about derivatives. There is also no explicit protection from the artist revoking the "licence" at a later stage. This isn't a PD release and it isn't compliant with our requirements at COM:L. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete besides the points raised by From Hill To Shore, it's not clear to me who "you" is. Does it apply to everyone, or just people who checked out the website? So if someone takes the image from us, are they actually allowed to "repost it anywhere" as would be required for a suitable licence? Also what is "repost"? Can someone print out the image, put it on a plain right t-shirt with nothing else, etc? As I understand it, these a good chance none of these things will be considered derivative works, since they're just using the original image in unmodified form without doing anything with a sufficient creativity to give rise to a new copyright. However they also don't clearly fit into what the licence says. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and From Hill To Shore (not irrevocable). Alalch E. (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Even though the CC0 license is not explicitly mentioned, it seems obvious to me that the work is released to the public domain and allows making derivative works when sharing. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a public domain statement at all -- {{Copyrighted free use}} seems more accurate. Definitely cannot use any CC licenses (especially CC0) without it being explicitly stated. Vague licenses like this can be quite problematic. I don't think it should be revocable, since it doesn't mention that aspect, though there can be some technicalities with that. My biggest issue is the derivative works question. The explicit permission is to "repost". Not sure that includes derivative works, or usages in places which may not qualify as a "repost". The term to me somewhat implies internet usage only (even if the intention was wider than that). Can it be used on a t-shirt or a postcard? The precise wording on statements like these can often be an issue. Does "repost" allow cropping, which could remove the credit, or does that imply only reproducing the entire image? If a re-user assumes one thing, and the author assumed another meaning, it can end up quite messy. A wording change to "re-use" instead of "repost" may have done it, but this makes me a bit nervous, even if on the borderline. The explicit permission statement should be on the images, if kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The web comic in question ran for about two years, from 2015 to 2017, and was not a blockbuster. The creator didn't reveal his real name, does not have social media presence and did not sell merchandise. Given these circumstances, it seems obvious to me that yes, he would allow you to crop, remove the credit, make t-shirts and do whatever you want with his creations, go ahead. He wrote "you may repost it anywhere without restriction" because a one-man web comic cannot afford a legal department. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that isn't a sound argument. For as long as copyright has existed, there have been anonymised and pseudonymised works and they receive a degree of automatic protection. You portray the author of the Red Panels comic as having abandoned their work but WHOIS data shows they have maintained their domain since 2015 (including a renewal on 16 July 2023). As a minimum, the domain registrar will have the details of the site owner and the site owner (if not the author) should have details of the author. As someone in control of that site was active in 2023 to renew the domain, it is well within their power to provide a less ambiguous statement. We should rely on the statement as written until it is changed. Fanciful interpretations that are convenient for Wikimedia editors go against COM:PCP. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- The web comic in question ran for about two years, from 2015 to 2017, and was not a blockbuster. The creator didn't reveal his real name, does not have social media presence and did not sell merchandise. Given these circumstances, it seems obvious to me that yes, he would allow you to crop, remove the credit, make t-shirts and do whatever you want with his creations, go ahead. He wrote "you may repost it anywhere without restriction" because a one-man web comic cannot afford a legal department. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymous works get U.S. copyright protection for 95 years from publication. The author can choose to make themselves known at any time, or even file a lawsuit through an agent/lawyer. The license is only based on the words explicitly given, no more. If a court deems a particular usage to not be a "repost", then it's unauthorized and infringement (unless fair use for other reasons). If these become famous for whatever reason in 30 years, a copyright owner (or their heirs) can change their minds. In the U.S., abandonment can be a difficult thing to prove; it requires an overt act. A license statement which is limited in any way does not do that. Creative Commons licenses attempt to make it easy for non-lawyer authors to license their work; by choosing something different, it unfortunately needs to be evaluated on its own wording. You cannot change "repost" to any other word; that is the permission. It seems clear to me that the author wanted to allow them to be spread over social media, but not sure how much further it goes beyond that. It would be based on what the commonly-understood meaning of "repost" is. Hosting it on Wikimedia is likely within the license, so I don't think it's infringement just by hosting it, but I also don't think it's "free" (which does not simply mean free of cost) because there are likely usages which do not count as a "repost". If you have a different interpretation of "repost", then please show that, with some references of how other people interpret it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it's customary to include the irrevocability wording and that it has bearing on how it should be understood because it is a usual thing to include. For example CC0: "...hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders..." Alalch E. (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's preferable to remove all doubt, but lack of a mention does not necessarily make something revocable -- {{BSD}} does not mention it for example. I think there was a court case that a license silent on the matter is irrevocable if there was consideration given (payment, or something else). The requirement for a credit may well qualify as that consideration. Something like this one though, may be more nebulous since there are no real conditions imposed, provided it's a "repost". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: With such a vague statement, it is better to err on the side of caution. Cambalachero (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep so would be the WTF license. Just because the creator did no use the phrase CC0 does not invalidate the very obvious intention of free use. --Zenwort (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That license is not vague, really -- it is quite expansive in that it has no restrictions whatsoever. There have been humorous licenses which haven't been as obvious, which can run into trouble. On this license, I don't see that the author intended free use (with the "free" being defined as we need it, https://freedomdefined.org ). It says "repost". That does imply a wide range of OK uses, certainly, but not absolutely everything. It's a valid license, but not sure it is "free". If there is any use that "free" requires that does not qualify as a "repost", then its license does not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: The permission to repost does not seem to extend to making derivitive works. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Noncommercial (Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:UK#Known author (Walter Stoneman). ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Neveselbert (mobile) as Noncommercial (Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0); noting that Stoneman died 1958 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:UK#Known author (Walter Stoneman). ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
No source for this proposed flag. Bedivere (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bedivere I added the sources [7] [8] [9] [10], the design was uploaded by Aricastate in 2013 in a png format. Janitoalevic (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandera_Independentista_de_Arica-Parinacota.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandera_Regionalista_de_Arica_y_Parinacota.png){kind=link}
- COM:INUSE, though an admin might still delete it... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: COM:INUSE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
bhai kis phone se lia ye picture aur wo khonsa drone tha thoda NASA aur isro walon ko bathadena,For claming the others content as their own Saikiran020 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The image, as most NASA imagery, is public domain, as is plainly stated in the description. Askeuhd (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept per Askeuhd, meets {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Consigned (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is the same photograph that was deleted before per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elk Eber.jpg. It is not of Polish origin, so the {{PD-Poland}} tag used here does not apply. The photograph is credited to de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), who died in 1957, so it is still protected by copyright in Germany until the end of 2027. The file can be restored in 2028, unless it is found that the URAA did restore the US copyright for this photograph after all. The US copyright would run to the end of 2035, so in that case the file could be restored in 2036. Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Okay, if this copyright is still in force, I think it is right that the photo be removed. Greetings, Maddriver371 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: Can you link to where it is attributed to Heinrich Hoffmann (1885–1957) and add it to the file. --RAN (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete} per nom Consigned (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unsaturated color TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in use. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Even if low quality, the file is COM:INUSE. Consigned (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion, in use. --Gestumblindi (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Needs proof of being published in 1910-s. PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Needs proof of being published in 1910-s. PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
A. Wyatt Mann‘s works are not in the public domain 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Info A. Wyatt Mann is a pseudonym for Nick Bougas, born in 1955. Thuresson (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The author is identified as another person with the work cited as 1940, either way that person died in 1975, so still copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A. Wyatt Mann‘s works are not in the public domain 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Info A. Wyatt Mann is a pseudonym for Nick Bougas, born in 1955. Thuresson (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is quote of pictures created 1902 or older, Mann is admittedly not the creator. Fix licence and keep. --Zenwort (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: derived work where one work is deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happy Merchant.webp; per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nyuhn as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: Ips-vs-ids-short.png — billinghurst sDrewth 09:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Consigned & images are of different sizes & quality. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Consigned & images are of different sizes & quality. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Added duplicate image File:Joshua Jagersberger Headshot (2020).jpg. Consigned (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Consigned & images are of different sizes & quality. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Consigned & images are of different sizes & quality. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Consigned & images are of different sizes & quality. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
1947 and "own work"? hm... Xocolatl (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Likely doesn't meet COM:FRANCE (70 years pma), author Henri Cordreaux died 2003. Consigned (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexostrov (talk · contribs)
[edit]No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine.
- File:Софиевская, 16 (02).jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - улица Хмельницкого, 68 (7).jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - улица Хмельницкого, 68 (6).jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - Гончара, 33 (03).jpg
- File:Украина, Одесса - Памятник Пушкину.jpg
- File:Украина, Харьков - Покровский монастырь 22.jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - Обсерватория - Главный корпус 04.jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - ВДНХ - Павильон 10 'Зерновые культуры' 04.jpg
- File:Карта обороны Киева в августе 1941 года.jpg
- File:Украина, Киев - Институт ядерных исследований 1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Quick1984 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete All photographs of artworks/sculptures presumably copyrighted; no COM:FOP Ukraine. Consigned (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Taken from the Internet, highly unlikely that it meets PD-Old Yinweiaiqing (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- 蔣兆和作品--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @北極企鵝觀賞團: Could you please provide any evidence? Thanks. SCP-2000 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- 原圖是這項張吧https://i1.kknews.cc/C4HhmOjj8zILSwHHPSr3Gg2NsqpYKJ1-Ig/0.jpg 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @北極企鵝觀賞團: Jiang Zhaohe died in 1986 therefore the artwork is copyrighted for 50 years after 1986, per COM:CHINA. Consigned (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- 原圖是這項張吧https://i1.kknews.cc/C4HhmOjj8zILSwHHPSr3Gg2NsqpYKJ1-Ig/0.jpg 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @北極企鵝觀賞團: Could you please provide any evidence? Thanks. SCP-2000 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence that it is PD per COM:CHINA. If the artist is Jiang Zhaohe, then it likely does not meet the current license on the file (PD-Art|PD-old-100). Consigned (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Doute sur les droits Le Commissaire (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Copyright violation. take a look Eliedion (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Eliedion, COM:WEBCOPYVIO. Consigned (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Almost identical to "File:פארק ואגם המרינה לקראת סוף עבודות הבנייה, מרץ 2024.jpg 03.jpg" מקף־עברי (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader request, redundant with File:פארק ואגם המרינה לקראת סוף עבודות הבנייה, מרץ 2024.jpg 03.jpg Consigned (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 03:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
منبع پرونده مشخص نیست Farhoudk (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep "The source of the file is not known". If we deleted every image where the original link did not work, because of link rot, we would not have many images left. The image is PD in Iran and the USA. --RAN (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep meets {{PD-Iran}}. Consigned (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Iran. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rasbak as Speedy (Speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Published 1986 the current license {{PD-Old}} is false. I don't see a copyright notice in the source https://archive.org/details/americanmal4519861987amer/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater and can't find ISSN 0740-2783 at https://www.copyright.gov/records/, seems like it meets {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Consigned (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-1978-89. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)
[edit]copyright violation; Georg Schönberger, artist of staines glass windows, died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-1.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-2.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-3.jpg
- File:Gollierplatz 1 St. Rupert Innenraum Muenchen-4.jpg
- File:Kirche St. Rupert Inneres.JPG
- File:St. Rupert (München) Chorfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) Chorfenster 2.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) Innenraum 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konche.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konchenfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) linke Konchenfenster 2.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konche.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konchenfenster 1.jpg
- File:St. Rupert (München) rechte Konchenfenster 2.jpg
_Chorfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Chorfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Innenraum_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konche.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konchenfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_linke_Konchenfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konche.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konchenfenster_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_rechte_Konchenfenster_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)
[edit]copyright violation; stained glass windows by Georg Schönberger who died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert (5).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert (6).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert, Maerz-Schmid-Orgel (32).jpg
- File:München-Schwanthalerhöhe, St. Rupert, Maerz-Schmid-Orgel (33).jpg
- File:St. Rupert - Schwanthalerhöhe -01.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Martin Sg. (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Your reasoning is absolutely correct from a legal point of view regarding FOP in general. The technical quality of all those images is quite low; the glass windows as artworks are hardly identifiyable. They are mostly insufficiently balanced and overexposed. COM:DM should be sufficient for keeping those images. Msb (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Msb, de minimis. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Mostly unused template, not needed Mike Peel (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is a new one for a specific situation I created prior to taking vacation. This function can perhaps be rolled into the main category navigation templates, but pending that actually being done, this should be kept. No harm in keeping it for the time being anyway. Thanks, Josh (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per Josh. --IronGargoyle (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Caulfield as no source (No source since) Krd 05:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: small crop from unknown source, COM:PRP. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
_Logo.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Highly unlikely to be a CC-licensed "own work"; the microphone in this logo for radio station WATJ probably puts this above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
_Logo.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
_Logo.gif){kind=link}
This logo for radio station WFXJ-FM is highly unlikely to be a CC-licensed "own work", and that stylized fox has to be above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Unless the uploader can show they are the actual creator and copyright holder of the artwork, Delete -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Taken from a website claiming copyright https://peachandgoma.com/pages/about - no evidence of being available under CC 4.0 DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- What would its CC be if it's a public profile picture? The author also uploaded her profile photo to her public Twitter account. https://x.com/bujuexiaoxiao/status/1666064562851037185?s=20 As far as I can tell, it's not posted anywhere with an official copyright. Joshuarhuang (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. "Public profile picture" doesn't mean free. It doesn't need to be "posted anywhere with an official copyright" to be copyrighted. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
comment supprimer une photo sur wikimedia commoms Mardocheé Toni (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Logo likely to be above COM:TOO India A1Cafel (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
While the video on youtube is marked with a CC license, this screenshot is from one of his video clips shown on the program, which TRT would not have the right to publish under a CC license. Only the footage of the studio parts shot by TRT would be eligible for screenshots, as they would only have the right to publish that footage under whatever license they want. There is another similar case here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Önay Alpago.png. File:Cem Karaca ve Annesi Toto Karaca (1988) - TRT Arşiv.webm should also be deleted on the same basis and because it contains a lot of clips that they would not have the right to publish with a free license. Tehonk (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, the Youtube creator is not able to release third party content through their video. Without evidence of the third party content being PD, we should assume it's copyrighted. Consigned (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Allerheiligen Zürich
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Allerheiligen 3357-b7.jpg
- File:Allerheiligen Altarraum Orgel.JPG
- File:Allerheiligen Zürich Krypta Altar mit Inschrift.jpg
- File:Allerheiligen Zürich Krypta Tabernakel.jpg
- File:Kirche Allerheiligen Zürich, innen.JPG
- File:Kirche Allerheiligen Zürich, Orgel.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. File:Allerheiligen 3357-b7.jpg, File:Allerheiligen Altarraum Orgel.JPG, File:Allerheiligen Zürich Krypta Altar mit Inschrift.jpg, and File:Kirche Allerheiligen Zürich, Orgel.JPG. Images of pipe organs as well as simple walls and corners. Only de minimis elements of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ is from Bernhardt Edskes who died in 2022 and its an interior view. Per FoP Switzerland interior views of churches are not permitted and that phrase is really well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The organ is a functional object whose shape is dictated by the sound it is made to produce. It is not part of the architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- agree with above. Keep organ. --Zenwort (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except two. --Krd 07:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Katholische Kirche Münchwilen
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Antonius Münchwilen innen quer.jpg
- File:Antonius Münchwilen innen seitlich.jpg
- File:Antonius Münchwilen innen.jpg
- File:Antonius Münchwilen Orgel.jpg
- File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo - orgeno 339.JPG
- File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo 337.JPG
- File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo 338.JPG
- File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo 340.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Antonius Münchwilen Orgel.jpg and File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo - orgeno 339.JPG. Just a pipe organ sitting in a corner of a room. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ is from 1974 so under copyright until 2045. And those are interior views of a church which is not included in FoP Switzerland and that phrase is really well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ is a functional object whose shape is dictated by the sound it is made to create. It is not a work of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except two. --Krd 07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Freedom of Panorama does only apply for buildings. COM:FOP Denmark. Also see previous discussions like this one. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Not a building but model or toy. COM:UA, thus keep. --Zenwort (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Toys are unfree in most cases. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Freedom of Panorama does only apply for buildings. COM:FOP Denmark. Also see previous discussions like this one. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Reasoning that way, argumenting miniature buildings are no buildings, thus not covered by danish freedom of panorama, will result in the end in a situation, that only photos released by the official press department of Billund Legoland will remain in Wikipedia, as this, this or this - and I don't see Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as an executive branch of the official press department of Billund Legoland©... Further more, the fact that even the official press department of Billund Legoland indirectly contributes photos to Wikimedia Commons can be seen as a sign to the support for Commons by the administration of Billund Legoland. So the fear of being threatened by Billund Legoland is just an irrational fear: there is no hint of Billund Legoland fighting against Wikimedia Commons, but a clear hint that Billund Legoland has an interest of seeing photos of its park here. ThomasPusch (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Re-enactments of buildings are re-enactments and not buildings. The copyright may also not lie with the park owner, but with the person who created the work of art. Incidentally, we have already cleaned up this category several times and deleted many images. I don't see any justifiable difference in this picture. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Weil ein qualitativ schöneres Foto zur Verfügung steht Schand19 (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- wurde bereits geändert. Ist also hinfällig. Saerdna124 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stimme dem zu. Dieses Foto passt so gut. Schand19 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- LAZ: Löschantrag selbst zurückziehen. Saerdna124 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bitte an Admins: Es kann also sofort das alte mit dem neuen, qualitativ schönerem Foto ausgetauscht werden. Danke! Saerdna124 (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- LAZ: Löschantrag selbst zurückziehen. Saerdna124 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Stimme dem zu. Dieses Foto passt so gut. Schand19 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyrightviolation --ManfredK (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hallo, ich bin noch recht neu hier. Beide Fotos stammen von mir. Ziel: Das qualitativ schönere Foto soll veröffentlicht werden. Saerdna124 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. Old username of uploader matched EXIF data (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg). IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per deleted source file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg, needs COM:VRT Consigned (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg and P199's comment there that we need VRT. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Heilige Familie Schoeftland
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Walter Moser died in 2023 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Heilige Familie Schoeftland innen quer.jpg
- File:Heilige Familie Schoeftland innen.jpg
- File:Heilige Familie Schoeftland Orgel.jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Heilige Familie Schoeftland Orgel.jpg. The only thing copyrightable here is the stained glass and it is likely de minimis. If not, it can be easily cropped out. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ seems to be from 1988. The organ is the prime object of the file you want to keep and that is not de minimis anymore. If you crop out the stained glass and the organ you have not much left.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The organ is a functional object. It is not part of the architecture. Its shape is dictated by the sound it was made to produce. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The stained glass should be cropped as much as possible. Why is the organ not in the center of the image? Krd 07:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also if the image is cropped, there is still no FoP for interior views of churches. The file is named after the church, it is in its category...If it were the only file of an organ, ok, but we have over 600 quality images of organs on commons. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The church is within scope. Organs are an important part of the musical life of a church, so why would there be a problem with a particular organ? Who cares that we have 600 images of other organs? We want an image of this one. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about scope, but FoP. And the interior of a church is excluded from FoP in Switzerland.
- As you didn't seem to be aware of the particular phrase and the link (as above) is not enough for you, I post the particular phrase on churches here.
- It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.
- Sources are monographs on Copyright:
- Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic!1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Haas/Uhlig, URG, 4th ed. (2022), Art. 27 (7); Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2020), para 490.
- And the organ was built in 1988 so the organ will not be in the PD until 2059 as long as its inside a church.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- An organ is a musical instrument—a utilitarian object. It doesn't get copyright protection simply by being in a church. It isn't an architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle could you link to a commons shortcut? I tried to search a shortcut with utilitarian, musical and instruments, but didn't succeed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean COM:UA? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @IronGargoyle could you link to a commons shortcut? I tried to search a shortcut with utilitarian, musical and instruments, but didn't succeed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- An organ is a musical instrument—a utilitarian object. It doesn't get copyright protection simply by being in a church. It isn't an architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- And the organ was built in 1988 so the organ will not be in the PD until 2059 as long as its inside a church.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The church is within scope. Organs are an important part of the musical life of a church, so why would there be a problem with a particular organ? Who cares that we have 600 images of other organs? We want an image of this one. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Krd: I believe that the stained glass is de minimis since it is only a portion of the entire stained glass work and it was clearly not the intent of the photographer to capture the stained glass (per the title of the image). I don't see a problem cropping the image, but I didn't see if the point if others agreed that the stained glass was de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also if the image is cropped, there is still no FoP for interior views of churches. The file is named after the church, it is in its category...If it were the only file of an organ, ok, but we have over 600 quality images of organs on commons. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The stained glass should be cropped as much as possible. Why is the organ not in the center of the image? Krd 07:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The organ is a functional object. It is not part of the architecture. Its shape is dictated by the sound it was made to produce. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ seems to be from 1988. The organ is the prime object of the file you want to keep and that is not de minimis anymore. If you crop out the stained glass and the organ you have not much left.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted 2, kept the photo of the organ as the stained glass is de minimis there. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg)
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Heilig Geist Deckengestaltung.jpg
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Altar Orgel.JPG
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Altar und Orgel.tiff
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Altarraum 1990-2013.JPG
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Altarraum.JPG
* File:Heilig Geist Höngg Andachtsecke neu.tiff
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Andachtsecke.JPG
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Innenansicht 1973 farbig.jpg
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Innenansicht 1973 von Südwesten.jpg
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Innenansicht 1973 von Westen.jpg
- File:Heilig Geist Höngg Kirchenraum frontal.tiff
* File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg
* File:Heilig Geist Höngg Treppenhaus.JPG
* File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagsaltar Taufstein.tiff
* File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Heilig Geist Höngg Andachtsecke neu.tiff, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Treppenhaus.JPG, and File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagsaltar Taufstein.tiff. These are close-ups of walls, corners, and other simple interior elements which are de minimis in relation to the larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no FoP for interior views on Switzerland as explained above. Structures such as interior views of staircases or churches are specifically excluded from FoP. The phrase about churches is very well sourced. I have researched a bit on the Organ and it hails from 1954, so File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg can be undeleted in 2025 and other files with the organ can be uploaded from 2025. The rest I suggest to undelete in 2079. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Organ is a utilitarian object. Its shape is dictated by the sound it is designed to produce. It is not a work of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I started a COM:VPC discussion regarding organs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Organ is a utilitarian object. Its shape is dictated by the sound it is designed to produce. It is not a work of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these pictures show more than the organ. So these could be a problem. Also something must be subject to a copyright in the first place. I doubt it is the case for File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG. This only shows chairs, a table, and plain walls. Yann (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, :) can't you see the Holy Spirit shining in through the window? To make the light shine into a church like this, is quite an achievement. A bit more seriously I don't see myself in the position to say what is copyrightable and what not. For some "artists" even trash is art. Would we keep contemporary art just because it's made of trash? In my experience we delete it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, we don't delete something just because someone calls it "art". It must be subject to copyright. See Category:On Kawara as an example. Yann (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The light shining through the window is not itself copyrightable. It depends on the natural event of the sun's position. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have stricken some files from the DR, the rest I still believe they should be deleted.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, :) can't you see the Holy Spirit shining in through the window? To make the light shine into a church like this, is quite an achievement. A bit more seriously I don't see myself in the position to say what is copyrightable and what not. For some "artists" even trash is art. Would we keep contemporary art just because it's made of trash? In my experience we delete it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted most, kept the stricken ones. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bruder Klaus Basel
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:Bruder Klaus Basel Altarraum quer.jpg
- File:Bruder Klaus Basel innen.jpg
- File:Bruder Klaus Basel Krypta Altarraum quer.jpg
- File:Bruder Klaus Basel Krypta.jpg
- File:Bruder Klaus Basel Orgel.JPG
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep File:Bruder Klaus Basel Krypta Altarraum quer.jpg and File:Bruder Klaus Basel Orgel.JPG. Any copyrightable architectural elements here are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yet the artifacts are within a church, and churches are specifically excluded from FoP in Switzerland. The particular phrase is rather well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the objects are in a church if they don't show a meaningful portion of the church architecture. The objects are still within scope and still meaningfully associated with the church. I don't know what you mean by the sentence "The particular phrase is rather well sourced." What phrase? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Usually a link to FoP Switzerland is enough. The phrase in question is:
- It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.
- Sources are monographs on Copyright:
- Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic!1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Haas/Uhlig, URG, 4th ed. (2022), Art. 27 (7); Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2020), para 490.
- And the organ was built in 1971 so the organ will not be in the PD until 2052 as long as its inside a church. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with the idea what you can copyright the architectural interior of a church. I'm saying that an organ is a musical instrument and a utilitarian object. It is not part of the protected architecture. Also, a simple white wall and doorway is non-infringing. It is a de minimis portion of the larger work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if the objects are in a church if they don't show a meaningful portion of the church architecture. The objects are still within scope and still meaningfully associated with the church. I don't know what you mean by the sentence "The particular phrase is rather well sourced." What phrase? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted 4. Pr IronGargoyle kept the Krypta. Deleted the Organ as it is showing particular design elements, it is not a simple musical instrument like any trumpet or clarinet. --Ellywa (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Therme Vals
[edit]There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland. Architect Peter Zumthor is still alive and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.
- File:2005-08-06-Therme-Vals-Peter-Zumthor 01.jpg
- File:2005-08-06-Therme-Vals-Peter-Zumthor 02.jpg
- File:2005-08-06-Therme-Vals-Peter-Zumthor 03.jpg
- File:Therme Vals (Peter Zumthor).jpg
- File:Therme Vals indoor pool, Vals, Graubünden, Switzerland - 20071026.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep first three. Extremely simple walls and corridors are a de minimis part of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those are not "extremely simple walls" but ones designed by Peter Zumthor, a Pritzker Awardee, which is often referred to as the Nobel Prize in architecture. The walls you see here are of selected local stone and the stones are placed in a specific order. About the Therme Vals there are numerous architectural reviews that describe the stone and the order. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- His awards are completely irrelevant. Don't use them to obfuscate the issue. I highly doubt the architect was selecting which particular stone slab goes where. That's what builders and stonemasons do. I searched numerous reviews of the structure and could find no support for this claim. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am really interested to see your "reviews", could you link to them? The stone is mentioned in the English wikipedia article rather prominently since years. The first google hit I opened gave me this basic architectural review that mentions the stone and how this stone influenced the structure of the building. The building is meant to imitate a quarry which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Here a review in German, in which the stone patterns are explained a bit more in detail (from p.739 onwards). Three layers with a different amount of millimeters result in slab of 15cm... But now the 3 layers don't go in the same order every time, they are laid one upon another in six different orders. And then those 15cm slabs have their own order again. Ever seen such a wall somewhere else? There is much more on the stone slabs in the article. Here another architectural review (in English) that has a lot about the stone. Here is another one (in German) that focuses on the stone and its changing color depending on the light that reflects on the stone and how Peter Zumthor decides (with his design) how much light gets to the stone... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- His awards are completely irrelevant. Don't use them to obfuscate the issue. I highly doubt the architect was selecting which particular stone slab goes where. That's what builders and stonemasons do. I searched numerous reviews of the structure and could find no support for this claim. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do the images show architecture? If not, what do they show? (Either not DM or image out of scope.) --Krd 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with nominator that the photos are showing design and atmosphere, including the peculiar stone walls. Clearly the creative work of the architect. And therefore imho copyrighted. Ellywa (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Stone work appears to be a part of the building's architecture. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Casinò di Campione
[edit]There is no FoP in Italy as is clearly stated at the category. Only photographs taken from Switzerland are allowed. The ones nominated are all close ups of parts and details of the building.
- File:Casinò di Campione d'Italia 1.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 1.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 10.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 11.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 2.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 3.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 4.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 5.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 6.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 7.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 8.jpg
- File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 9.jpg
- File:Il Casinò-Un triangolo verso il cielo.jpg
- File:Ricerca del particolare.jpg
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep All these photos have been uploaded within the WLM initiative following an authorization by the Municipality of Campione d'Italia (see here). I don't see why we shouldn't consider the authorization valid. See also previous discussions here and here. Moreover, at least File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 10.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 11.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 2.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 6.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 9.jpg seem under the high italian ToO to me, for being too simple or for being merely functional parts of the building without an artistic character.--Friniate (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you believe the authorization also counts for photographs uploaded on other months than September/during the WLM initiative? The key criteria to participate in the contest is that they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in September (2018). None of the files is from 2018, the year the authorization was given, at the time also for the future years of the WLM initiative. Only one was uploaded in September, the last one in September 2022. On the ToO I advocate for wikimedians not to get involved in questions of what has an artistic character and what not. No. 10 and 11 no artistic character? I strongly disagree, those stairs and their environment have in my opinion (as many of Mario Bottas works) a lot of artistic excellence. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Look at the dates of the uploads, they are different from the ones of creation, most of the photos were taken in 2016 but uploaded in 2018, at first I overlooked that myself. All the photos were uploaded in or after 2018 and always in the month of September (I agree that the authorization doesn't cover photos uploaded outside WLM 2018 and the following editions). Friniate (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, you are right! Thanks. well then I withdraw my request altogether. Keep all per Frinitate Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, you are right! Thanks. well then I withdraw my request altogether.
- Look at the dates of the uploads, they are different from the ones of creation, most of the photos were taken in 2016 but uploaded in 2018, at first I overlooked that myself. All the photos were uploaded in or after 2018 and always in the month of September (I agree that the authorization doesn't cover photos uploaded outside WLM 2018 and the following editions). Friniate (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you believe the authorization also counts for photographs uploaded on other months than September/during the WLM initiative? The key criteria to participate in the contest is that they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in September (2018). None of the files is from 2018, the year the authorization was given, at the time also for the future years of the WLM initiative. Only one was uploaded in September, the last one in September 2022. On the ToO I advocate for wikimedians not to get involved in questions of what has an artistic character and what not. No. 10 and 11 no artistic character? I strongly disagree, those stairs and their environment have in my opinion (as many of Mario Bottas works) a lot of artistic excellence. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate: Wouldn’t it be much better to have a link to this permission PDF on each file description page? Or even better have a copy of this PDF in the VRT data base? — Speravir – 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Speravir Well, there is a link to the authorization through the Template:Monumento italiano, although maybe it could be more visible. I agree that it would be better to have these authorizations in the VRT database, but that is something that should be discussed with the people from WMI who organize the contest (the issue was most recently discussed here by @Ruthven and @Paolo Casagrande (WMIT)). Friniate (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I do not see such a link in the template. — Speravir – 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- "This is a photo of a monument which is part of cultural heritage of Italy. This monument participates in the contest Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018. See authorisations" You have to click on "authorisations". Friniate (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Later insert:) Friniate and Ruthven, just as information: The template {{Monumento italiano}} was not up to date in German (the language I am speaking) and Macedonian – both lacked the link to the authorisations Friniate referred to. I’ve updated them both: German, Macedonian. If this were present I probably wouldn’t have asked here and in VRT noticeboard. — Speravir – 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Speravir Thank you! Friniate (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate Do you happen to have a direct link the to permission? Because the one in the file page is not specific enough. Ruthven (msg) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ruthven [12] Friniate (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate It seems that the permission is for WLM only. It's badly written, as I said many times. In any case, Keep given that:
- the correct link is used for the Files, and not the generic one as currently done
- WLM only photographs are authorised
- Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes yes, it's for WLM only, but all the photos were uploaded within WLM so it's not an issue... As for the link, it cannot be changed manually, somebody more expert than me should modify the template in order to allow that... Friniate (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Done I've added manually the links to the authorizations in all the images involved. Friniate (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes yes, it's for WLM only, but all the photos were uploaded within WLM so it's not an issue... As for the link, it cannot be changed manually, somebody more expert than me should modify the template in order to allow that... Friniate (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate It seems that the permission is for WLM only. It's badly written, as I said many times. In any case,
- @Ruthven [12] Friniate (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Later insert:) Friniate and Ruthven, just as information: The template {{Monumento italiano}} was not up to date in German (the language I am speaking) and Macedonian – both lacked the link to the authorisations Friniate referred to. I’ve updated them both: German, Macedonian. If this were present I probably wouldn’t have asked here and in VRT noticeboard. — Speravir – 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- "This is a photo of a monument which is part of cultural heritage of Italy. This monument participates in the contest Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018. See authorisations" You have to click on "authorisations". Friniate (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, I do not see such a link in the template. — Speravir – 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Speravir Well, there is a link to the authorization through the Template:Monumento italiano, although maybe it could be more visible. I agree that it would be better to have these authorizations in the VRT database, but that is something that should be discussed with the people from WMI who organize the contest (the issue was most recently discussed here by @Ruthven and @Paolo Casagrande (WMIT)). Friniate (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Photographs have an authorization. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyviol without permission Bramfab (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
copyright (https://www.sesawi.net/requiem-untuk-mgr-vincentius-sutikno-wisaksono-dan-pemakaman-jenazah-di-puhsarang-kediri/) Medelam (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- That link is dated 2023, and lower resolution than the one we have on Commons, uploaded in 2021 and with EXIF data. This is the only contribution by the uploader. Abzeronow (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to assume this photo is not made by uploader. Ellywa (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted 3-D object . See COM:FOP US. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre, Commons is not really my expertise but I got the image from Flickr and Commons allowed it to be uploaded. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess what I'm asking is why this particular image isn't allowed? Because there are a lot of images of statues which have been uploaded which are taken by amateur photographers as this one has been. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Omnis Scientia, as Magog said, please read COM:FOP US. That will most likely answer your questions. If you read that and still wonder why other photos of statues are OK on Commons, it's because either those sculptures are old enough to be in the public domain or they were shot in countries that have commercial freedom of panorama for sculptures shown in public places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, I did read it but but your last part explained what I didn't get. Thank you for that. Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help. This stuff can be very arcane and frustrating. I wish Commons didn't require commercial freedom of panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, I did read it but but your last part explained what I didn't get. Thank you for that. Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Omnis Scientia, as Magog said, please read COM:FOP US. That will most likely answer your questions. If you read that and still wonder why other photos of statues are OK on Commons, it's because either those sculptures are old enough to be in the public domain or they were shot in countries that have commercial freedom of panorama for sculptures shown in public places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess what I'm asking is why this particular image isn't allowed? Because there are a lot of images of statues which have been uploaded which are taken by amateur photographers as this one has been. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Although the Tasnim agency licenses its content with a free license, the photo used in the news does not belong to Tasnim. According to the image search, it has already been used in other media and the photo belongs to Maxim Shemetov from Reuters, so it could be a license laundering. Taichi (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem like a creation of Tasnim agency, presumably still copyrighted by Maxim Shemetov from Reuters. Consigned (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
copyright violation; contemporary artwork on the wall; no freedom of panorama.
- File:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016-8778.jpg
- File:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016-8781.jpg
- File:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016-8782.jpg
- File:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016-8785.jpg
Martin Sg. (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The photo motif (award ceremony) would be perfectly valid in its information without the painting or with any other painting in the background. I plead for “unwesentliches Beiwerk". Elya (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, imho the painting in the background is not "De minimis", perhaps it is the winning painting. If somebody wants to take the effort to blur the painting, please contact me on my talk page or ask for this at COM:UNDELETE. --Ellywa (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Undeleted blurred versions will be added by Raymond, while deleting the copyrighted versions. Ellywa (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: The authors are cited in the descriptions, Watermarks on the pictures
- File:Mgr Jean Baptiste Some (1er eveque de Diebougou).jpg
- File:Tam Sir.jpg
- File:Suspect 95 95.jpg
- File:ELTY - Lionel Tankoano.jpg
- File:Elue 111 (Toussiane BADELE) en prestation.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_en_prestation.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, désolé pour les désagréments. Ces images sont pas été prises par moi mais sont libres de droit, raison pour laquelle j'ai tout de même cité les auteurs des images Yendifa (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas sûr qu'elles soient libres de droit. Être publiées sur internet ne les rendent pas libres de droit. Si vous avez les autorisations, vous pouvez suivre les indications pour créer un ticket VRT : [13]. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Non je n'ai pas officiellement les autorisations, donc on les supprime. Merci pour interpellation ! Yendifa (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas sûr qu'elles soient libres de droit. Être publiées sur internet ne les rendent pas libres de droit. Si vous avez les autorisations, vous pouvez suivre les indications pour créer un ticket VRT : [13]. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Pas sûr de la Liberté de panorama du monument au mort Lanoe Hawker. Certe, il est mort en 1916, mais sait-on qui a fait ériger le monument ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Insufficient reason to delete. PeterWD (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: although this would in theory fall within COM:FOP France, imho the monument is showing too little original details to have a copyright. --Ellywa (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Since the flag is so prominent, could it be that this does not apply for de minimis? Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely not de minimis in the photo, so if it's copyrighted, all rights reserved, the photo has to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:Moša Pijade 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Hasan Brkić 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Ivan Milutinović 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Kuzman Josifovski 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Rade Končar 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Tone Tomšič 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Anton Janša 1973 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Antun Gustav Matoš 1965 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Branislav Nušić 1965 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Fran Levstik 1965 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Ivan Mažuranić 1965 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Andrija Mohorovičić 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:CvetkovicYugoslavia687ParchedEarthWheatFAO3-21-63-BJakac.jpg
- File:Dositej Obradović 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Indian on Horseback by Ivan Meštrović 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Ljudevit Gaj 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Marko Kraljevic by Ivan Meštrović 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Kraljevic Marko.jpg
- File:Mother by Ivan Meštrović 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Reminescences by Ivan Meštrović 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Vuk Karadžić 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Petrović-Njegoš 1963 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:CvetkovicYugoslavia649AnophelesMosquito4-7-62-BJakac.jpg
- File:Anton Tomaž Linhart 1957 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Jovan Sterija Popović 1957 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Simon Gregorčič 1957 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:1974 Yugoslavia stamp - Ljubljana university library with statue.jpg
The licence is wrong. All those stamps contain drawings by w:Božidar Jakac (1899-1989). Not yet enough time from the death of the author. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates: "If issued from December 1, 1918 to June 30, 1991, any year can be uploaded." --Sporti (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. There was actually a DR related to Yugoslavian stamps a while back here and I think the closing administrator explains well and in pretty good detail why stamps from the country are probably copyrighted, or at least why we can't assume they are PD whatever Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates says about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Imho stamps are carefully designed by artists, and can be considered a work of (applied) art in general; there might be execptions. Per COM:Copyright rules by territory/Yugoslavia, works of applied art are in PD 25 years after publishing. As these stamps all have been published more then 25 years ago, imho these stamps can be kept, independent of the copyright laws of any of the successor states. Ellywa (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: "Works of art" aren't PD 25 years after publication. "Works of applied art" are. They aren't the same thing and most countries don't consider stamps to be applied art unless the law specifically says so. There's absolutely zero evidence that the laws in Yugoslavia did or does consider stamps to be applied art though. So that justification for keeping the images really doesn't fly. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: , you are right, I accendently omitted the word applied in my comment, I now corrected, but my conclusion remains the same. Ellywa (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: "Works of art" aren't PD 25 years after publication. "Works of applied art" are. They aren't the same thing and most countries don't consider stamps to be applied art unless the law specifically says so. There's absolutely zero evidence that the laws in Yugoslavia did or does consider stamps to be applied art though. So that justification for keeping the images really doesn't fly. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the precautionary principle. The deletion requests about stamps from Yugoslavia which I had decided were about the question if stamps are official works in Yugoslavia and its successor states. I couldn't find any clear guidance, court decisions etc. that they are, instead there were statements that they were not, so I decided on deletion per the precautionary principle. The stamps themselves were from 1999 and 2001, the decisions from 2022 and 2023, so less than 25 years after first publication. Which means even if assuming those stamps were applied art and in the PD after 25 years, they were not old enough.
- I may have accepted such "applied art" exceptions in other cases (I'd have to look it up), but generally, the definition of applied art(s) is a rather tricky one. en:Applied arts has a whole list of applied arts, including sculpture, architecture and graphic design, noting that while applied arts are distinguished from the fine arts, in practice the two often overlap. If a painting, copyrighted as "fine art" with 70 years pma, is printed on a stamp, does it then become applied art? If a drawing is created without a specific purpose, but then used for advertising, does it become applied art? The rule we have here, protection for 25 years after publication, is an exception in the copyright law which defaults to 70 years pma. There's a similar exception for photographs, and we can define photographs easily enough. But here, I hesitate if these stamps are "applied art" without knowing anything about how lawmakers, courts, legal commentators in Yugoslavia or Serbia have interpreted that therm. So as with the other, "official works" cases, I'll take the default position and assume that they are not works of applied art. --Rosenzweig τ 10:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with Rosenzweig's conclusions: there is not enough guidance on Yugoslavian copyright law to make a determination that stamps are considered official works, or works of applied art. Even if they were applied art, stamps from 1966 and afterwards are not eligible per {{PD-Yugoslavia}}. If information comes to light that pre-1966 stamps are indeed applied art, I'll undelete. Additional, no guidance on stamps in Slovenia either, but currency is copyrighted there, so that would also matter since the artist was Slovenian. Deleted per precautionary principle and the prior DR mentioned by Adamant. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The license in wrong. The stamp contains a drawing by w:Pivo Karamatijević (1912-1963). Not yet 70 years from death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2034. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The license is wrong. The stamp contains drawing by w:Maksim Sedej (1909-1974). Not yet 70 years since death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2045. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The license is wrong. The stamp contains drawing by w:Marijan Detoni (1905-1981). Not yet 70 years since death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2052. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Logbooks of combat operations do not fall under PD-RU-exempt, they have not legislative, administrative and judicial character Alex Spade (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Alex Spade: Maybe this text is {{PD-text}}? Also Vasily Babenkov died in 1944 so {{PD-Russia}} can be applied --Butko (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- If the text is uncreative, we can keep it as Butko says as PD-text. Abzeronow (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Works by Marina Kalezić
[edit]
- File:Tin Ujević 1991 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:1989 World Rowing Championships stamp of Yugoslavia.jpg
The license is wrong, those stamps contains a drawing by Marina Kalezić, who is alive. Copyrights apply. Contrary to the license, those were not published before 1966. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The guidance as far as Yugoslavia is iffy, but COM:SERBIA does state that stamps are not protected by copyright in Serbia. If these are DWs of a work that existed before the stamp, then we'd need VRT permission from the artist. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)